It is a rare commodity these days.
Take the example of a very good point raised by Tim Rogers in his blog of last Thursday. He noted that one of the pastors and churches featured in a Baptist Press article, written by a North American Mission Board writer, was identified on its website with the Acts29 Network.
The story was a promotional piece for the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions - Russian speaking pastor in Boston doing a good work but the connection with Acts29 raises the hackles of many SBCers.
How is it that SBCers support such a church with our AAEO money? Is this what we want to be doing with our AAEO donations?
Good questions. Fair questions. Questions that should be asked and answered.
Questions, assertions, conclusions, misrepresentations,and declarations ensue from the blog linked above. You can read it all there. You may notice that no one spoke to the pastor involved and ascertained exactly what connection the church has with Acts29, not that it slowed any of the critics down.
So, one pastor with connections to two churches is identified on the Acts29 website. NAMB doesn't know of his involvement. The extent of involvement is not ascertained; nonetheless, this one instance is implied to be a stealth policy at NAMB.
Pick a factoid, apply it liberally, as you wish, draw conclusions from it. Unfair. Unreasonable. Premature.
Is there not a better way?
Don't we lose something here - trust, comity, colleagiality, and respect?
And wouldn't it be sufficient at this stage to say that the Acts29 business is important to us and should absolutely be given due diligence by NAMB and see what happens before we pull Annie Armstrong offerings, before we elevate this example to policy, before we imply hidden agendas, and before we parse every syllable that flows from the keyboard of our agency people?
I believe that would be the more helpful, less harmful, and ultimately beneficial route to take here.
Too bad for all of us that we're past that.