Rodney Hammer is a former IMB missionary is now a DOM in the Kansas City area.
Dear IMB and Southern Baptist Family,
While one of the most extensive, tragic refugee flows in history presents massive need and provides great gospel and humanitarian opportunity, human trafficking is overtaking drug trafficking as #1 global crime, and over 1 billion people have yet to hear the gospel…we Southern Baptists have sent Voluntary Retirement Incentive notices to 1500 or so IMB missionaries.
I support our International Mission Board and our beloved missionaries, but I do not believe we are going about the “reset” of IMB correctly. One, there was no vote of the IMB Trustee Board to approve this. There should be for a move of this magnitude and a reconsideration of approach could precede that vote. Two, I believe there are better approaches to address the budget shortfall that better reflect what our purpose and stated priorities are. Third, I do not believe we can rightly offer “incentives” to our personnel to retire and then spiritualize it by asking them to determine if God is calling them away. It is the budget shortfall that we are seeking to address and it is unfair to ask for a “blank check on the table” from missionaries who already surrendered all to follow God’s calling. It places the burden of bailing out the Board’s budget shortfall on the shoulders of our veteran missionaries who should be our most prized priorities.
I do understand the agony of such decisions and feel for, as well as pray for, friends in leadership, on the trustee board, and on the field. I understand there are only difficult options available in this current situation. However, the current reset approach is not our only option. The IMB’s unrestricted net assets, which include contingency reserve funds, went from more than $256 million in 2007 to $98 million in 2014, with a low of $56 million in 2011, according to audited IMB financial statements as reported in SBC Annuals. This means that unrestricted net assets bounced back from $56 million to $98 million with restricted appointments and other budgetary adjustments without asking personnel to leave the field. We can certainly exhaust other approaches, perhaps some suggested below, before taking such action as incentivizing personnel departure from overseas.
I would like to offer these suggestions for addressing budget shortfalls at IMB and plead with Trustees to consider or reconsider these prior to accepting any “Voluntary Retirements”. We could still choose to do this differently if we value our veteran missionaries most highly.
With all due respect to current leadership, recognizing they have considered much, here are my suggestions:
- Make all stateside reorganization, global support streamlining, and staff related budget cuts before asking any missionaries to come home. This would include selling the Richmond properties and perhaps moving the stateside support operation to Alpharetta to share space with NAMB or another smaller, more cost effective and size appropriate setting, in Richmond or elsewhere. In my opinion, it is entirely necessary to take these actions prior to any missionary personnel being incentivized, much less required, to return home.
- Freeze new missionary appointments for three years. We lose far more from veteran missionaries departing the field than we lose from three brief years of delaying new missionary appointments. If financial support improves sufficiently to shorten this timeframe then praise the Lord.
- Allow field/affinity group leadership input and involvement into what personnel needs to look like in their respective areas. They know best what priorities for personnel deployment would be most strategic for their affinity and context. It is not a strategic, forward looking “reset” to have the remaining missionary force and deployment in an affinity cluster determined solely by “voluntary” retirements. Particular regions or affinities could be decimated by loss of leadership and veteran church planters or trainers while others not. There is also no regard for relative priorities, needs or strategies of different parts of the world.
- Challenge all Southern Baptists to double their gifts to the Lottie Moon Missions Offering and all State Conventions to adjust their Cooperative Program split in 2016 to a true 45% kept in state and 55% split forwarded to SBC missions. The Great Commission Resurgence should have resulted in far greater prioritization of international missions. It is not a question of whether North America and our states have lost people too. It is a question of relative access to the gospel and a true commitment to all peoples/nations.
I am a friend and contributor to our Southern Baptist and Missouri Baptist family. I support each level of Southern Baptist life. I believe we each have a role to play in serving our churches and sharing the gospel at home and around the world through the Cooperative Program and designated giving and mission offerings. I served on the Great Commission Resurgence-inspired “Organizational Study Group (OSG)” for Missouri Baptists. Refocusing and downsizing and streamlining have occurred in our state. I applaud our Executive Director Dr. John Yeats leadership in that regard. But I still believe that the majority of missions monies forwarded through the Cooperative Program ought to be forwarded to national and international missions.
Finally, let us consider how our missionaries feel about the “Voluntary Retirement Incentive” sent to around 1,500 personnel and this approach to an IMB “reset”.
Don Dent, retired IMB Missionary and former Regional Leader, currently on faculty at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, “Most of these retiring missionaries need to find employment and that is not easy or automatic in our economy. Frankly, most churches do not know what to do with an effective, returned missionary. Most will have daily moments of overwhelming grief. The younger ones grieve the loss of their veteran colleagues as well.”
Sample IMB’ers receiving the “Voluntary Retirement Incentive”:
“This is a terrible time for many of us. We feel that our family is not really a family. Why are they letting go experienced people and starting out with 300 new with no language and everything else? Their plans are not making sense to any of us on the field. The bottom line is that we are really numbers and nothing more than that.”
“It is with great anguish and deep sorrow that our family seeks help from you today. Please pray for us. Is our time done? A week ago I would have never imagined it. It is all very surreal. No home. No car. No jobs. Nothing. We are trusting in God to provide. We are overwhelmed with thoughts…decide to stay only to be cut later? Decide to leave which will unleash a financial and logistical nightmare upon our family in a short period of time? So please pray for our family.”
“I’m both too young to consider early retirement and too poor. No house, no car, no place in America to go to. Too old to find a job with the financial/economic situation in America the way it is. Worried if I don’t take the VRI then they’ll come back and fire us later when not enough people leave voluntarily.”
Please reconsider. We can do this differently. Even if we have to say, “800 missionaries will have to leave the field by the end of 2016 if we don’t take in $200 million in this year’s Lottie Moon Offering.” Let’s downsize stateside, streamline operations, and give like we’ve never given before…and leave our veteran missionaries where God has already called them.
I appreciate the passion with which Rodney writes, and the fact that his tone is without rancor. Having said that, I must say that I disagree with almost everything in this “open letter” – with the exception of the reality of the fact that what is happening is good reason for sorrow.
Let me spell out some of my dissent with what Rodney has written.
1. The IMB has operated, as best I understand it, completely within their appropriate channels. The administration developed a proposal. The Board was given the peruse it. No, an official vote was not given, but that should not leave the idea (which is hinted at here, and has been more forcefully stated elsewhere) that the Trustees where either derelict or that they were bypassed. The proper channels were observed. The trustees were brought into the loop. Unless the reports were deceptive, the trustees were on board with the decision. Had they taken a vote, the outcome would have been the same.
No vote was taken because no vote was needed.
2. Rodney expresses his belief that there are “better approaches” than the one that was used. We’ve tried several approaches, and the administration and the trustees have explored options. There are always options and the IMB took the one they thought was best.
3. Rodney claims it is wrong to give incentives to missionaries to retire. I cannot disagree more with this. The administration came to the realization that our current giving levels simply could not support the mission force we have. They are cutting every level (admin, staff, and missionaries) and they had to reduce the mission force. They did two things – both of which seem honorable and godly to me, which Rodney casts shade on.
**They asked people to pray and seek the direction of God as to whether they should accept this VRI.
**They gave what seems to me to be a very generous retirement incentive to take care of those who are coming home.
I do not understand why either of these would be seen as anything but righteous acts. If they believe this has to be done, asking people to seek God’s will and direction is a good thing. And taking good financial care of our missionaries is also a good thing. I cannot understand why he would view either of these as negatives.
to be continued….
Dave and Richmond staff: You have said it well and I agree having followed all of this for the past almost ten years. The bleeding is bad, it is not an over exaggeration. It is very, very bad and needed to be dealt with before this to avoid a lot of the bleeding that is currently true.
David Platt and trustees are doing the only thing that can be done, as heartbreaking for all of us, missionaries and those of us at home as it is, there are no conspiracies going on, this is not being done for the various shady reasons that a few blogs have insinuated. This is a crisis of horrific magnitude.
Rodney: I hear what you are saying and have always felt friendship and a deep respect for you. This post is no acceptation. At least you are a voice of reason as I hear your objections.
