NAMB Part 5

     Last week I began to shift our focus from SBC Home Missions History into the current events world. But before I set out a series of events that have been ten years in the making and that have now elevated the conflicts between NAMB and new work states onto the national stage, let me share principles and practices I have learned from reading and experiencing that history. Every organization will rise and fall on the basis of its leadership. When a church or any SBC entity is struggling, its current leadership has to change before it will experience effectiveness. That change usually comes in one of two ways: 1) Current leaders have a truly changed heart and mind—God is always in the redemption business, or 2) A new leader arrives who is able to cast vision, build relationships, and develop and implement effective strategies.
 
     My choice has always been to pray and work for option number one, with the realization that changed hearts are the purview of God. I have suggested that the current tensions between new work conventions and NAMB are the result of missteps by current and former leaders. I also suggested that litigating those errors is not as beneficial as learning from them and changing our hearts and minds so we can move forward with God-honoring cooperative efforts. With that in mind, let me share some principles I’ve learned:

• Baptist life requires cooperation. Our polity has the local church at the top of a pyramid with associations, state conventions, and SBC entities spread across the base on an even playing field. When functioning at our best, associations serve the local church as a family member with the ability to bring wisdom and solutions to match an individual church’s needs. State Conventions serve the local church as a friend who can bring scope and knowledge to an individual church’s needs. SBC entities serve the local church as an acquaintance that can bring scale, information, and services to meet an individual church’s needs. We cooperate best when each entity understands what it does best, and they are willing to exert maximum efforts to communicate clearly and minimize duplication with other SBC entities. 
• Cooperation requires common purpose. All SBC entities and their leaders need to understand that they are not the church. They exist to support the work of the local church. I have seen a number of leaders (associations, state conventions, and national entities) who have stepped out of their pastoral role, but who continued to function as if the entity they led was a church. Some were able to make the necessary adjustments. Others quickly became discouraged and returned to the pastorate. A few stuck it out but were unwilling to change. The organization they led suffered because they lacked personal and organizational clarity. 
• Fulfilling our common purpose requires clear and effective communication. A fundamental reality of disciple-making should give us a driving passion to connect and communicate with our partners. Although it is quicker and easier for me to simply do it myself when I choose that path I limit my impact in both scope and time. When I seek to connect, communicate, and cooperate with others, my influence and impact become unlimited. No single entity can meet all the needs of all Southern Baptist churches. The pastors I serve have all heard me say, “My value to you is not necessarily what I know and can do for you, but it is who I know that might be able to help you.”
• Clear and effective communication requires trust. I was on a Zoom meeting with a new ministry leader recently who was shell-shocked. He had been in another meeting a few days earlier seeking feedback on a proposal when he encountered a culture of absolute distrust. This new leader had recently stepped out of a secular job and commented that he had never encountered such an environment of distrust in all his life. Current issues in SBC life have driven wedges between us, and they have significantly impacted trust. Trust can be destroyed in a minute, but it is not built nor can it be restored without time and intentionality. Are we really willing to pay the price?
• Trust requires healthy relationships. As I have noted, the history of Southern Baptist home missions has been filled with multiple challenges. We saw that leadership tenure played a role. Just as a common factor in church health is pastoral tenure, so leadership tenure in Baptist entities is important. However, I have to quickly point out that tenure alone does not guarantee health. God uses the long tenure of healthy leaders to create healthy churches and entities. The struggle to establish a convention model happened very slowly, and when it did occur healthy leaders and healthy relationships paved the way. 
• Healthy relationships require spiritually maturing people—especially in the area of how we deal with conflict. Few of us have observed healthy conflict: how to have honest differences without destroying relationships. The number one thing I have been invited to do for the local church is to step in during a time of conflict. Because I am usually invited after the pressure cooker lid has blown off, and the kitchen is a mess, I encourage pastors to invite me in a time of relative peace. When they do, we have been able to discuss issues in a non-confrontational environment, point to biblical teachings on conflict and forgiveness, discuss personal conflict styles, and identify ways to diffuse conflict. I have seen church leaders engage in difficult conversations with humility, transparency, and humor. People who are growing in Christ-likeness have humble teachable hearts.  
• The lack of spiritually maturing people is the number one problem in American Christianity. My work with SBC churches, particularly in church health and pastor search areas, tells me we aren’t much better than the average Christian church. As a whole, we are not doing well in making disciples who look like Jesus. I made a statement related to this reality at an SBC Executive Committee meeting as we debated our response to a significant moral issue. My comment was, “Having served as a DoM for almost three decades, let me suggest that the motion we are discussing only addresses symptoms of much deeper systemic issues.” I heard several “thank yous” after the meeting adjourned. If we are not making disciples as we should be, we will not have the pool of spiritually maturing leaders we need at every level of Baptist life: church, association, state convention, and national SBC. Cooperative Baptist life requires us to do a better job of “making disciples” (Mt. 28:18-20).

     Do you agree with my seven stair-step principles? If so, how would your church look if it was doing well on all seven? What would our convention look like if we were doing well on all seven? What would our culture look like?
Yours in Christ,
Mark R. Elliott, AMS