No big surprise here. The mostly megachurch people on the Great Commission Task Force called for decentralization of NAMB so now we have Ma NAMB and five baby NAMBs.
While I understand the concept of getting people out of Alpharetta and into the hinterlands, it remains to be seen if this is better or just different. The 25% reduction in HQ personnel should free up plenty of money to add the five new VPs and whatever attendant costs that come with them - buildings, assistants, clerical help, travel.
Will the new VPs be primarily used for fund dispersement and reporting? Or, what?
Is the expectation that they will be better at starting churches than state convention executives? Why?
How will the Baby NAMBs be different than the present arrangement with state conventions?
Ezell speaks of "working in close partnership with state Southern Baptist conventions", though, presumably, without the present Cooperative Agreements. So, we will have new agreements under different terminology? It's difficult for me to envision NAMB directly planting churches in, say, New England without involvement of the Baptist Convention of New England and any local association. Perhaps the details will be shared in next week's trustee meeting.
NAMB needs some success and no one is arguing that the status quo with NAMB was satisfactory.
Will having a NAMB VP on the ground in Chicago, Las Vegas, or Edmonton will translate into more churches? I don't know.
Guess we will find out.