Centralization without a Centralizer: The Unintended Consolidation of Authority at the International Mission Board (1979-2002)

• In Event: 40868 - Social and Organizational Forces Influencing Religious Actors

Abstract

In their faith communities, evangelical Christians prioritize the believer’s personal relationship to God and focus on individual sinfulness and salvation. At the meso-level, individualism is argued to impede the formation of centralized organizations, limiting evangelicals’ capacity to enact desired social change. Rather than throw support behind a single centralized entity, evangelical social engagement tends to yield a constellation of fragmented voluntaristic associations. This line of thinking predicts that evangelical organizations will be resistant to implementing changes that contribute to bureaucratic centralization, even at the cost of efficiency. Faced with pressures to improve performance, existing theory predicts that leaders will fall back on practices consistent with individualistic presuppositions (e.g., calling on spiritual renewal and increased commitment from members), rather than attempting to implement structural reforms. This paper examines an apparent counterexample to these predictions. In the 1980s and 1990s, the International Mission Board (IMB)—the entity within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) tasked with primary responsibly for evangelism and church planting outside the United States—underwent a radical transformation that centralized decision-making at IMB headquarters in Richmond, VA. Drawing on original interviews and previously unanalyzed archival sources, I argue that centralization at the IMB was the unintended byproduct of this confrontation between IMB executives and conservative activists. Consistent with cultural explanations, neither group wanted greater centralization. Nevertheless, their actions collectively reshaped the IMB in ways counter to their stated goals. By tracing this process, this paper offers significant insights into research on institutional change and clarifies the relationship between religious commitment and organizational form.

Author

• Andrew Chalfoun, University of California-Los Angeles