Dave has said, “We are bleeding out our eyes financially.” This is the truth, not an exaggeration. I just think David Platt has weighed the options you have discussed as he has been in office for a year. I don’t think there is a stone he and the trustees haven’t considered. I would see no other fixable way to fight this money crisis than the way it is currently being presented to us.
Since I’m told it’s too late on VRI’s/phase 1 I’m seeking assistance for returning missionaries. I started a GoFundMe campaign
http://www.gofundme\returnedmissionary
& asked our Association churches to help also
Your link is not working nor could I find it under “returnedmissionary”. Your name is famous enough to find it though.
Hope this raises 100 x your goal.
Let’s try again:)
https://de.gofund.me/returnedmissionary
https://de.gofund.me/returnedmissionary
Dave,
You said, “No vote was taken because no vote was needed.” I think that I would challenge that statement because this is a major undertaking and to do so without the express vote by the trustees (who are supposed to represent me, a rank and file SBCer) seems contrary to best practices. How do you justify your statement?
As I understand it, the administration followed policy and proper procedure. They brought the board in at the proper time and notified them. The Board, while not formally voting (unless the IMB is lying to us – a charge I hope will be made carefully by anyone) was on board with the decision, realizing the need to take decisive action.
This was the job of the president and his administration. I think it might have been good to get a formal trustee vote just to show support and to stave off criticism. But the president acted (according to my understanding) completely within the boundaries of his job description.
Dave,
No disrespect intended but my understanding is not the way you understand as to how boards function. This is a major event that should have been affirmed by the trustees. Unfortunately, what is done is done and we cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Gerry: It is pretty clear that it was affirmed by the board. Even those on the board said they affirmed it although no vote was taken. They are on board with the plan.
I too wish that the Board would have voted on this procedure. I have long lamented the fact that a people who long have supported Congregationalist methodology have supplanted it to an administrative/corporate process. While it may be well and good that the Board “was on board” with the decision, it would have been “best practices” for those Board members to have some “skin in the game.” Otherwise I fear if the heat becomes unbearable, all those board members will point toward Administration and say, “we had nothing to do with it – it was all them.” This is exactly what happens in the world of business. I once believed our process was better than that – it sounds like I was mistaken. I am praying for all involved and for the SBC that we find our way again.
Rob
Dave,
My wife and I served for 16 years with the IMB so I feel I can comment on this.
You missed the entire point of sacking our best and brightest, those who have faithfully served for years, built trust relationships with nationals and national Baptist church leaders, learned multiple languages, left “all” to follow Christ, and some have served for 25 years but are still several years away from retirement age.
I’ve worked with inexperienced first termers and in some ways it’s scary for them to be in a distant land, a child fall ill, they have no language skills, and must navigate the complexities of a strange culture.
Also, theological issues arise with nationals in foreign cultures and walking that minefield as an inexperienced missy can also be a daunting task.
The IMB salary was never considered extravagant and now, with what little savings they have, these missys must return to the US and in effect start over.
I wholeheartedly disagree that IMB trustees weren’t warranted in not weighing in on this historic decision.
There were better ways to handle this.
My husband and I were appointed to Brazil in 1972 and retired in 2000. We never lived in Richmond or served on the board. We did live on the mission field and that is what we KNOW about. We arrived at our language school and began to learn the language and even more importantly the culture of our new HOME. There were three seasoned, missionary couples there to receive us and help us. Yes, we could have made it without them, but we would have made some serious cultural mistakes that could have offended our new brothers and sisters in Christ. We saw that they were doing what God had called them to do in that place and we knew that we could also.
As we reached our fifties, we were truly Brazilians. We no longer worried about the language and experienced our most fruitful and joyful years. Our children were grown and living in the US and we immersed ourselves, in even more ministries, along with seminary teaching, pastoring, social assistance and planting another church. We had the opportunities of mentoring new missionaries and becoming their friends and aunt and uncle to their children.
Please look more deeply into these plans you have made
and prayerfully seek to make other plans.
We love you, we will lift you in prayer as we completely disagree with the plans that you have made so far.
As to Rodney’s suggestions for alternate solutions, I cannot claim full expertise on these, but I have read quite a bit in recent weeks, and from what I understand, they are passionate and hopeful, but they are not realistic.
He details the diminishing cash reserves of the IMB, but seems to think that because the bleeding has slowed that the crisis is not severe, that we need not take decisive action. The hue and cry I heard over and over from people when this was announced was “how dare we overspend by 210 million in 5 years?” To continue to overspend, to bleed away our cash reserves over another 3 to 5 years to fix this problem is probably not the best way.
Dr. Platt made it clear in his addresses on the topic that he was not willing to do that. He did not feel that continuing to bleed our reserves and sell properties to keep afloat was good management. Some may disagree, and it would seem that Rodney Hammer is among them. I think most of us might agree with Dr. Platt that continuing to overspend by nearly 40 million annually should not be allowed to continue.
Either way, David Platt, the man in the big chair, and the administration, along with the Board (who gave assent even in they did not vote) agreed that this was an emergency and should be dealt with immediately.
To be continued….again
With respect to Brother Miller’s views, I’d to clarify and respond. One, I did not say that trustees were not informed or consulted. I said they did not vote on it. how can a vote (formal approval) not be needed for this massive of a policy and strategic shift? All non optimal options are not equal…my point is that the LAST PLACE we should go for cost savings is our veteran missionaries. How is choosing to downsize your most experienced personnel vs others the best choice? How is not cutting stateside FIRST the best option, since our reason for existence is the gospel sharing missionary on the field? How is choosing the over 50 missionaries the best option when they will have the most difficulty being hired stateside? How is this approach the best option when several hundred churches will have their established veteran missionary church members removed from the field? Do you think those churches will feel good about giving more to IMB after this? How is it the best option to send brand new missionaries instead of keeping more veterans on the field? A three year freeze on new missionaries coupled with significant stateside staff cuts and administrative streamlining will give the needed reductions in budget…without the irreversible loss of veteran missionary leadership in huge numbers. The ship won’t go under in those 3 years if such options were exercised (see the assets figures noted in original post) and we’ll be in far better shape on the field and in mission impact…which is the whole point of having the IMB. Three, it is one thing to say we must downsize but another to incentivize the called veteran away from the field while stating things in a way that strongly implies there won’t be a better option later. Also, it is totally different for a career missionary (much less one over 50) to return stateside when they still have to work than for a stateside person to seek different employment (see sample concerns of missionaries I shared). This is not taking good financial care of our missionaries. Keeping veterans on the field is. Making different hard choices mentioned would enable this to happen. Giving a few months of support to a 50-62 year old is not a generous retirement or golden parachute. They must seek new employment and provide for their families without equity, property, or continuous stateside employment record. Also,
their calling didn’t change in one months time due to an administrative decision.
Regarding needing to stop the bleeding/take action I agree. It can be done differently while preserving our veteran missionaries and not forcing them to either take the money and feel poorly for leaving and facing very difficult circumstances stateside, or feel poorly or selfish because someone else must go if they don’t.
My suggestions do not call for continuing to bleed reserves in the previous manner. They do request that we make needed, deep cuts first at home and then further through streamlining support systems while freezing new sending temporarily.
Rodney
I simply cannot find a fault in your argument. It is spot on in every detail.
I wish to make very clear that I do not accept the theories that there are conspiracies, vicious motives or any such thing. I have a great respect for the integrity and a heart for souls that I see in David Platt. I simply think he made a mistake with this decision. He is a godly man with pure motives, but he is not perfect.
And that’s why I have such respect for you DL.
The one thing missing from the complete viciousness out there on a few blogs is the truth. I do appreciate Rodney and his tone. Always have.
Debbie
So very regarding truth/viciousness
It seems that truth is always missing from viciousness. So sad, because however we see the issue, one thing is certain,we must now pull together to find a solution.
oops…should be, so very true
“we must now pull together to find a solution.”
Yes. And I think we will. I still have faith that we will. I hope it will be something that binds us together stronger than before.
