One of IMB President David Platt’s favorite metaphors continues to be the “blank check.” He mentioned it in his book “Radical” and frequently uses the phrase to inspire Christians to commit themselves to great sacrifices in keeping with God’s calling.
Platt has used this comparison to praise current and former IMB workers whose lives were freely given without limiting the depth and breadth of their commitments to God.
He frequently exhorts those who are considering the Voluntary Retirement Incentive (VRI) to consider this blank check in responding to God’s guidance.
New workers who may feel a calling to give up their new status as IMB workers also received a message from Platt on the subject. In responding to concerns over the VRI, Platt said that workers would have the opportunity to sign that check and move on to other challenges. While most would not see the matter this way, Platt clearly believes the blank check applies to new workers possibly leaving the IMB.
The blank check lies before those who might volunteer to accept some sort of severance package in Phase Two. Leaving a secure job for an insecure future intimidates, and rightfully so.
There’s another check that gets overlooked, and yet the calligraphy in the sheetrock clearly points towards it. This check, though, is for those who remain.
The new IMB is not going to function like anything we’ve ever had before. Some evidence pointing in that direction:
- Platt’s elevation to the top job should have sent shock waves and tremors. He’s the first non-IMB worker to hold the presidential office since the apostle Paul. His philosophy of “the church does missions” is a subtle but important shift from past IMB visions. With this perspective, we can easily see that a visionary, missional pastor with excellent administrative skills just might be as qualified as an IMB-trained missiologist.
- Platt runs town hall meetings and chapel in button up shirts and blue jeans. This may seem like a tempest in a teacup, but SBC offices are the last stronghold of the Baptist uniform (suit and tie). Some folks treasure that formality; Platt respects tradition but is no slave to it.
- Platt’s first new appointment was an executive VP, Sebastian Traeger; a godly man with no IMB roots.
- The first major personnel move was the elimination of roughly 28 VP/associate VP positions in Richmond. That’s 28 men and women told their jobs were vanishing out from under them; these were not short-termers, either, but instead were IMB lifers who had risen through the ranks.
- Town hall summaries and post-trustee reports went to the press within minutes of their being released to IMB workers. No longer would churches find out the news from their friends on the field. Tidbits of information, written well after the fact and released to specific press outlets, are a thing of the past. Instead, staff writers seem to have the copy all but complete before President Jeans-and-Intensity takes the stage. This leveling of the informational field fits perfectly within Platt’s view of the church as the most vital missionary player.
- The man heading up some of the re-structuring in department that oversees church mobilization and involvement has tremendous credentials and knowledge. None of it happens to be about the IMB.
- The home office has opted to replace certain outgoing field strategists with US-based ministers who, for all their godliness, have never lived in the area they will be overseeing.
- Retirement policies are changing dramatically on January 1. While some see this as a natural product of economic factors, another perspective says this is a reflection of the current generation’s view that few people join a company and stay long enough to retire.
- Platt rarely speaks of sending missionaries by themselves. His goal is to send limitless missionary teams. Those teams will not be only IMB workers, but will include Great Commission Christian partners, business men, students, and volunteers. In the past we sent missionaries who then formed a team with other IMB missionaries. They utilized business men, students, and volunteers without making them a part of the team. However, since the church (and its members) carries the burden of missions…
My contention is that perhaps the largest and overlooked check is that being signed by IMB workers who are staying. A summary, if you will:
By staying I recognize that I am a part of an ever-changing IMB that will probably look, feel, and function very differently than ever before. The Home Office will not be run by IMB lifers, but by those determined to be the best fit regardless of background. I will just have to trust that our leaders have their reasons.
I will train more than evangelize. My partners will be non-IMB folks who nonetheless are missionaries just as I am. Funding might work differently. I freely choose to remain in the organization knowing full well that we know nothing of the future.
The IMB’s form and function is more of an unknown than it -literally – has ever been. I see this, accept it, and choose to remain anyway.
Sincerely,
Ethan Moore.
