Questioning is appropriate if the questions are asked in an appropriate and respectful tone. I have been in statside conference sessions where the tone and attitude of the missionary asking the question of senior leadership was anything but respectful. In fact, many attempted to use clever wording as a way to disguise a personal attack. I do not believe this to be honoring to our Lord.

I agree with Debbie that we should not be afraid to ask questions and with Stepchild that leadership needs feedback. However, we, the rank and file, also need the wisdom of knowing when it is time just to keep silent.

Whoever is behind the Board’s greater strategy and missiology has not, to my knowledge, shared with our personnel (or with the general public) any rationale whatsoever for the things we’re discussing here. Until they do, I will voice my questions (meaning no disrespect of the organization) and concerns.

I trust IMB leadership. I also think that obedience and stewardship require that we constantly evaluate who we are and what we are doing. Any leaders, no matter how godly, need feedback in order to be able to do this. Through this blog, I receive such feedback from others, and offer it to anyone who’s interested.

If I didn’t ask questions, everyone would assume that all of us were in total agreement with the current missiology. By offering suggestions and possible solutions, I seek to encourage my colleagues who struggle as I do with being a missionary.

There’s a difference between “suspicion” and “speculation.” I’m not in the least bit suspicious of IMB leaders and strategists, but without hearing directly from them in matters of missiology and strategy, I can only speculate as to their motivations, reasons, and thought processes.

I realize that this comment probably won’t make you feel any better about what I’ve written or about me as a person. For that, I am sorry. Perhaps you would be happy to learn that the terrific discussion (terrific to me) in the comments section of my recent post “Messed Up Missiology” involved extensive participation from those who you refer to as “IMB leadership.”

Thankfully, it would seem that not everyone in the organization feels dismissed by my posts.

In other words, the Board will not (and, in my opinion, should not) implement a strategy that is not supported by the majority of Southern Baptists (those who give so generously.) Whatever the “IMB staff, field leadership, trustees, and the Lord” come up with, they’ve got to “sell” it to the people in the pews.

See, marketing isn’t always a bad word.

In this case, I think that the IMB marketers (would you be more comfortable with “publicists?”) cannibalized our own offerings. In many cases, the only missiology Southern Baptists ever get is what IMB advertising gives them. If our ads tell people that we’ve almost “finished the task,” I can see how it would get people excited about supporting missions. Unfortunately, we’ve also (perhaps inadvertently) told our constituents that work in “reached” areas, or among smaller unreached groups is less important.

I wish the strategists talked more about the “whys” behind what we do. Until they take the opportunity to educate our people about missiological principles, our strategies will be nothing more than marketing campaigns (and yes, here, I’ve used the word in a negative sense).

By the way, were you trying to play the “The-LORD-came-up-with-our-strategy-so-don’t-you-question-it” card in your comment? It kind of seemed like it.

Don’t believe everything you read. That particular church began engaging some smaller churches in our region and for some reason has pulled out of that strategy. I’m not sure where that one is going yet.

stepchild,

Again this is purely conjecture on my part, but after the big groups are engaged I think you will see us turn to other smaller unengaged groups first. Then I think regions around the world will re-enter groups they thought were moving forward but have stalled. Also, we never know what a change in leadership will do to our current strategies.