A couple of people have said, “Why is this the first we are hearing about this?”
There is one answer. Because you didn’t listen to David Platt’s wonderful, home run, blisteringly passionate, (yes) radical statement at the SBC in Columbus. The fact that the SBC is deficit spending was his OPENING POINT. He led off with this, before he began to deal with the new policy changes.
David Platt’s IMB Report at SBC 2015 from David Tarkington on Vimeo.
If you haven’t watched this, do so. He made it clear that financial problems existed at the IMB. Evidently they were not ready to roll out the whole thing.
I challenge anyone to listen to this – actually listen to it – and find something to actually be upset about!
This was one of the most electric moments of the convention. I am sorry that so many decided to skip this.
Listen. Listen. Listen. Some of your preconceived and ill-conceived prejudices might just fall away when you get the facts, folks.
I seriously have mad respect for David Platt.
He has so much energy, it wears me out to listen to him.
I can honestly say I’ve never met anyone more dead earnest about the gospel. “Intense” doesn’t begin to describe him.
Yes, the information has been out there. It has been communicated clearly and often. Why have people not heard? There are a couple of reasons I can think of:
1) We live in an information-saturated world. Basically, it gets lost in the din. You used to be able to print announcements in the church bulletin and know that people will see it. The reality is that too few read the bulletin anymore. How much less will they catch communications coming from the Conventions?
2) That being said, people will prioritize what information they consume, and will limit themselves to what they are interested in. The fact is that most people are less interested in this than other things.
I look forward to seeing the direction Dr. Platt takes the IMB in this process. We should never be satisfied with the status quo and need to always evaluate what we are doing so that we can continually improve our efforts in a changing world.
Well, since you pleaded for us to watch it, I forced myself. It was hard, because just like Ezell, Platt gave little through the CP before he became President, and that’s hard to get over. I also disagree with the new monasticism in his book “Radical” and know of a pastor who was fired trying to implement it. I disagree with Platt over the use of the Sinner’s Prayer in evangelism. I did not favor his candidacy. So I was not inclined to watch it. But you challenged us to do so and “find something to actually be upset about.” Thus, here is my list:
1. While he mentioned a $21 million deficit this year, he neglected to mention the six-year total of $210 million—an average of $35 million per year—that forced the IMB to draw upon reserves and sell off property. Aside from the US government, the IMB is the only organization to which I give money that spends millions more than it receives. That we were not told about it sooner is not on Platt, but it does upset me.
2. By the 2:15 minute mark, he had mentioned the Cooperative Program twice, but never apologized for the weak level of giving by his church when he was a Pastor. It would have been the perfect time to show contrition. Even Kevin Ezell did that.
3. When he suggested at 2:33 that we must get rid of the full-time missionary model cap in order to have more missionaries on the field, he was advocating for a strategy I believe will ultimately weaken the definition of a missionary. Students, professionals and retirees on the field are great, but we should not confuse them with real missionaries. In other words, the definition of “missionary” is being changed, I believe, for the worse.
4. When he suggests that there will no longer be a cap if we simply redefine the meaning of missionary to include these other witnesses overseas, I think this is quite inaccurate. There is still a “cap” for there is a limit to the number of those part-timers that we send over as well. Whatever the number, there is still a cap, at some point, so the notion that there will no longer be a cap is untrue. It is a practical reality.
5. At 3:49 he mentions self-supporting students, professionals and retirees. If they are truly self-supporting, they can do that right now. There’s nothing to stop them at all. This is nothing new. I hope he will not try to count them as part of our Southern Baptist international missionary force as if they were appointed missionaries. They are just Southern Baptist Christians overseas. Everybody has to live somewhere and wherever they live, they are witnesses for Christ. We don’t call a Southern Baptist living in Alabama a North American Missionary. So we shouldn’t call a Southern Baptist living in England, say, a missionary with the IMB. Platt may be redefining here, but he is not creating anything new. And the numbers we will see in the future may reflect this misleading approach to missionary accounting.
6. At 7:42 he seems to gloss over the concerns about Private Prayer Language and the new policy adopted relative to automatic applicant disqualifications. While I am pleased to hear him disaffirm any approach that would lead to “charismatic chaos” (yes, Platt gets points here for saying that), I nevertheless feel he did not clarify that the policy does indeed allow a PPL applicant to continue in the process—which seems to me to be a waste of time if PPL practicing missionaries are not eligible.
7. A moment later, he addresses the divorce policy in a similar manner, claiming the IMB is not lowering the standard, but then turning around to say that if a person believes in the BFM and has been baptized and wants to share the gospel, then the doors are open, but not really clarifying if he’s talking about divorced missionaries being among that group, which certainly WOULD BE a lowering of standards.
8. At 9:30 he concludes with “until the concept of unreached people” is completely irradicated. Here I have a bit of a philosophical difference with Platt. I want to share with every single lost soul on earth wherever they can be found—reached people group, unreached people group, wherever. Platt views the Great Commission from a “frontier” perspective more than a “harvest” perspective. It’s not a huge deal, but the challenge was, “find something that actually upsets you.” This does. Let’s not just talk about “people groups.” Let’s talk about “individual lost souls” who need Christ.
Generally, Platt’s vision, philosophy, strategy and record of CP giving upset me. On a positive note, I do like his passion.
As the teens say these days:
“Haters gonna hate”.