Rodney, just for the record, the home office staff has been given the same VRI … 50 yrs old, as our field personnel. If all home office staff accepts the retirement, well over half of Richmond staff will be gone. I mean WELL over half. Many IMB home staff have also been called by God, called to support our Dear Missionaries on the field so that they can do what God has called them to do. If much more cutting of Richmond staff takes place after all is said and done …. our field personnel will not have any support. So, yes Richmond has been included in this. If all 450 home office staff were completely cut, gone, they would still need to reduce by another 200 to 400 just to stay afloat. I don’t think you realize how grave the financial situation is. I am saying these things and I am included in the Richmond staff VIR reduction … I also am too young to retire, never saw this coming, I will have to find another job and hopefully will not loose everything I have … BUT- YES I believe that David Platt is 100% following our Lord’s leading. I believe he and others have been through countless sleepless nights, prayerfully seeking the Lord’s direction. I believe he is following the Lord’s direction. I believe he is doing just exactly what must be done so the IMB does not have to close its doors, bring ALL 4,800 plus missionaries home …. therefore none of them continuing to spread the Gospel where they currently are. It is a very hard and sad situation including for myself … but necessary. The IMB will come back even stronger than before because this is of God. I do not question that which is of God. I just do it.
Roeney, et. al.,
It it well documented that the first few years on the field are the most expensive in missionary service with the expenses decreasing with longivity. To me, this gives credence to what was said about freezing appointments for several years.
On an added note, “golden parachute” (not) notwithstanding, it is much easier for a 30 year old to find gainful employment than a 50 year old.
As to Rodney’s four bullet points, his suggestions for an alternate approach, I think they are noble-minded, but probably not workable.
1) Stateside reorganization – I don’t know about selling Richmond headquarters and moving. Maybe that’s a good idea. Maybe not. I’ve heard that moving to Memphis was once considered. I don’t know.
But there is no way that such a move could be done quickly enough to help in this situation.
We have a huge financial crisis. 210 million in 5 years. 39 million last year. We are bleeding out our eyes financially. That idea may or may not have merit, but it would take a decade to implement – at the least.
Staff and administrative reductions ARE taking place. I’m not sure if people have missed that. It is not only missionary numbers that are being reduced, but the numbers in Richmond are also being cut back.
But there is simply NO WAY to cut back the numbers in Richmond to solve the financial problems. Can’t be done.
2. Freezing new appointments and reducing the missionary force over 3 years seems easier, but it has a couple of problems. First, it allows this bleeding to continue to 3 more years.
210 million in 5 years. 39 million last year. It can’t keep going on. We’ve got to do something now. That’s what Dr. Platt believes. This was specifically addressed. A three year draw down is too slow.
3. I’m going to defer to Rodney on #3. I’m guessing this is going to be a tough year. Talking to other missionary friends, this is going to be very difficult. No question. But the fact is that Southern Baptists have not been giving to support a 4800 missionary force. Changes had to be made. Quickly.
4. This sounds good, but it simply isn’t going to happen. Few states, especially the larger Deep South states, have even moved toward a true 50-50 split. Asking them to keep 45 and send on 55 just simply isn’t going to happen. And giving has been flat for a decade or more. Simply asking people to give more seems more like “pie in the sky” than a workable solution to me.
I don’t know what options were available to David Platt. But I trust that he examined them and chose the one that he thought would stop the financial bleeding.
To be continued…one more time.
You are so correct about number 1. Reductions in staff at the home office will not solve the problem but I guess it will help somewhat. Hopefully there will be enough people left to implement the new programs that are in the works. Keep in mind that over the years we in Richmond have gone through 2 layoffs as well as a VRI in 2010. Over the last six years a VRI for the field was discussed by leadership every year but it was never done. I can’t speak for field personnel but at the home office morale is very low.
Anonymous
Were the events you described an attempt by former leadership to deal with the financial problem?
Yes I think it was an attempt but it didn’t give the results that were hoped for since only a small number took that VRI. We also lost some very valuable people in each of these events. In fact some of the people who were layed off in 2003 were hired back.
Anonymous
Things have been said in places that previous administrations have failed to deal with this financial problem. Would this action indicate that there was an attempt?
I maintain:
1) God is our source of supply, of people walking in our doors, down our aisles, and through our baptistries.
2) God is our source of supply for money.
3) God pays for what He wants done.
4) The Great Commission is to make disciples.
5) With 67%, and probably more, of our membership absent on Sundays, we can only be interpreted as failing with most of the people God sends us to disciple.
This has been said to the Convention. They choose not to accept it.
Under SBC polity, no entity has authority over the local church. So, what’s everybody’s responsibility is nobody’s responsibility.
Until and unless someone chooses to lead the SBC out of the current condition, I expect the trend … about which much has been written … to continue. Kudos to David Platt for at least doing something about the shortfall, something Trustees and Officers have, until now, seemingly refused to do.
Final comment – I understand the angst of the missionaries. No one likes change.
You should see some of the angry comments I’ve gotten here – about Platt. There are some missionaries out there who, I’m quite sure, think David Platt has horns and a pitchfork (a couple of bloggers feel the same way perhaps?).
I do feel for the these missionaries. It is a terrible time. A tough choice. The toughest. And I hope that the SBC family will step up and help these who are coming home.
But I have been convinced by what David Platt says – the slow approach was not working. We had to fix the problem. Stop the bleeding. Get the IMB out of the red and back in the black. Then we can get back to rebuilding.
Regarding helping missionaries if they have to return…if we want to maximally assist we should offer temporary residence and MK schooling at ILC for those without a sufficient transitional option
Having visited the ILC several times – I was wondering the same thing.
Dave Miller said: “Final comment – I understand the angst of the missionaries. No one likes change.”
Did you mis-spell a word? Instead of “change”, shouldn’t it read: u-n-e-m-p-l-o-y-m-e-n-t?
I tried to decide whether to write a response post, or to simply comment – I think I should have gone with the post!
Having disagreed with this post, I say that Rodney Hammer’s tone, even in disagreement with the Board, is exemplary. It is good when we can express disagreements without rancor, insinuation, character assassination and such.
IMO Rodney’s post contains the best analysis and suggestions I have heard since following this story. I suspect that I am naive but i would like to think that SB could pull together and increase giving to help in this crisis. No, we can’t totally make up the shortfall probably but perhaps an increase with other adjustments could help a great deal. Bottom line, bringing our most experienced missionaries is shortsighted.
I am on the Richmond staff and can say that the things you have suggested have all been considered and from what we’ve been told it’s just too late. Time is of the essence. Also, David Platt and his leadership team have met with the Affinity leaders. They have spent the last year working through the problems and looking for answers. Another thing that people on many sites fail to know or acknowledge is that a VRI was also offered to staff 50 and over with 5 years of service and this includes more than half of the home office staff. While I realize that this decision is very hard for our missionaries it is hard for us as well. We are too far along now to go back. The VRI has legal documents included so offers have been made. Once this phase is complete there will be a phase 2 where everyone who remains will have the option to voluntarily resign. Please pray with us all as we seek God’s will.
I was in the 2003 downsizing. We had no warning and no VRI offer. That was extremely difficult and left many with long-term challenges, one of which was feeling totally abandoned. Most IMB Home Office staff feel called, too. These changes being implemented now at least gave warning and options. In 2003 there were no options. You were called into a room, and poof, you were terminated. Someone stood over you while you packed your personal belongings at your desk, as though you were a common criminal. And you were “escorted” to your car, I suppose to make sure you actually left. We still have unanswered questions. It seems today’s leadership is being very honest and open, as well as realistic about what is happening now with the VRI. As a long-time Southern Baptist this is hard to hear about, but I do believe the leadership really sought God’s will in this VRI, as difficult as it is for many.
I appreciate the post and the ideas but I don’t see a realistic, short term financial solution being suggested. A quick sale of the Richmond property looks unrealistic as does expecting state conventions to shift immediately and relinquish 15 or so percent of their revenues. The latter would necessarily entail losses of dozens if not hundreds of jobs.