Ethan, I think you are probably not alone in your contention about changes in the IMB. Yet, the reason the changes are occurring only because it was not sustainable in its present form, and others had a vision of doing things differently. That in and of itself it not necessarily bad. I was in Orlando this morning and I am a Uber fan. Uber has a lot of detractors, because it has so disrupted, in a huge way, the eons long business of “taxiing”. It may not survive in the future,…but then again it may be the new normal. I… Read more »
This is terrifying look at what lies ahead — the DEATH of incarnational missions in our tent. Treating God’s called like so many nameless slaves is ungodly. It is a business model designed by a corporate killer who is a godly man with no IMB roots. > Some of the change will be good and effective. > Some will simply be change for the sake change — a personal imprint of a new designer label with the image of the new resident designer. > Most of it will be the largest impediment to the momentum of the missions sending model… Read more »
So what’s your solution? Continue to appoint more missionaries that we have no money to fund? Keep running in the red and borrow money to pay the bills? Is there any solution you can give as an alternative to cutting our missions force? If not, is there some better way to go about it than what is currently happening?
Sure this is hard, but I don’t hear anyone coming up with a better plan — just getting upset with the one stuck with making the hard decisions.
I agree with Ethan’s analysis and like him I signed the check. The point is not that the number of missionaries is decreasing. Ethan’s point is that our entire ethos, vision, strategy, missiology is changing. Many things will change for the better I am sure. But the big piece for those of us who stay is, are we welcome in the new mission? I am a twenty year guy who has learned the language, culture, made sacrifices and stayed put anyway. The result is that we are just now beginning to see real change, real fruit, the Kingdom really move.… Read more »
I wasn’t aware that Dr. platt has decided to move away from lifetime missionaries in favor of “short term teams”. My understanding though, is that he has introduced a concept where lifetime missionaries are assisted by teams of missional volunteers who will also live and serve on site but earn thier living in other ways. Both/and not either/or approach.
Platt has repeatedly said that going forward IMB will employ fully funded, partially funded, and non-funded personnel. The first group would continue to be long term.
But we will get more when the strategy is put out soon.
That has been my understanding too. Both/and. I anticipate the IMB getting more involved in equipping short termers and those desiring to do “business as mission.” Perhaps even seeing a certification process similar to NAMB chaplaincy (trained/endorsed but not funded). But I anticipate that our personnel funding will remain with long-term missionaries.
I like the concept. I do have a real concern i.e. it seems we are putting a home mission concept to a foreign mission task. They are not the same. Short termers can do labor, some administrative tasks perhaps but the culture will prevent short termers from doing serious missions. That is true at home as well. I have had teams from the South for over 20 years. They are very helpful in building buildings etc. However I have had some real issues with the difference in the culture in the Bible belt and Montana. That is many times multiplied… Read more »
Todd,
You ask a great question. In doing so actually reinforce my point.
The current plan is to CONTINUE to send novice missionaries WHILE offering experienced missionaries the VRI. Continuing to deplete reserves by retiring our best, most seasoned, most effective missionaries only to fund novices.
Two things seem self-evident.
First, in a normal year about 300 missionaries retire. Why not continue sending new missionaries while drawing down the number?
Second, don’t make the implied threat that “this is the best deal you will ever get.” That is cruel and manipulative.
Those are the most basic issues that should have been done differently.
Correction “Why not continue sending new missionaries while drawing down the number?”
Todd,
You ask a great question. In doing so actually reinforce my point.
The current plan is to CONTINUE to send novice missionaries WHILE offering experienced missionaries the VRI. Continuing to deplete reserves by retiring our best, most seasoned, most effective missionaries only to fund novices.
Two things seem self-evident.
First, in a normal year about 300 missionaries retire. Why continue sending new missionaries while drawing down the number?
Second, don’t make the implied threat that “this is the best deal you will ever get.” That is cruel and manipulative.
Those are the most basic issues that should have been done differently.
Exactly….I would like more information as to how this is cost effective.
Follow-up questions (my own brief thoughts in parentheses): Where are you getting the “this is the best deal you will ever get” information? Is this speculation, or if not, how you know that this is what the VRI includes? (I have not seen any evidence of this) What is wrong with asking seasoned missionaries to seek God’s will and give God a “blank check” to see if now, in light of the shortfall in IMB funds, is the time God would have them do something different? (I personally think this is a good approach) Do you have any indication that… Read more »
Todd, the current standard retirement package and the VRI are both better than what awaits retirees after January 1. A significant reduction in retirement benefits has already been announced.
