In unique fashion, the Louisiana Baptist Convention employs local associational
directors of missions as state workers – but a new proposal is seeking to change
that
Editors Note: The following are the first of several articles on the
Louisiana Baptist directors of missions proposal. These articles are designed
to review the current director of missions system and how the proposed changes
came to pass. Future articles will focus on why some believe the current directors
of missions system needs to be changed and what the implications of such a change
could be.
In unique fashion, the Louisiana Baptist Convention employs local associational
directors of missions as state workers – but a new proposal is seeking to change
that
Editors Note: The following are the first of several articles on the
Louisiana Baptist directors of missions proposal. These articles are designed
to review the current director of missions system and how the proposed changes
came to pass. Future articles will focus on why some believe the current directors
of missions system needs to be changed and what the implications of such a change
could be.
C. Lacy Thompson, LBM Associate Editor
As the new century dawned a couple of years ago, some were
predicting fundamental – even cataclysmic – changes on the horizon.
By and large, they never materialized.
However, two years later, Louisiana Baptists are considering
their own fundamental change.
Whether it will materialize remains to be seen.
If it does, the structure of the state convention will change
dramatically.
Under a proposed plan, within five years, associational directors
of missions would move from under the umbrella of the state convention and become
the responsibility of the local associations. That proposal would change a system
that has been in place for some four decades now.
However, whether the proposed plan should be adopted –
and what it could mean to the state and its ongoing work – has proven a
matter of some debate in recent weeks.
That debate is sure to continue in the days leading up to the
September meeting of the Louisiana Baptist Convention Executive Board, where
the directors of missions proposal is scheduled to be discussed.
If Executive Board members approve the plan, then it will pass
to messengers of the annual state convention in November. If approved there,
work will begin to implement the fundamental change in Louisiana Baptist work.
A look at the past
So, how did Louisiana Baptists get to this point?
The story has to begin 40 years ago.
At the time, there were 52 local associations in the state
– the smallest comprised of seven churches and the largest made up of 62.
These associations were grouped into 13 districts around the state.
Districts were staffed by field workers, funded, in part, by
a state convention supplement. In addition, some associations had called their
own directors of missions.
All in all, the situation was “very troublesome,”
recalled Arnold Nelson, a longtime Louisiana Baptist minister and a member at
First Baptist Church of Mansfield.
There was conflict about who had authority over the missionaries
and such, Nelson said. There was no uniform system on how missionaries should
operate.
“The need for a new plan was evident,” Nelson said.
In the 1950s, a study committee proposed a change, but it was
rejecte, he said. Later, a second study committee was formed, chaired by Nelson,
who was pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Slidell at the time.
That study committee brought a proposal to the 1961 convention
that provided several options for associations.
Essentially, the plan offered three options:
An association could allow a director of missions
to be employed and paid by the state convention.
An association could employ its own director of
missions, funded with a supplement from the state.
An association could choose not to employ a director
of missions and use special missions workers instead.
Nelson recalled that a fourth option was implicit – an
association could simply choose to hire its own director.
Nelsons committee said the plan was designed to emphasize
associations, which would have the option of deciding what type of director
of missions program they desired.
The convention approved the Nelson plan – and associations
were asked to decide on an option in the ensuing year. (Interestingly, Mansfield-area
associations were among the first to opt for a state-funded director –
and Nelson was chosen for the post. He remained in that position until retirement.)
A look at the present
Not all associations immediately chose the state-funded option.
Indeed, all three options could be found in the state during ensuing years.
However, a number of associations shifted to the state-funded plan in the 1970s
– and by 1991, all local associations had chosen that option.
That set up the structure that now exists, in which 19 state-funded
directors of missions work with 47 local associations.
Three of the directors of missions serve a single association
each, eight of them serve a pair of associations each, five serve three associations
each, one serves four associations and one serves five associations.
All are chosen following an outlined process. (See accompanying
article) They are fully funded by the state convention, which has administrative
authority over them.
But after 40 years, that plan has not set well with some, who
argue that associations should have more say in choosing and administering their
directors of missions.
The groundwork for changing the system was laid during the
January meeting of the state Executive Board.
Rules call for any new business to be presented to the Executive
Board president at least 10 days prior to a scheduled meeting. However, in January,
board President Philip Robertson asked members to suspend the rules and consider
a pair of actions that had come to his attention within the previous week.
Board members agreed – and one of the items related to
the directors of missions process.
Johnny Sanders of Downsville asked that a committee be assigned
to “evaluate the relationship of the associational directors of missions
to their respective associations, the state missions services division and the
LBC Executive Board to determine whether or not the present arrangement is the
one that best serves the association.”
A motion to table the matter died for lack of a second, and
board members then approved the call for a study committee with little discussion
and no dissent.
Robertson subsequently appointed an 18-person committee to
deal with the issue. Essentially, the committee was the boards administrative
subcommittee with three ex officio members and a resource person.
Committee members included 15 pastors:
Chair Paul Roney, Riverview church, Alexandria
Vice Chair Jeff Pardue, Pine Grove church, Livingston
Byron Comish, Bluff Creek church, Clinton
Don Denton, Northside church, Slidell
Glenn George, Pine Grove church, DeQuincy
Reggie Hanberry, First church, Larose
Francis LaRocque, Emmanuel church, Lake Charles
James Law, First church, Gonzales
Alan Miller, Woodlawn church, Rayville
Leo Miller, Bedico church, Ponchatoula
Andy Myrick, Loch Arbor church, Monroe
Tim Norris, First church, Livingston
Chuck Pourciau, Broadmoor church, Shreveport
Tom Simmons, Faith church, Baker
Wayne Sistrunk, Northside church, Lafayette
The committee also included three ex officio members –
with voting privileges:
Executive Board Operating Committee Chair Lonnie
Wascom, pastor at Immanuel church in Hammond
Executive Board President Philip Robertson, pastor
at Philadelphia church in Deville
LBC Executive Director Dean Doster
LBC Strategy Coordination Director Mike Canady served as a
resource person for the study committee.
The committee met March 19 and April 9 before making a report
to the May meeting of the state Executive Board.
At that meeting, Roney reported that the group was continuing
its work, which had proven “bigger than we thought it was going to be.”
He assured associational directors of missions that the study
committee was not seeking “to cut your necks off.”
Roney also acknowledged that whatever the committee recommended
would not be embraced by all.
“But when we come back, I promise you well be headed
in the direction God wants us to,” he concluded.
Although the report sounded as if the study committee was faced
with a lengthy process, it met just once more – on May 23. By the time
that meeting had ended, committee members had voted 9-4 (with one abstention)
to recommend that “total financial and administrative autonomy and supervision
of the directors of missions be assumed by the local associations.
“This process would be implemented over a maximum period
of five years. Each association would work with the state convention to establish
a financial phase out over the five-year period,” the recommendation explains.
The committee immediately publicized the recommendation, noting
that it would give Louisiana Baptists a chance to study the issue and pray about
it.
Roney also once again acknowledged that not everyone would
embrace the proposal. However, he emphasized the committee made what it felt
was the best recommendation for the convention at this time.
Whether a majority of Executive Board members and state convention messengers
agree will be determined soon.