After letting the announcement that 600-800 personnel need to leave percolate for a few weeks I don’t find myself arguing against reductions. My thinking has changed somewhat in that:
1. I do wish Platt and leadership had chosen to inform and involve the SBC before the VRI plan was put into motion. I’m not convinced that the depth of the problem was made clear, no matter how many stray quotes are marshaled that speak of deficits.
2. The idea of continuing 300 new appointees would be the easiest to revisit. If only 140 or so of last year’s appointees were career, then adjusting the new personnel downward from 300 would not necessarily affect that. I understand that commitments for 2015 must be kept. I’m not sure about 2016. We are asking 50-60 year old, career people to think about quitting so that we can keep appointing 20-35 year olds many of whom are temps? IMB says all employees are important but that doesn’t mean all have equal value and efficacy in doing the work.
3. I wish Platt would drop the “blank check” metaphor. It is not well-used in this context. Rodney Hammer put it well above.
We’re in uncharted territory here.
William T
I have always admired your ability analyze an issue and state clearly the issues. Help me with one thing in this comment. Why would it not be easier to reverse a commitment to a new missionary appointee for 2015 than to require a career missionary to come home. Would this new appointee not still be stateside or perhaps in language school etc. Would not an adjustment for this person be much easier than the adjustment of a career missionary who must now seek alternate employment at age 50. What am I missing? Admittedly I am not real familiar with the IMB process.
It’s been said here and/or elsewhere that there are people who have sold houses, etc. in expectation of a firm appointment and leaving date this year. I’m not sure how far out appointment commitments are made.
In regard to new appointments IMB has said: “Every type of person in the IMB is important, including long-termers and short-termers, staff and missionaries, younger personnel and older personnel, new missionaries and seasoned missionaries.” and “new missionaries being sent from churches through the IMB is a foundational, non-negotiable part of the IMB’s purpose. Also, a decline in sending missionaries historically results in a decline in IMB’s relationship with SBC churches.”
http://www.imb.org/updates/storyview-3490.aspx#.VgE_Zt9VhBc
Still, reducing the number of new appointments, especially for 2016 and beyond looks like about the only variable within reach and in IMB’s control.
I don’t know where this is going.
William T
Thanks for the help. I cannot understand the logic of appointing folks in 2016 while bringing veterans home. As far as the 2015 appointments are concerned it is much less traumatic for a person who has sold their house to seek a new house, employment etc. than to uproot a 50 y/o veteran missionary on a foreign field and bring him home to whatever.
One of the things that has bothered me a great deal is the accusations of less than honorable motives, conspiracy theories etc. that have been in various places. This is hurtful and accomplishes nothing. I think Platt could put that stuff to rest a little more if a more convincing argument could be given to explain this part of the adjustment.
Sadly nothing Dr. Platt says will silence the mouths ( or stop the fingers) of the dozen or so unhappy critical accusatory conspiracy theorist – – committed to destruction they are.
Disagreement and conversation and idea casting – like yours and the posts author – are one thing – that’s healthy and honorable – but what the incessant naysayers do is ridiculous.
I might as well say that I’m watching for what “blow the funnel open” will mean after finances are stabilized. It is too late to do anything different about the VRIs.
The thing that bothers me about this whole situation is the suggestion (both spoken and unspoken) that the V in VRI is essentially a lie.
While I understand that people might feel some pressure to take the deal, I would hope they consider their calling to be more important than any loyalty they feel to the IMB and their desire to help with the financial situation.
But I also have a concern, that people who willingly take the VRI will be seen as sellouts or traitors. No one seems to consider the possibility that some people might actually want to take the VRI.
It seems like we ought to be willing to trust the missionaries to do the right thing.
You are partially right. It doesn’t feel very voluntary especially for those of us who have more than 25 or 30 years of service. I have worked there for half of my life and had hoped for a few more years but there is a lot of concern about the unspoken phase 3… We have been told that with each passing month options will be less generous. I do know of people in the field and at the home office who are thrilled to take the deal. Some were ready to leave anyway so this is a windfall for them. I don’t believe that anyone who leaves will be viewed as a sellout because we are helping to solve a problem.
If the VRI does not yield the desired savings, I would hope the IMB would decrease the number of new people coming on the field rather than fire existing people. That would (and should) raise a lot of opposition.
On another note, the whole point of a VRI is to be a more generous package than not taking the package and retiring later. Hence the I. People in the dark corners are making this out to be some kind of insidious punishment.
There is no plan that we have heard of to reduce new people going to the field but there is a plan for phase 2 sick is voluntary resignation and then there will be a recalibration, whatever that means.
The word sick should be which
I would like to write a 3,000 word response to to all the articles regarding the 600 – 800 missionaries coming home. I probably have a reputation of being blunt and to my point. So I’ll stick to my usual.
600 – 800 missionaries are coming home, that decision has been made. The ship has sailed.
How have you communicated this to the local church you are at?
Do you think some in your congregation may have a car they are getting ready to donate? How do you think they will feel if they donated it to a non-specific charity when they could have donated to a returning missionary, if they knew the need?
Do you have anyone in your congregation that has property they rent out? How do you think they will feel if they find out they could be renting to a returning missionary if they only knew the need?
Do you have any business owners and/or hiring managers in your congregation? Now might be the time to start the process of networking. I know if I was a returning missionary a job offer or a network in place sure would be a welcomed relief. These missionaries definitely have job skills that are needed in the work force.
My point is not all is doom and gloom for these well skilled highly desired neighbors. We just need to welcome them, as we would want to be welcomed. I hope in the near future an article or two can be written giving us opportunities to welcome these warriors home.
At church Sunday evening we started the conversation regarding the return of the 800. I pray that through out the SBC this conversation has started, or will start real soon in all our congregations. We need to welcome them home, the way we would want to be welcomed home. They are our neighbors, we need to show them that love.
Please see my article to our pastors in our Association at my Facebook page
My article at my FB page is from last Friday, entitled Urgent–returning missionaries
I read your article at BRKC. Have you considered a GoFundMe style fund raiser? You have the reputation to get this going and spreading the word. Just a thought.
Keep us posted regarding opportunities to assist, many are interested in making this transition as positive as possible.
Took your advice:)
https://sbcvoices.com/an-open-letter-to-imb-trustees-and-southern-baptists-concerning-imb-personnel-reduction-and-organizational-reset-rodney-hammer/
The crisis is real and the solutions are drastic and sad. I think it is time for SBC’ers to rise to the occasion and meet the need. There has not been a clarion call to raise the money in light of this desperate situation. We’ve resigned ourselves to not meeting the needed LMCO goal for years. Let’s challenge SBC churches to meet this shortfall this December and delay (or eliminate) the need for these VRIs.
Pastor/Church missions team: Increase your LMCO goal by 50% this year, and meet it or exceed it. Tell your folks we’re going to send M’s home this year if we don’t. Encourage your folks to give generously, sacrificially. Not only “above and beyond the tithe” gifts, but Acts 4:34-35 kind of giving. Most of our people don’t know the situation. International missions is what has driven the SBC from the beginning. If we inform our people they will respond.
P.J.
Spot on! I guess I still wonder what God’s people would do if the challenge is issued. I realize we have been told of the financial situation in past conventions. However a statement of financial shortfall without passion brings little results. I wonder what would have happened if Platt surrounded by his leadership team and his Board leadership would have told the convention that if there was not an increase in giving then several hundred missionaries are going to be brought home. Maybe nothing but I would like to have found out for sure.
While I am digging a hole let me dig it a little deeper. Earlier one comment said something to the effect that part of the problem is that we spend too much money on ourselves in our country and not enough on the foreign field. The commenter continued by giving some startling facts that prove this point. So, why not redistribute the percentages between NAMB and IMB giving IMB a larger share? Yeah, your right, that would never happen.
It seems to me, if Southern Baptists would spend as much money on International Missions each year, as we do on our lawn services each year, this problem/shortfall could be averted.