For retirees, the VRI is, indeed, as good as it is going to get from a financial perspective.
While that may be true, I don’t see the evidence that the IMB is taking a callous, worldly business model approach that is cruel or devalues people. Sure, the decisions are tough and painful, but from an outsiders perspective, it seems that they are trying to approach the matter in a way that values and honors others, not in a way that demeans and dishonors them. If I am wrong, ok, but I have yet to see the evidence for it. All the evidence points to what we all mutually affirm — reducing missionaries is a sad and painful development… Read more »
Todd,
The statement that future offers will be less generous is a strong-arm tactic. This is at least one piece of “evidence”. There are also legitimate questions about the decision making process as well as the fact this issue should have dominated the report to the SBC, instead of just giving us a pep rally.
Again, what is the evidence that anyone has been told “future offers will be less generous”?
“Something added in at the end, after all the bombshells, was that the IMB will change its retirement package for the future. It will not be as generous. Sounded to me as though that was one more incentive to retire now”
https://sbcvoices.com/imbs-voluntary-reduction-begins-anonymous/
Donald, You did not extract the entire quote. The anonymous IMB employee who authored that article added an important caveat and you failed to include it….I am sure that was unintentional – so let me include the full quote. “Something added in at the end, after all the bombshells, was that the IMB will change its retirement package for the future. It will not be as generous. Sounded to me as though that was one more incentive to retire now, but that’s just my view.” It seems that the author was sharing his opinion of “something” he heard – not… Read more »
Tarheel, Let me correct the quote properly: “Something added in at the end, after all the bombshells, was that the IMB will change its retirement package for the future. It will not be as generous.” The missionary’s analysis of the statement was “Sounded to me as though that was one more incentive to retire now, but that’s just my view” I completely understand his “view” as that is congruent with the words spoken. Perhaps Tarheel can suggest other motivations for telling people that future retirement packages will be less generous. The one that immediately come to me is that it… Read more »
BTW, Tarheel, the quote (however much or little you want to include) is pretty clear on the content of what was said. This missionary is known to Dave Miller, so if you think he misrepresented the true content of what was told you could ask Dave to ask him that question. It all seems pretty clear to me. Despite your mocking “I am sure that was unintentional” comment, nothing I wrote was unintentional. For the sake of clarity, I exceeded the quote that would answer Todd’s question. It was VERY clear that the intent behind the announcement (of a less… Read more »
The difference is that you, Donald, are viewing what you read as some sinister, heavy-handed, “strong-arm” approach where both the blog editor and the anonymous missionary see the IMB as being generous and gracious. Editor: “My reaction is that this is VERY generous and whatever you think of the VRI, the IMB is demonstrating that it cares deeply about those who have served Southern Baptists.” Anonymous: “I think it’s generous . . . the IMB seems intent to honor its commitment to care for those who are stepping down voluntarily.” I am hearing the same types of comments from my… Read more »
Todd
We are not reducing missionaries. We are seeking to bring home the same number we are going to appoint.
I visited with a missionary who has 9 years experience. He estimates he will receive about 4-6 months salary. Is this generous…I guess that has only an opinionated answer.
I have had to dismiss two staff members as a pastor of 30 years. One with 4 years tenure we gave 6 months salary and housing….the other with 7 years tenure we gave 8 months.
Donald: Please don’t buy into the rumors coming out of the dark corners. By definition, a VRI is a temporary offer that is more generous in order to entice people to retire. When the VRI offer ends, what is left is always less generous, by definition. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an open ended VRI. That would make no sense.
Donald,
I wasn’t mocking you.
Thanks all for the feedback. Yes, I read the post (that I linked to) and understand the opinions of various folks.
The question was how we know future offers will be less generous. I know this is how it’s done in corporate America, but that begs the other questions…
I know that there are many of our missionaries to whom “generous” is not their first thoughts on this offer or the fact they are pressured to take this one in lieu of the fact the next one will be “less generous”.
Bill Mac,
You are right about how VRIs must work, except I have generally seen them offered without the spectre of continuing action to remove employees afterwards. I don’t like missionaries being left with this sort of fearful situation where they feel compelled to retire early, else be exposed to risk – all measured against their calling by God to be doing what they are doing where they are doing it.
