Don't like changes at NAMB? Here's a novel idea...

In the past decade or so, it seemed that you couldn't type or say the words "North American Mission Board" without appending the word "dysfunctional," or worse.

In my view things have changed and I support the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering without the serious reservations that I have had the past few years. Evidently, others feel the same way since the AAEO was significantly up for 2011.

NAMB has been the SBC's main newsmaker the past few years and I know of no SBC entity that has undergone such substantial changes in personnel, overall strategy, and budgetary allocations.

Not everyone likes everything about the new NAMB. I may not like everything about the new NAMB.

NAMB has a website, of course, and on the site there is a page labeled

 Frequently Asked Questions on NAMB Transition

 That sounds pretty pedestrian but in it they attempt to do something novel in SBC life - answer questions. Topics include the church planting strategy, the role of DOMs, and other subjects.

What is more novel about it is that they allow comments and NAMB people even answer some of them.

Contrast that to the Arkansas Baptist article  that was so critical of NAMB and where comments were not only disallowed but some (as stated by a commenter here, I haven't confirmed it with the paper) deleted. It's their paper. They can run it like they wish. But honest conversations about disagreements in funding, strategy, personnel and the like ought to be had, and they look to me to be more likely at NAMB than at the Arkansas Baptist News.

Bloggers like to take some shots and I do my share, I suppose. But I rather like it when I ask a question or make a comment about something in the SBC, in my state convention, and people listen and respond.

I'm thinking that the latter approach is more profitable than the former.

I'd humbly recommend that folks in Arkansas, or Alaska, or wherever try it.