Let the lawns be less greener, and the dandelions grow more freely, or even better let the church members take care of the church lawns, landscaping and grounds …. thus free-ing up the big-budget line items for “lawn service”, etc. and channeling it directly to the IMB.
What is more important? To make our lawns greener and landscapeable, or to make Disciples of the Nations???
I must agree with Rodney that freezing new missionary appointments rather than bringing those home who have already sacrificed so much and will have major upheaval later in life seems like a better move to me.
The temporary hiring / appointment freeze would get attention as well… I’m afraid the cost saving move of bringing these missionaries back home while new appointments take place will have a lesser impact on the church’s thought process to CP and Lottie giving.
This is obviously a complicated issue that must be resolved. Unfortunately, over the years I’ve been responsible for designing strategies to reduce costs in organizations. A fundamental principle is to not hire new employees who replace existing employees. This speaks volumes of how much you value your employees. I haven’t heard a good ratonale for doing this here.
I have a large amount of respect for Rodney Hammer. His voice is the best I have heard in speaking in opposition to the VRI, he does so with the grace and evenhandedness I have come to expect from him.
I also have a lot of respect for guys like Dave Miller, William Thornton, and other men and women who read and comment on this site. Though I don’t always agree with them, they have the ability to make their arguments without disparaging the character and integrity of brothers and sisters in Christ.
I say all that to say the following. I think there is an elephant in the room that no one is really addressing. The SBC is shrinking. Rapidly. More and more people are leaving the denomination- both in finances as well as in churches. That has a lot to do with how the world has shifted in the last 50 years than anything else.
Missions in particular is changing. The Passion movement started this ball rolling when I was in college. The call went for people of my age now to go and do missions rather than just to give money for others to do missions. I don’t think I, or anyone else, could have imagined how that effect would resonate twenty years later. People want to put their feet into the soil of other countries and cultures. And they can do it now. Very easily.
Further, the rise of crowd funding and other internet based resources make it more feasible for an individual to raise money, stay in contact with supporters, and build a mission force easier than it has ever been.
The CP was once the most efficient way to go and serve as a missionary. It is still an alternative, but it’s influence is diminishing because the SBC is shrinking and other methods and avenues are available. That’s painful, especially for Southern Baptists, because we have for years had the claim to fame of the laregest and most effective mission force on earth. That’s no longer going to be the case.
I think that’s what David Platt sees. He knows that there are other methods to get missionaries onto the field in large numbers. It’s a different way than we have done it before. It’s change and change is hard. It will look different. It will probably focus more on equipping indigenous Christians rather than having long term missionaries on the field. That may or may not be as effective. I don’t know. I doubt anyone can predict with any accuracy what the long term effects will be.
But it’s better than going broke in 5 or 10 years and sending no one.
Just my thoughts. Flame away.
“The SBC is shrinking. Rapidly.”
Very good point Ryan.
My question would also be, how long would it take to get financially straight with the current plan of Voluntary Retirement vs. freezing new missionary appointments. Would this plan just be spinning our wheels in the mud?
Debbie
Good point. To be honest I cannot think in terms of the money amounts with which IMB is dealing. So I really just don’t know. But deep in the night I begin to wonder, is anything really going to be enough….again I just don’t know.
The following does not speak to your point but I will put it here rather than start another post. I was talking to an AOG pastor the other day and telling him about our situation. Somehow I can off as saying what will happen to the world without SB. He very gently but firmly said “DL you guys are not the only ones on the foreign field”.That led to a near nightmare of a thought which is…are we attacking the issue from the wrong perspective…could it be that it is not a matter of money at all…could it be a spiritual issue….could God be saying I will raise up other people to take the places vacated by SB..could it be that the real issue is a falling on our face before a Sovereign God and ask Him what he has for SB. We are growing smaller in size, you and Ryan are correct. There is a reason for that, not sure what it is but pretty sure it is not good. Again just thinking out loud.
Sorry about the last paragraph..when I get distraught, confused, and frustrated about a situation I tend to preach.
Good point DL.
Rodney Hammer,
Very good post.
Your views should be, and should have been, considered.
I’m seeing less “Voluntary” in the Voluntary Retirement Incentive the more I look at it.
Not much “Retirement” either.
David R. Brumbelow
“I’m seeing less “Voluntary” in the Voluntary Retirement Incentive”
Can you explain this?
Yes, I’ll explain.
Suppose you are 54 and have served 10 or more years with the IMB:
First, missionaries are told 600 to 800 must resign or retire.
Second, they are told if they don’t accept the VRI then the next offer will not be nearly so generous.
Third, new missionaries continue to be appointed.
Fourth, because of unwise spending, the IMB is 210 million behind (This is not a giving problem, the CP and Lottie Moon have increased each year, though not by huge amounts. Of course, we can and should always give more to missions.) Therefore, if not enough missionaries “retire,” additional cuts will be made.
Fifth, you had planned to retire at the IMB, but at 65 or 70, not at 54.
Sixth, several months pay may be good severance pay, especially for small church pastors, but is not much when you call it retirement.
Seventh, what happens if only 200 accept the VRI, and I am 54 and did not accept it? Another 400 to 600 are going to have to go. And they’ve already set their sights on those over 50.
Under those conditions would you feel perfectly free to resign or continue your job?
Would you feel secure in your job as an IMB missionary until you are at least 65?
David R. Brumbelow
Your position is: “We’ve spent unwisely so we we have overspent by 210 million, so we should NOT correct it by reducing the missionary force to the size we can afford.”
It seems you are saying both: We have a big problem and we should NOT correct it quickly.
No, Dave, that is not my position. I was simply answering a question.
But comments here, including yours, seem to keep disappearing. So it’s hard to keep up or make certain points.
David R. Brumbelow
That’s because I’m deleting comments that engage in wild speculation without any substantiation, such as the awful comment Dale B left this morning.
Just not going to host that stuff.
What I do not understand is how we can be retiring some due to budget issues but still making new appointments at the same time. Those are two contradictory actions of which make no sense.
Dale, I am saddened by your comment insinuating that the IMB leadership is replacing veteran missionaries with “300 of his bffs.” I don’t for a moment believe that this is any part of what has motivated the VRI decision. I don’t accept that new leadership would take advantage of the crisis to get preferred individuals onto the field. I don’t believe in Calvinist conspiracies. I do not accept the veiled accusation of cronyism or nepotism.
Sadly, what had been, up to this point, a polite discussion among good-hearted Baptist brothers and sisters who had honest differences of thought has just received the first stain of accusation and acrimony.
Sorry, Tony; but as has already been stated many times: the first step in reducing personnel costs is to freeze hiring; and Then begin reducing existing employees. That is the near absolute sequence in responsible organizations.
Asserting that you are somehow more knowledgeable than standard practice is what brings your plan into question; not just my observation.
See my above comment on the reason why the VRI was offered first.
From the perspective a former IMB appointee, Rodney Hammer expresses many of my sentiments in regard to the “adjustments” at the IMB currently in progress. The problem is funding; in a recently attended event, I heard the Executive Committee’s general counsel Augie Boto say that Southern Baptist giving is at 2%. Regardless of how one feels about the NT applicability of the tithe, we can surely do better!
The Cooperative Program drew me to the SBC. It is a great way to support missions but it needs participation at multiple levels in order to work. As mentioned above, Believers need to support what they profess to believe. State conventions, though, with only a few exceptions, have never attained that 50/50 split designed into the original plan of the Cooperative Program. If it is going to work, more money has to flow through. And then, there has to be effective stewardship at the national level.
For a man new in his position, who professes to have a heart for missions, but acknowledge that he struggles with the Cooperative Program to make such a radical adjustment is problematic. David Platt was a mega-church pastor; many of our conservative resurgence leaders are in or, prior to appointment to national leadership, were in similar roles. Sadly, because they do have extensive resources, many of the mega-church congregations are almost, for lack of a better term, self containted. They fund mission trips, projects, and even send staff missionaries. That isn’t cooperation. It is ownership.
I find myself wondering how many missionary salaries could be supported by one denominational executive? There’s a lack of transperancy – or so it seems. I have looked for details and cannot find current salary/benefit information for most of our board, agency, and institutional leaders. While overhead seems at an acceptable level overall, there certainly isn’t clarity.