We can treat them better….
Donald: I understand reasonable objections to this plan. But the accusations we are hearing from other corners of the internet are not just disagreements but accusations that essentially paint David Platt to be absolutely evil.
So if the VRI is in fact the best offer from a financial perspective, should Platt and company keep that information to themselves? Why do we have to assume sinister motives of strong arming people to accept the package? Isn’t it possible that the administration wants missionaries to know this is the best package so they aren’t blindsided later?
“Why do we have to assume sinister motives of strong arming people to accept the package?” The word “sinister” keeps being put into the mouths of people who never said it. That needs to stop. I don’t know their motivations, but I do know their actions. The only reason to have a “best offer you’re going to get” is to move more people to accept it – playing on the uncertainness of their future support. I question using this motivation against missionaries that are where God wants them to be doing what God called them to do and sent by… Read more »
Adam,
The difference between coercion and enticement is what happens after the offer is refused. If the VRI stood alone to entice missionaries to retire that would be something, but we all know that there is a phase 2 if the desired numbers are not met.
But we don’t know that 50+ year old missionaries are the target of phase 2. You can say you aren’t questioning motives, but that is exactly what you are doing. You are accusing those making these decisions of “strong-arming” our missionaries. Strong-arming implies ill motives.
Donald – So you’re not implying motives are bad but you are saying that actions are bad? You’re saying that they are strong arming people by their actions – how would they do that if they did not intend to strong-arm? Can one strong-arm by accident?
An accusation of strong arming behavior can be reasonably interpreted as an accusation of nefarious motive as typically no one strong arms for “good” reasons.
Also – where to actions come from if not motive?
It’s hard for me to understand how someone can be intimidating and strong arming and that not come from bad/sinful motive?
“reasonably interpreted as an accusation of nefarious motive”
Not so!
The State of Alabama “strong arms” me into wearing my seat-belt — with the best of intentions. Most parents “strong arm” their children thru behavior modification — with the best of intentions.
“But we don’t know that 50+ year old missionaries are the target of phase 2”
Exactly! The selective transparency of the decision making process (and of the plan itself) is a large part of the issue. The IMB has lost the the right to say “trust us”. The current issues should have been brought up years ago in a very public way, and this subject should have dominated the IMB report to the SBC.
Guess we have different understandings of strong-arming and intimidation tactics – i done see the, as coming from inherently good motivation.
Apparently neither does Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strong-arm
I do not strong arm my child through intimidation – I lovingly discipline him – aiming for heart touches over mere behavior modification.
I likewise do not view seat belt laws as strong arming.
strong arming (arm twisting) comes from a place of control and intimidation – thats not particularly indicative a good motive.
Doesn’t everybody know that “strong arm” comes from “strong arm robbery”; but that the term is used in the real world somewhat differently?
For examples, just google “strong arm” and maybe “article” or “book”.
Tarheel, pick your own word (I’m not going to get stuck on that rabbit trail), but regardless of the word — our missionaries deserve better.
Maybe one more minute on the rabbit trail…. “strong arming (arm twisting) comes from a place of control and intimidation – thats not particularly indicative a good motive.” I do think that you get my point in this particular denial. In the IMB/missionary relationship, the IMB has all the “control”. Putting the missionaries in a position of uncertainness, applying your control and pushing against this uncertainness by declaring the current deal is as good as it will be… (e.g We’re going to be “less generous” in the future). Tell me that if you were one of them you wouldn’t feel… Read more »
Todd
As I understand it we will continue to appoint missionaries…300 this year and 300 next to replace the hopefully 600 to 800 who will come home. So the answer to your question is, “yes” evidently we are continuing to appoint missionaries we can’t afford, or can afford, or…to be honest the more I learn of this thing the more confused I get.
DL,
I think this right – don’t hold me to it though.
Let’s say there’s 7000 missionaries now.
Minus 800 (VRI)
Equals 6200
Add 600 new appointees (as already scheduled) over the next two years
equals 6800.
Resulting in not only 200 less than the original 7000
But actually might be as much as 1000 less be on the Field in 2 years than had the 800 not retired under VRI
(as the number of missionaries could be 7800 without VRI.)
