A task force of NAMB trustees has issued a written report concerning the allegations raised by the Christian Index. The report is here.

History will tell, but this may be one of the most important events of the year, convention -wise. IMB’s dysfunction has received a lot of attention, but NAMB’s board is showing how to do it right. The report defends NAMB and Dr. Reccord when necessary, but also admits problems. And to my eye, it fairly meets the substance of the major charges in the Christian Index Article, without resorting to vague denials or indignation. This approach is much better than the soundbites we often get.
Kudos to the committee for taking it’s responsibilities to the Board, the Convention and the Lord seriously. I’ll be praying that the full board continues to work out these problems in plain view.

[Later: Compare this:

Literally, [the culture at NAMB] has been described by some as a culture of fear; fear of reprisals for asking tough questions or appearing to challenge the authority structure. … The Trustees acknowledge [a need for] a protection system for those who might be perceived as “whistle-blowers” for trying to address perceived issues of mismanagment. “

to the new Trustee policies at IMB, which prohibits Board Members from discussing board action in anything other than “positive and supportive terms … regardless of whether they personally support the action.”
Which organization will be more effective? The one that systematically encourages feedback, positive or negative, and deals with it? Or the one that makes it a policy of happy talk? Given the two choices, I think NAMB is making the smart, team-building: the organiations’ actions are designed to bring about a response — if that response is negative, we’d like to know as soon as possible, rather than penalize people for pointing out areas in which we can improve.

It’s ironic, isn’t it? By mandating the appearance of teamwork and happy talk, you are more likely to damage your team. By making sure there is a fair process to criticize, you build your team. ]

Ray Van Neste links to “Don’t be original — be effective!“, an apologia (vs. apology) for sermon plagiarism by Steve Sjogren, posted in Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolbox at Pastors.com.  I’ve often heard people defend near-plagiarism, but Sjorgren defends word for word use of other people’s materials.   In fact, his assumption seems to be that everyone else does it, so you’re probably not really even stealing from them!   I’m sure Steve has a heart for people, but this seems to be a, um, <i>low view of what Pastors do.<p>  If Sundays are just a glorified performance of someone else’s work, we should hire  “goodnewsreaders,” no?

In a totally unrelated vein,  I’m announcing the sale of my new book, “Irresistible Evangelism“…

(HT: Challies).

A Wilton icing knife smoothly applies drywall spackling in a pinch…

Steve McCoy notes Redeemer Presbyterian Church’s no-participation policy for media stories.  Is this a good policy?  Or an abandonment of mass mainstream communication to the poorly spoken?

Robert Kaplan and David Norton write about “How to Implement a New Strategy Without Disrupting Your Organization” in this month’s Harvard Business Review. They argue that too many organizations combine structural change and strategic change — whether or not the structural change is really necessary.

Structural change brings up its own set of problems that are often overlooked in the rush to adopt a new strategy.  But if you run into hidden landmines, the struggle over structure can swamp the new strategy.

It’s not just applicable to business.  Let’s say you’ve developed a five-point strategic focus for your church: fellowship, discipleship, worship, and evangelism.  Let’s also say another church (’Church B’) has been carrying out this strategy in a very different environment, with a very different set of parishoners.  It would be a mistake to assume that the structure of Church B is necessary for the strategy — Church B’s history and environment could differ from yours in key ways.   It might be that your church is locked into a particular polity, or that your internal politics would make the change to Church B’s structure very difficult.  

But structural change is just one aspect of strategic change — and you might find that it’s not the most important aspect.   If the struggle over structure will swamp the new strategy, it may be better to focus on more efficient changes.

That’s not to say you can ignore structure;  a weak leader puts off necessary change at his own peril.  But a leader can fixate on structure, and end up spending too much time, money and energy fighting for an organizational chart that doesn’t translate into a more effective community.

The Georgia Christian Index recently published a lengthy review of Bob Reccord’s ten-year tenure at the North American Mission Board (NAMB).  Key points:

• There has been a surprising shift toward volunteer and self-supporting missionaries; the full-time, paid mission force has shrunk by about 10% over the past decade.
• At the same time, NAMB has invested large sums of money in secondary programs that turned into spectacular failures (at least $600,000 on a series of ‘college leadership conferences,’ and at least $1.2 million on a “three-dimensional, interactive experience of sight, sound, and touch.”)
• The Christian Index raises questions about the relationship between NAMB and a consulting company headed by a friend of Reccord; that company, InovaOne, preformed a “media strategy” audit, and then received contracts for many “outsourced” projects from NAMB. 
  
  

      Every ministry needs to take risks, and some risks will be losers  — but the Christian Index article raises serious questions about the efficiency and accountability at NAMB. 

 I’m not quite sure why this hasn’t gotten more play in the ‘young leaders’ blogs; Reccord has supported young leaders, but that shouldn’t make a difference.  Whether the unaccountable group is on the board (IMB) or in the executive suite (NAMB), the result it the same: inefficient institutions that don’t live up to the mandates given by the Convention.  My guess is that NAMB-like problems are more widespread than those of the IMB variety.
[Later: NAMB's reponse is here. It defends the use of InovaOne, and offers explanations for the decrease in full-time missionaries.]

My daytime (paying) job has required a lot of attention lately, and blogging has been running a distant third or fourth at best, after family, work, and property maintenance. But a lot of neat things are going on:

The Salvation of Souls, a ‘new’ volume of Jonathan Edwards’ sermons on the role of ministers and the church, is well worth your $10 and the time it takes to parse Edwards’ complex grammar.

Steve McCoy’s Reformissionary and Emergent Baptist Blogs continue to discuss the struggle to pass the torch to the next generation in the SBC.

Challies.com continues to put out more consistently thought-provoking articles and review than any other one man show on the web. (Does he sleep? Does he do any other work?)

And the braintrust over at Together for the Gospel is questioning whether Presbyterians aren’t better evangelists than Baptists, after all..

[AND, the SBU Bearcats have won the MIAA Conference title! I hope to see some of you at the tournament games this weekend!]

In this little corner of the web, I hope I’ll have time to write more soon, but this should keep you thinking about church structure for quite awhile…