We need more participation – from individuals, churches, associations, conventions – and then, I believe the Cooperative Program can adequately support our missionaries.
Others have mentioned the trauma of job loss – of a calling being invalidated – because of funding. We have to do better.
I’m not hosting wild, unsubstantiated accusations anymore. If you have something constructive or substantiated to say, fine.
If not, wild accusations just aren’t helpful, and frankly, they dishonor Christ. There.
Have I missed any blogs or other structured plans (besides MABTS’ offer of housing, which will be of *great* benefit to the student body to have missionaries living among them) for us to help employ retired (VRI or otherwise) IMB personnel?
I know, hiring them at a state convention would defeat the rhetoric of blaming states for the funding. And finding budgets in our churches to employ missionaries would defeat that rhetoric, as well.
But I’m seeing two things: 1. We as churches took responsibility for these folks, and if we don’t like the deal that’s being offered maybe each of us can find a way to improve on it, including offering employment to someone. Surely there’s 800 churches in the US in need of pastors/ministers of some sort. 2. We as churches surely could grow with the wisdom and passion of people who have invested their life in spreading the Gospel. Rather than trying to figure it out through leaflets and emails, maybe we could have a living, breathing person to strengthen our churches in efforts to reach neighboring communities as well as the wider world.
Quite often, it seems, people who go IMB for a few years can find work as “missions pastors” here in the US. Is there not an effort we can make to present this as an option? Here are 800 people who love Jesus and can probably spot 5 things in any church they set foot in that could be done by that church to reach its community and the world. Surely we’re not going to send them all out to sell insurance, are we?
We need a clearing house for opportunities for returning missionaries. The one thing I perceive sorely lacking is a place that missionaries can see great opportunities here in the states.
I know of a SBC church looking for a pastor that could use a missionary mind set pastor. The town is very dynamic in population due to it being in the Oil Patch. The building itself is of a standard that many would be in awe of. It is in need of a Sheppard. They have just started the search for a new pastor.
I know of many towns in my state that need employees. The positions may not be faith based. The employers sure would love the skill sets and qualities missionaries bring to the community. These jobs are fantastic transitional opportunities that will bring in survival dollars while missionaries figure out the next step.
We have started the conversation at the local level, and I will make sure this conversation continues. When anyone hears of a national clearing house network I hope an article will be written and posted here at SBCvoices.
I live in North Dakota, the towns that have transitional jobs available for missionaries along with the need for more seasoned employment positions are:
Bismark
Fargo
Minot
Grand Forks
To name a few.
There is already a clearing house, IMB transition team:
transitionteam@imb.org
See article to follow soon…
Rodney, I thank you for the tone of the post… as well. My only comment is that your post would have been very helpful three to five years ago.
Procrastination that exists within leadership seem to always yield a more severe reaction…. when changes are demanded, instead of required.
Thanks to William Thornton for posting a link to the transition team in his article I found this information from IMB.
http://imb.org/updates/storyview-3490.aspx#seasoned
Q: Why would IMB ask seasoned missionaries to leave the field instead of freezing or decreasing the number of new missionaries sent out in the next few years? (added 9/10/15)
A: Leadership concluded a two-phase plan is the most viable option based on four factors:
1.) Every type of person in the IMB is important, including long-termers and short-termers, staff and missionaries, younger personnel and older personnel, new missionaries and seasoned missionaries. Therefore, IMB leadership is asking all IMB personnel to consider what God is leading them to do.
2.) Initial steps are absolutely voluntary. Everyone working at IMB has been asked to voluntarily decide whether God is leading him or her to a new phase of involvement in mission outside the IMB, and the voluntary retirement incentive provides an avenue for some people to voluntarily leave the IMB if they sense the Lord leading them to do so.
3.) Sending people through the IMB is necessary. This factor is born out of a conviction that new missionaries being sent from churches through the IMB is a foundational, non-negotiable part of the IMB’s purpose. Also, a decline in sending missionaries historically results in a decline in IMB’s relationship with SBC churches. Furthermore, of the approximately 300 new missionaries IMB has planned to send in 2015 and 2016, respectively, more than half of that number includes short-term missionaries. If IMB were to freeze sending new missionaries, within three years IMB would have zero apprentices or journeyman on the field. Among 300 new missionaries in 2016, only 135 of them will be long-term. That number is approximately one-third of the people IMB sent a decade ago.
4.) Cutting or freezing new missionary sending doesn’t address IMB’s immediate need to fix its long-term cost structure. IMB must get to a place of short-term financial responsibility and long-term financial sustainability, and simply freezing the number of new missionaries for the next few years will not solve that problem. However, IMB leaders have considered they may need to make adjustments in the number of new missionaries sent in the future.
During his Q&A with EC members, Platt acknowledged the possibility of a “less voluntary” process of reducing employees in the future if not enough opt to pursue new avenues of ministry.
http://bpnews.net/45527/ec-calls-for-increased-cp-to-remedy-imb-shortfall
David R. Brumbelow
There’s nothing surprising, or new, about the process. IMB cannot support 5250 employees. If VRIs do not yield enough separations they must be made involuntarily.
This stuff hasn’t gotten to the difficult parts yet.
William,
My point was simply that some are implying there is absolutely no pressure on any missionaries to accept the VRI.
I think the above quote is strong evidence that many missionaries are under much pressure.
David R. Brumbelow
http://www.bpnews.net/31674
This article from 2009 shows that there was already a huge problem. The prediction was by 2010, 600 missionaries would have to be withdrawn from overseas.
Most churches could step up their mission giving, I am concerned about the “it ain’t going to happen” statement related to state conventions possibly reducing staff and increasing mission giving overseas. Some have and some will. All could!
Bill, you may be right about “most churches could step up their giving.” I have limited knowledge of only a few of the 50,000 churches, so I can not speak with any authority about most.
Of the few churches I know of, I don’t see them as able to “step up giving” (percentage wise) and remain viable. Usually, in the typical church “stepping up mission giving” often correlates with reducing staff salaries, which in most churches means the single pastor.
I’ve fallen on the sword of that guilt many times over 40 years of ministry. I’m not sure I believe in the “just step it up and it will all work out” mantra, anymore.
Just to maintain status quo, our church must “step up our regular giving” by 20%. That will translate to sum additional funding for the IMB, but not significantly. And, that’s just to maintain where we are, which becomes increasingly difficult to do year after year. So, either I am not like most churches, or your evaluation needs to be reconsidered.
Our church is as generous as most in regard to the IMB. We give about $75 per capita each year to Lottie Moon. That’s down from $100 a few years ago. We give moderately to the CP. We give equally generously to Annie Armstrong.
I think an argument could be made that the CP has become a “sacred cow” and is actually harming missions, rather than helping. If all the 50,000 churches grow, mission giving grows also. But, growth requires money. Money given to win people overseas cannot be used to win people across the street.
My feeling from the last ten years or so is that the denomination feels the “answer” to our ills are new churches. After all, we all know that a new church grows 10 times faster than an existing church. Yet, they die at least 10 times more than existing churches.
Basically, my impression (and I’m an convention outsider) is that many typical CP giving churches feel they have received a “kick us to the curb” attitude from denomination leadership. Revitalization of churches has only be a token effort at best in my neck of the woods.
I would have taken a different approach many years ago to the “just step up the giving” approach. I would followed a “rising tide floats all boats” approach and focused more on the health in existing churches. Sadly, that approach will not make much of an immediate impact in this present crisis.
I’m offering no authoritative answer to the issue. Good men and women are addressing the issue as best they can. There are many pressures (internal and external) upon budgets that must be contended with.
I’m in a quandary as to how to position my church to help–even if that is possible. Right now, economically my hands are tied. Perhaps if we continue to pray for revival, God will open up the heavens and provide for our needs. That is my hope. Praying for revival is something my church CAN do.
$75 per capita is very good for LM. All the giving increase plans are too little, too late. The CP increase just lets the states suck up most of the money.