The reasoning is that every year about 300 leave naturally anyhow. (Retirement, illness, family, etc.) However, IF 800 leave “ahead of when they normally would have,” then it seems that for the next couple of years at least they won’t get the regular 300. That’s why everyone keeps saying it’s hard to understand.
Tarheel Who’s on first…what’s on second….why’s on third…sorry couldn’t resist, my brother 🙂 As an aside with my Cards losing to the Cubs I am not sure anyone was on any base, but that is another story. Seriously…I can’t get away from thinking that it is less traumatic and life altering for IMB to disappoint 600 new appointees who are still state-side than to bring 600 home who have planted their lives there. However, I will say again (1) This is all confusing to me (2) I am glad I don’t have to make those decisions (3) I am confident… Read more »
Don’t hate me DL – but
GO CUBS!
LOL
The IMB plans to appoint 300 more in 2016 an 300 in 2017, while asking 600 to 800 to come home now. Makes no sense to me. Losing 800 trained and experienced people and replacing them with people who will have to have language training, finding homes, ect. I don’t see how this saves money.
I’m not sure where the number “300” has come. According to Platt, the number this year is less than half that. Everyone says, “we are appointing 300 missionaries” but I do not believe that is necessarily true. Platt has explained this. He says we need to keep the pipeline open and flowing, not just shut down all missionary appointment. So, could you footnote your statement “the IMB plans to appoint 300” from someone other than one of the knee-jerk IMB critics? Is there evidence for that figure? I’ve not heard it from anyone but the critics. Perhaps there is evidence… Read more »
The number of career appointments this year will be 130something, if I remember correctly.
That was what I heard as well.
There is to be @300 in 2015 and 2016, respectively. This totals 600 new personnel.
****135 of the 300 in 2015 will be long-term. The others will be short-termers.
Short term? Like journeyman-type?
The thought of short term that go through appointment usually means J-Men, ISC (2+2) etc. and not programs such as Hands-On.
But its not apples to apples with the missionaries coming home who are receiving the VRI.
Dave, Apples to apples was not the point to clarifying short-term vs long-term. The response offered was in regards to your statement …….”I’m not sure where the number “300” has come. According to Platt, the number this year is less than half that. Everyone says, “we are appointing 300 missionaries” but I do not believe that is necessarily true.” When referring to appointing 300 missionaries, the statement would be true if you are including long-term AND short-term. My point was only to show where the 300 APPOINTED missionaries number was coming from and nothing else. Blessings as we all continue… Read more »
I’m just trying to understand
Thank you Ethan for sharing from your heart. I am already retired from the IMB but happen to be on the field at this time as a volunteer. I have had the opportunity to listen to and pray with colleagues I have served with for many years who have received the VRI packet. They mainly fall into three groups. Those who like Ethan decide to turn down the VRI packet and remain with the hope they can continue to answer the call that brought them to the mission field. Those who will accept the VRI package but remain on the… Read more »
To be clear…
I have no issue with the direction we are going. I know change is needed. My only point here is that usually leaving – via VRI or by the voluntary pathway coming in Phase Two – is often seen as stepping out in faith simply because it is such drastic change. In today’s IMB, even staying is a large leap into the unknown. In talking with others I get the impression that few people realize this.
What Platt has revealed about his missions vision, including the concept of “missionary teams” seems to be in line with the current trend of missiological practices in the larger evangelical world. “Business as mission,” at which which Platt seems to be hinting, is a viable strategy. Beyond the benefits of a team approach, such an approach may be the best (perhaps only) strategy for reaching the unreached/unengaged groups in closed countries. As for the “blank check” language, I’d much rather Platt ask missionaries to prayerfully seek God’s wisdom and guidance than to merely approach the decisions from a pragmatic and… Read more »
I guess it’s technically true that Platt is the first non-IMB worker to be appointed president. But I’m not sure how Tom Elliff’s very short stint with the IMB 30 years ago makes him radically (pun intended) more qualified to lead our mission board than Platt.
Took the words outta my mouth, Todd.
