IMB Trustees Elect Tom Elliff President!!!

[Gene Scarborough]

[Gene Scarborough]

Well, well----the SBC has kept a secret on this one. Each of the other 2 main Agency / Committee heads had much debate and turmoil accompany their election.

Several observations:

(1) I don't know of another Agency Head who started his assignment this late in life. It makes for a short time of leadership to me. So what is the ulterior motive for the gang which now runs the SBC? They always have a goal and plan not revealed to the average person.

(2) This choice is safer than safe. Are they rcognizing they have pushed the edges on the last 2? If it doesn't work out, they have a quick and easy escape route on this one!

(3) Who is in the pike for a long term place in the IMB?

(4) Is there a real future for the IMB with so many churches sending their own teams wherever they choose? I see the possibility that missionaries will become field coordinators around the world for the local church teams = we will be doing Missions "on the cheap" so over-large Administrative costs will not destroy a pretense of mission work.

[Sandy]

1. I would guess that the intention here is for Elliff to be short term, while the inner circle looks around for someone who might be a long term president with the three main qualifications of being a theological conservative with a track record of loyalty to the Patterson-Pressler coalition, having a fair amount of international mission service, and coming from a church that has done more than tip the Cooperative Program. The small little group of megachurches from which the convention has drawn 80% of its leadership and trustees from over the past couple of decades very likely doesn't have someone who will meet that criterion, and the IMB is still the domain of the denomination's smaller congregations in terms of both financial support and from where it draws its missionary force. There's still a lot of muttering over Ezell's hiring at NAMB. Elliff at least has some mission field experience which will keep the muttering down a bit. He'll stick around two or three years, and then get a nice golden parachute when they've got the right guy.

2. Agreed. There's some disappointment circulating around over Ezell's pick at NAMB, and they don't want to risk generating a division within the ranks that might replace some leadership if it gets moving.

3. That's an interesting question,because the last place they are going to have to look is in that inner circle of megachurches which "do their own thing" when it comes to international missions, and justify their expense as "Great Commission Giving" to avoid the criticism that comes because they give so little to the IMB through the CP.

4. The bread and butter of Southern Baptist missions is the fact that the smaller churches are behind the IMB. The fact is that short term, "personal hands on" mission trips are a monumental waste of time and resources, when their effectiveness is measured in terms of evangelism and ministry on the mission field. IMB missionaries are in for the long haul. know the languages, do the follow up and the training and are invested in the field. Short term megachurch trips are just exotic vacations for wealthy members and a free trip for the pastor so he can look "mission minded". They will never replace the work of agencies like the IMB, because they don't produce any real, lasting results.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---thou art undeed a perceptive person!!!!

What do others oserve in this most important transition??

[Tom Parker]

He was the best "they" could come up with???

[Jim]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Dahl]

That was a very good article, Ed. It brought up substantial positives concerning short-term missions involvement, without turning a blind eye to the cons of short-term missions involvement.

I didn't know that most short-term missions endeavors are funded with "vacation money." The idea that short-term missions involvement brought "new" money to missions was especially surprising. I had once asked a retired minister about short-term mission trips. I asked him about positive impact, assuming that there would be little (like some of the guys here on this forum). He didn't try to make it sound like the mission trip would have, or not have, a long term impact upon the destination. But, he did say that it could have a lasting impact upon the participants. He especially pointed out that short-term missions participants tended to give more to the MSOs, than non-participants. So, not only does short-term missions projects not take away future funds from long-term missionaries, but can actually help raise money for them!

Who knew?!

Apparently, the elder-statesmen that advised me, and the writers of that article.

I think there is one thing the article didn't hit on, that is relevant to this issue. It is the desire for Boomers and younger, for more hands on experience. There seems to be a desire to no longer outsource missions (local and global), but to own them as the mission of the local church. This doesn't necessarily lead to a multitude of short-term mission trips - to a multitude of different places. But, it seems to have lead to long-term investment of people/resources into particular places...places where a particular church believes God is calling them to be.

For instance, I remember being at a conference/meeting at First Baptist Church of Arlington, TX. The pastor had just returned from an Exec. Board meeting of the IMB, begging them to not pull out of West Africa. FBCA had been doing work there for some time, having a close relationship with the IMB missionaries of the area. Instead of calling it quits, they teamed together with like minded churches and founded the . They don't only minister in West Africa, but it was the impetus for this system of churches connecting together.

Let me give another example. is the non-governmental organization that Northwood Church created to facilitate missions in Vietnam. is Northwood, and Northwood is . I learned, from a Vietnamese government representative, that %60 of all volunteers entering the country come through GVI. He is the same representative that I .

Even though Northwood is a large church, the vast majority of churches they plant also adopt an area to invest their global lives into. Some are interested in Vietnam, some aren't. Northwood's pastor helped to get a network of small to medium sized churches together to do long-term ministry in Afghanistan.

As more people seek to fulfill God's mission in their lives, I believe they will see divine opportunity through their personal and vocational relationships. Our MSOs can either find a way to tap into it, resource it, and participate in it; or not. If they choose not to, they may be missing out on something divinely significant.

[Tom Parker]

Tim D:

I can honestly say that the first short-term missions trip that I participated in February 1998 has had a very postive impact on my Christian growth.

If God is leading someone to participate in missions, by all means Go!!

[William Thornton]

I would like to see some honest, straightforward research on the impact of short term mission trips on long term mission work and on the local Christian churches. My view is that it is a mixed bag.

Positive results include: more mission minded stateside church members and churches, short term improvement of indigenous church facilities, training of local leaders, feeder system for career missions personnel, etc.

Negative: Sucking up dollars that would have gone to career missions, lack of overall strategy, concentration of projects in less-needy areas, duplication of work, encourating the local populations and churches to do little and wait for groups to come and do ministry for them, etc.

Since SBC churches are autonomous, the IMB doesn't get a vote on who does what and who goes where. They have to work with them.

It troubles me that too much individual church missions will destroy an overall strategy for reaching the world.

[Gene Scarborough]

I think you are totally RIGHT!!!

Our Cooperative Missions Program was established to spread missions to real places of need over just places of glamor.

Also, it was designed to fund all missionaries alike over the most dynamic ones getting support as they had to come back home to raise funds almost every years. Through the concept we kept missionaries in their place of service for 4 years at the time with a year of furlough where they were available to all churches wanting them to come.

Let's face it, when church members can tax-deduct the cost of an overseas trip of their choosing, the selfish factor will usually overcome the practical need factor and we just blunder along as we did before the great idea of Cooperative Mission efforts.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Dahl]