I’ll give more to LM this year because a $10-$20m increase would give IMB more flexibility in the mid-term future.
I have absolutely no interest in giving more to state conventions. I have seen first hand too much waste and quite honestly extravagance. Why a state staff must go to Hawaii for a staff retreat when the state owns a retreat center is completely beyond me. Why high end autos must be provided as oppose to more conservative models is beyond me. Why a state needs so much staff is beyond me.
Lottie moon is the route to go in dealing with this problem.
LM is the route but will not stave off the reductions. To be fair, for the past six or eight years state conventions have cut a lot of jobs.
William t
Every time I make up my mind you confuse me with the facts !!!
William, I may be seeing it wrong, but it seems we (SBC) are in competition with ourselves. We do so much and the result of years of giving is an increase in CP ministries and a cut back at the IMB.
The IMB has been the glue that has held the Convention together in hard times in the past. When the word finally gets around to the people in the pew that we have “cut” missionaries it will not be good for the CP giving.
I am only speculating, but I think that typical churches will pull back on CP giving and push Lottie Moon giving. If it is discovered down the road somewhere that the Convention simply transfers some expenses to Lottie Moon, it will kill LM.
There is more at stake than I think Dr. Platt realizes. I’m not so sure a passion for missions immediately transfers to good management of a mission organization. It is going to take more than a few good sermons to navigate these waters.
I am skeptical that the entire movement of the last few years to transfer the helm of the SBC ship to a “younger crowd and newer churches” will prove to be altogether successful. I pray that it will ultimately, but I’m not sure that in the time it takes to recover I’ll still be around.
I plan to do what is “expedient” to quote from Aristotle and plan a course for renewed ministry in my local church. I don’t know what that means exactly at this point. I am taking it one step at a time. So far, Dr. Platt has not called for any input from me or to seek any assistance from my church, so I only have what I can glean from blogs and baptist press bits.
Definitely, this year is “all out for Lottie Moon.” My goal is going to be $100 per capita for 2016. We are starting special “Lottie By the Week Shoeboxes.” It is still September with a little over 13 week until Christmas. I think $100 per week through our “Lottie By the Week Shoeboxes” could make for a banner Lottie Moon Offering in our church.
I’m just one little fish in the big SBC pond but we can do what we can.
The future is secure in Christ but unknown to us. One thing about the generational transfer at IMB: the problem is being solved by a thirtysomething. It only got worse under a seventysomething…though we allot to all the best intentions.
Most churches could step up their mission giving. I am concerned about the “it ain’t going to happen” statement related to state conventions possibly reducing staff and increasing mission giving overseas. Some have and some will. All could!
First let me say that I love the IMB. However any organization has its difficult moments. One problem the IMB has is that it is still operating on an old model. The IMB would be very well served to look at some of the growing sending organizations that are doing things in a very different way then the IMB has operated in the past. Most have a very streamlined organization structure and a very strong connection with the missionaries and the sending churches. Out of my current church we have sent 3 units in the past 3 years using 3 other sending organizations due to the difficulty of currently going as IMB. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. However a simple conversation with the Directors of those agencies would be insightful as they operate on such a tiny budget compared to ours yet send more missionaries than we do.
As I really have very limited information on running the IMB I cannot say if what they are doing is the only good option. However, a major restructuring is needed to meet the needs of our current churches and the world. One constant if you ask any field personnel is that they would say that the IMB is very top heavy.
Can anyone answer the question why are we getting rid of veterans and bringing on new ones? Makes no sense. If you can’t afford the old ones how can you afford the new ones?
It is going to really hurt us to lose some of the old guys. Everyone knows that. But part of this is also repositioning. We have been repositioning Ms for ten years now. Many who live in places that have a strong national church have known for some time that their time is almost up. They must resign or move and learn a new language in a very different place. For those in this situation over 50 this VRI is a good deal- and a much better way of honoring these we love than saying, ‘move to Whosewhatistan or be fired. As a twenty year guy myself I cost the company a LOT more than the new guys. I have 800 dollars per month in longevity pay, my high school age kids cost a fortune to educate, and let’s face it…. my medical bills are getting bigger as I get older! New appointees don’t take the place of the old guys, they go to the new places we are trying to get to.
Mark, that is a great question.
You see, that is why I stopped commenting a couple years ago. I don’t communicate on the blogs well at all. I just answered Mark’s question in a way that I thought was very clear and Jack comes on an hour later saying, ‘good question’ as if no one has even tried to answer it.
I am going back to Middle Earth.
I, for one, that your comment was very helpful. It framed it in a way that gave me a few new thoughts. For one, I think we are prone to compare this to a company which lays off those close to retirement and puts new young whippersnappers in their place to do the same job. But that’s really not the case. It’s as if the company has changed and will now be moving headquarters to China. You’ve got a group of young people willing to start their family there and folks near retirement who aren’t nearly as easily positioned to pack up and start over somewhere else. That helps to understand a bit more what is going on here. I know there are holes in that analogy but I think it is pretty close to what is happening.
I thought you communicated very well Strider. Some people just don’t like what they read, so they put their fingers in their ears and go “lalalala” no matter what you say.
Sorry, Strider you feel persecuted. My comment fell where the blogosphere says it shall fall.
My comment referred not only to the original question but to all those that had answered and would answer.
I’m sorry you feel left out. I was on my phone so perhaps my reply was too short. Or, perhaps it was too long and should have been, “Amen.”
That is not only a pertinent question but a key one–though not the only issue of course.
Had I not been on my phone I might have typed, “That’s a good question. I look forward to seeing all the replies to that as well as the discussion in general. This is a multi-faceted problem and many perspectives are needed.”
That obviously would be too much to type on my phone.
Again, sorry to have offended you.
PS–Strider, I felt you may some very good points, though I am not sure I agree 100%. You offered a perspective that had come to my mind but I wasn’t sure whether I agreed with it or not. Obviously, some feel this is a good rationale for moving out older missionaries.
There are a couple of things in the mix that have impact that have not been addressed. My comment here is late as usual but for what it is worth here are some things important for us to consider.
Jerry Rankin made an act of faith when he called for 8000 Ms to ‘finish the task’ of global evangelism. He believed that we could do it and needed 8000- even though we only ramped up to 5600. He also believed that it was the IMB’s job to facilitate SBC missions and more than ever are going world wide so he needed to send more. We could not afford it, but as I said, he took it as a step of faith.
Solution: First, we are not going to finish the task (as much as many hate that phrase) on our own and were never intended to. We do not disciple and send out locals the way Paul did and if we will see the world reached for Christ we must (notice Acts 20:4). So, we will downsize a lot. This means that the IMB will not facilitate all the SBC’s mission work. That’s ok. It is a globally shrinking world and I believe that the SBC should create partnerships with churches around the world and be an encouragement. Missionaries should go to the unreached meanwhile and not work on someone else’s foundation. Rankin wanted to do both. We can’t afford it and it is not necessary.
And I have said this before and will repeat it here. SBC churches are giving enough to missions to support the 8000 Jerry Rankin wanted. They just aren’t giving to SB missions. Some of my non-IMB friends don’t understand why this is a problem. I submit that this is a spiritual problem. We have for a variety of reasons become Independent Baptist who don’t cooperate the way we used to. Some of it is probably because of the distrust coming out of the Conservative Resurgence, some of it is that this generation just gives to what they can see (and I will go too far here and say, ‘what they can control’), and some of it is because the WMU has been pushed out and we no longer have the powerful missions training engine we relied on for so long. We can probably add more blame if you think blame is helpful. I don’t. I think we need to get on our knees and seek what God wants for our Churches and for His mission. This issue is spiritual. We have been proud and we have not heard His voice and understood what He is doing in the world. If we really seek Him I believe we will find ways to cooperate together to serve Him and we will have the privilege of seeing him transform the world.