“He’s [Platt] the first non-IMB worker to hold the presidential office since the apostle Paul.” This isn’t true. Anyone who has ever taken a tour of the office in Richmond has seen the President’s Dining Room. It is named this because there are pictures of all the presidents of the IMB/FMB in the room. Every tour I was on had the fact that a president with field service is a, relatively, new thing. I don’t remember who the first one was, but I think it was 2 prior to Jerry Rankin. It should be easy to confirm this by calling… Read more »
Thank you, IMB Person, for the insight as well as a little impetus for me to research. See below a listing of all mission board chiefs along with their primary roles prior to taking on the job: James B. Taylor, pastor Henry A. Tupper, pastor Robert Josiah Willingham, pastor James Franklin Love, not sure (pastor, I think) T. Bronson Ray, minister Charles E. Maddry, pastor Milledge Theron Rankin, missionary (starting June 1944) Baker James Cauthen, missionary R. Keith Parks, missionary Jerry Rankin, missionary Tom Elliff, missionary/denominational leader David Platt, pastor/writer IMB Person, you are correct: we’ve spent roughly 59% of… Read more »
Ethan, can you share your reasoning of why you think field experience with the IMB is a necessary qualification for president?
I don’t think I communicated here that I believe it is necessary. The assumption in many quarters has long been that a former missionary is the best candidate to lead a missionary organization. Platt’s appointment deviates from that long-standing perspective. My inclusion of that particular point was aimed towards showing how new things are; nothing more. In the interest of full disclosure: after Tom Elliff announced his pending retirement I expressed on this site the opinion that we needed a former missionary (search “The Next IMB President”). There are some very practical reasons for this feeling, but that ship has… Read more »
It seems to me that Platt was chosen primarily for his passion for missions and the ability to motivate others to that same passion, an important qualification for IMB pres — secondarily for his work as pastor of a megachurch who actively participated in missions (btw, he had a pretty good SB missiologist on his staff and I myself am confident Platt is competent and well informed in missiology).
But Tom Elliff did not have missionary experience – save a 2 year stint 20+ years before his ascension to the presidency.
He’d too been a pastor and a denominational leader.
Todd
We elected a President of the US with no experience and see what happened….sorry could not resist that.:-)
Seriously now….Todd are you suggesting that experience in such a vital task as the leader of our mission force is not important.
Platt does indeed have executive leadership experience leading a large entity in fulfilling the Great Commission. He has extensive experience in motivating others to join in and sacrificially supporting the global missions effort. He has extensive short term experience in a variety of settings. As a pastor, he has surrounded himself with qualified people including a well-known missiologist. He has an extensive working knowledge of international church-planting methodology and strategy. He has a contagious passion for reaching the lost. I do not agree at all that Platt is unqualified to lead the IMB.
As for your presidential analogy, I hope you would not ever vote for Carson, Fiorina, or Trump. None of them have ever served in political office and by your criteria, that makes them inexperienced and unqualified to serve as president.
Just so your clear on my point — Obama never had executive experience, though he did have political experience. Platt does have executive experience leading an organization with a Great Commission mission, though he has never served with the IMB.
Todd My comment re Obama was in jest…I think that was clear. But to be absolutely clear I find no candidate who is qualified IMO, I will not vote for someone as much as I will vote against the others. Re. Platt, I did not say he was not qualified, I said and will stand by the idea that one with real foreign field experience is better qualified all things being equal. I like Platt. I really do. But he can make mistakes andI think there are some mistakes in this process. I am beginning to feel that one cannot… Read more »
“…I’ll stick with my assertion that it has been a long time since we’ve had someone without field living and working experience in the president’s office.”
That is totally true, and I would’t have said anything had I read the original to mean something like that. I took the since Paul to mean something similar to never.
For a young whippersnapper like me (snicker), 1944 IS nearly never.
For an old codger like me 1944 was like never…golly gee I was only 1 year old…that is ancient history 🙂
Todd
Who is arguing that Elliff was qualified. The issue before us is the current situation and how it should be handled.
I do believe that Eliff was qualified as I believe that Platt is. I do not believe that Elliff’s qualification for leadership was based on his missions experience but on his pastoral leadership, his unifying spirit at a time when we especially needed that. Elliff was the right man at the right time. I think the same now of Platt. Platt was chosen, I believe, because of his contagious passion for mission and missions support at a time when SBC support for missions was waning. He was chosen also because his executive leadership as pastor of a large church, led… Read more »
Agreed, Todd.