Amen, so be it that we fall on our knees and seek Our Mighty Lord and God, The Only Answer to our spiritual problems! Our spirit of cooperation is NOT what it used to be, and what loyalty do we have to the missionaries that have devoted their life in obedience to God’s calling to go to serve away from their family and make that “foreign” land their home? Our family requested last Christmas that the Lottie Moon Offering be explained & special offering taken at our church, however, it again remained a very meager budgeted item–no mention of International Missions, no call to prayer, no offering envelopes, no way to give on-line through our church. Our church body as a whole doesn’t even realize that there has been a shortage of funds–our pastor and leadership has never even mentioned it! So sad to see one of the strongest pillars of our denomination have to make cuts. And yet, we know that God is still very much at work and we must be obedient in being good stewards and not spending money that we do not have. Trusting God and praying! You nailed it, in writing your opinion. Thank you!
Dave,
If you are so righteously offended by my use of ‘bff’; you should man up dis-allow Tony’s extracting a quote from a comment that no longer exists.
Dale
Has anyone called for a solemn assembly to humbly seek the Lord in this situation?
Frankly, if the VRI doesn’t yield the desired numbers, the involuntary cuts should come from new hires, not older ones. Firing people and hiring new ones just doesn’t sit right with me. I’m OK with a VRI, but reducing the number of new missionaries should come before firing long serving ones.
Bill Mac, I’m with you on that 100%. I don’t know if Dr. Platt knows what it is like to be 54 and looking for a job–any kind of job, but especially a job pastoring a church.
I hope someone at least brought this up in discussions.
PS–I am assuming that the VRI will not be sufficient for someone to live on. Somebody may know if that is correct or not.
It is not.
Jack: I am confused as to who you are. It seems you pass yourself as being one of the missionaries in one blog, or at least someone who is and here a pastor, layman? May I ask what your vocation is?
Debbie, I have never posted on another blog. I am not intending to “pass myself off” anything but a fellow SBC’er.
I don’t make such assumptions about others, such as yourself. I do not think anybody here is trying “to pass themselves off” and deceive anybody.
As I said, I only read one blog–it’s all I have time for (and probably don’t have time for Voices).
That should be, at least someone who is having to consider the VRI. I could be mistaken which is why the questions.
No, I am just one of the many pastors who is and will be called upon to pay for the VRI and the on-going work of the IMB (and other entities).
Two years ago our church was giving about $120 per capita to Lottie Moon and about $80 to Annie. We have plummeted to just over $75 per capita last year. Our small church lost hundreds of thousands in the crash a few years ago.
So, my interest in the IMB is as a supporter who understands, I think, a little of the agony that Dr. Platt and the Trustees, and others feel over this setback.
For more than a few reasons, I am not a ardent fan of Dr. Platt. I would not have voted for him. Yet, he is in the position and I support him, though may disagree with his approach. Then again, I may agree more than I know if I knew more. I am assuming good men and women are trying to do the right thing.
I’m just one voice in the SBC–and a pretty insignificant one at that.
PS–I do have experience in being 54 years old and suddenly having to look for work, so I think I can appreciate that element of the VRI.
Jack
If you want to feel insignificant, move to Montana. We don’t even have representation on the boards or EC 🙂
Rodney, thanks for your blog, your FB page, and your deep concern for us. I remember meeting you on Monument Ave. back in 2000 I believe. Back in the day when facilitating people who were wanting to follow God’s call was what the IMB was all about. When signing up for career missions was a life-time covenant between the God, the IMB, and me. I gave away my little Honda Accord, and boarded that plane knowing that I was going to spend the rest of my life sharing the Good News with the Jiarong Tibetans.
What has happened at the board has happened. I’m sure there’s no going back now. I fear the IMB will implode someday. God’s purpose for the nations will continue, but for now, it seems that man(Satan?) has won. Reality now is that several hundred committed, seasoned, experienced missionaries will be leaving the field. My heart broke yesterday as I watched an old movie about Mount Everest. It featured footage of Tibetans taken back in the 30s. Tibetans, SOULS that live in villages 10,000-20,000 feet. And I prayed that some of those newly appointed missionaries will sense a call to climb those mountains, and bring the Good News to those people who worship evil spirits, and live a life of doubt and fear. People in bondage to spinning prayer wheels, and worshipping in temples whose walls are painted with all sort of evil, mean, and punishing spirits. Lighting yak butter candles, in hopes that something in the spirit world, will bless them.
I’m stepping aside, with the prayer that those 300 new appointees will filled with zeal, and power to reach the UPG for whom my heart has been broken for these past 15 years.
I don’t remember if the ban on prayer language coincides with the dates when spending went mad. But part of me wonders if banning prayer language, and denying candidates who practiced such, wasn’t a ploy of the devil, and a slap in the face to Holy Spirit?
Sorry to go on and on…:-(
Hearing from Strider and now this is so hard to read. This is what having a missionaries heart is and there is no greater witness than this. It is also the most heartbreaking to read.
I come back to a previous point. God WILL prevail. Could it be that God will raise up someone beside SB to do great things in the world? I say this because I have felt for many years that we have had the attitude that we are all God has. I have been a Sb all my Christian life which is a long time. My heart break because of the slide in several ares I see.
This is not a gloom and doom statement, it is a we need real revival statement.
All:
My heart breaks for those who have not heard the Good News. For 33 years now I have led a charge in each church to raise Missions offerings while trimming CP offerings. The time has come for Pastors to call it like it is. In the state of Alabama, our three Baptist universities receive more money from CP gifts than do IMB missionaries.
We must evaluate the effectiveness of both state conventions as well as local associations. We invest most heavily in the areas where the most is already being consumed.
I fully support the leadership of the IMB. They have my prayers, my heart, and hands. Until one has personally made such decisions we must refrain from casting stones. It is too easy to second guess those who are doing their best for the Kingdom, especially when they act differently than we want.
Perhaps we could ease the rhetoric by allowing only those who have raised the funds to offer a voice, rather than those who have consumed them.
An analogy and thoughts.
If you walk through a mountain pass and a large bolder falls, knocks you down and finds a final resting place on your leg and traps you, what do you do? Night fall is hours away and the temp will be -20 tonight, what do you do? You exhaust all effort in moving the bolder, the pass is hard and seldom traveled so the possibility of help zero, what do you do? You finally make the decision as you see the only option to survive. You tie the tourniquet tight, pull out your large knife and… DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE. Will you survive? Only God knows and time will tell. Is it excruciatingly painful? YES!! Will it take time to recover. Yes, lots. Will you be questioned of why you did it? Without a doubt. Will it impact you the remainder of your life? Yes!
First this is written from the perspective of a current field unit that does not qualify for the VRI. However, with 10 years of service I am now responsible for walking units through this process who do qualify. In a tiny country with almost 40 units 13 qualify. Of those 13, 7 will accept, 2 more seriously considering, 2 are maybes and 4 saying no. Those 7 amount to 175 years of experience. In realtime, this will be equivalent to loosing both our legs. After the “fall out” of VRI, with only 10 years service, of those remaining in this country, mine will be the the 6th longest tenure in total years served and 4th longest in this country.
Please understand, after the VRI aka “first phase” there is a “second phase” whereby personnel will be encourage to “raise their hands” to say “I feel the Lord telling me to leave”. It has been made clear, NO, there is no possibility phase two will be avoided regardless the number accepting the VRI. Then why delay? Well those in the second phase will also be offered an incentive. Again, why wait? If there is a budget for this entire process, which we must believe there is, the balance available to use for a second phase incentive will not be known until those accepting the VRI have been accounted for.
Personally I have two insights.
1- If I do not believe those in leadership are not bathing these decisions in prayer or that God’s Wisdom is not being used… I need to pack my bags and go home.
2- As Don Dent stated in a post, (paraphrased) life is unimaginably easier “back home” and on a personal level I would go back today … IF … it were not for the Call of God, my Master, on my life. ONLY His timing is sovereign, so as clearly and quickly as the Holy Spirit descended on me making known His will for me to serve, God and God alone can, and may chose to do so, tell me it is time to serve in another way. This may be today, tomorrow or 10 years from now. When Master directs, man, including IMB, should not stand in my way.
To God be the glory, forever and ever, Amen
Serving in Him and for Him