For the record, I love the SBC, I love the IMB, I love Dave Miller and I love Dave Cline. My hatred is reserved for the devil and any team playing against the Cowboys.
I thought we were talking generally about concerns regarding a policy decision and ministry philosophy, and specifically about any red flags that might have gone up during the posted ten minute report.
Dr. Patrick,
My dear brother, I would like to interact with your list.
First, concerning your opening salvo, “Radical” hardly promotes a “new monasticism,” as anyone familiar with the book and Dr. Platt’s life and ministry well knows. The “I know of a pastor” hand waving is rather timeworn. Many people are capable of driving a perfectly good car into the ditch.
Point #1: Dr. Platt met the issue of the IMB’s deficit head-on. Brother, that you raise this as the first issue about which you are upset seems to indicate unwarranted prejudice.
Point #2: The Church at Brook Hills’ commitment to missional outreach speaks for itself. Anyone familiar with the church is aware of this commitment, and those who selected Dr. Platt for the IMB presidency did not overlook the church’s effective mission strategies. No apology tour is necessary.
Point #3: Your contention that students, professionals, and retirees on the field are not “real missionaries” and will “weaken” the definition of a missionary is disconcerting. The NT model of none other than the apostle Paul—who enlisted a significant number of laypersons in his missionary efforts—buttresses Dr. Platt’s vision here.
Point #4: Brother, I think objective individuals understood what Dr. Platt meant by removing the cap.
Point #5: See my response to your point #3. I really do not understand your angst here, and your seeming denigration of those who would commit their lives and resources to carry the gospel to foreign fields is truly startling. After all, Dr. Platt is advocating that such individuals would labor as a team under the leadership of a qualified church planter reporting directly to the IMB…again, not unlike the Pauline model.
Point #6: I think Dr. Platt was quite clear that PPL devotees need not waste their time applying.
Point #7: Brother, a real difference exists between lowering a standard and correcting a rule to which we all know there are exceptions.
Point #8: Pardon the pun, but you seem to be really reaching here. Generally, we should limit our lists to seven points…or five points…
Dr. Platt is not a flawless man, but many of us think he will be a solid IMB president. If passion for the advancement of the gospel and dead earnestness count for anything, he may be an extraordinary IMB president.
Grace to you.
Absolutely well said.
Rick, that you watched that gem of passionate call to mission service with that kind if critical spirit is discouraging but not surprising.
Safe to say that the small percentage of SBCers in that certain camp will never do anything but snipe at Platt’s actions.
He showed real leadership today, tackling a problem that has been ignored for most of a decade.
Dave, Randall and Tarheel,
At the very least, you have misread my heart on this matter. Tarheel used the word “hate.” Randall used the words “salvo” and “prejudice.” Dave used the term “critical spirit” and “discouraging.” Absolutely none of that is accurate. None. God knows my heart.
Do I have questions? Yes. Concerns? Yes. Disagreements even? Certainly. Do I feel like the SBC has gone all Rehoboam on us—listening to the young men rather than the older ones? Absolutely. Do I want to know where the grownups in the room were as that $210 million in reserves was being spent over the past six years? I sure do. I have opinions about these matters—strong ones.
But there’s no need or reason to challenge my love for the SBC or my loyalty to her—to act like I’m some critical curmudgeon somewhere with an axe to grind. That’s just not my heart.
When Dave challenged us to find things in the report we didn’t like, I looked for them and found them. Then, he got upset with me for having a “critical spirit!” That’s kind of a setup. Dave, if you don’t want to know the answer, don’t ask the question.
Everyone is not going to support every single thing that David Platt does. I didn’t like his selection. I didn’t like his non-support of the CP. I didn’t like the Glossolalia policy change. Ironically, today’s decision I had no problem with in light of the finances—up until I learned the cuts would not be accompanied by a hiring freeze, which only seemed logical to me.
May God bless the IMB and David Platt. May God bless everyone at SBC Voices. I bear no ill will whatsoever toward any of you. I simply disagree with some of the initiatives coming down the pike in the New SBC. If you need me to go away, feel free to block me.
“Do I feel like the SBC has gone all Rehoboam on us—listening to the young men rather than the older ones? Absolutely.”
Come on Rick…..Dare I use a hashtag with the word “facepalm” attached to it?
Tyler,
I see it at the ERLC in the communitarian approach. I see it with the growing societalism replacing the cooperatism. I see it in a more relaxed attitudes toward beverage alcohol. One even sees a growing Charismatic influence in New Calvinism among the younger generation.
Facepalm all you like. The new SBC is listening to the voices of younger leaders like Moore, Ezell and Platt. I happen to disagree with much of what they’re doing.
It’s interesting. Where you see a Reheboam, I see a Timothy. And by the way, you don’t need to by 70 years old and apart of the Conservative Resurgence to be a leader. Most the men you mentioned are almost middle aged, in fact one is the definition of middle aged. And I guess it’s all about perspective. I think these men are leading well. I’m thankful for these men. I think they are all incredibly Gospel Centeeed, not moralist centered which tends to happen in many SBC churches. I think if Paul were here he would say “Do not look down on them because of their age.”
Tyler,
Yes, it’s not so much their age as their counsel. No matter their age, I believe they are not leading the SBC in the right direction. There is little to distinguish the SBC today from just a plain evangelical church.
To clarify, my concern is not so much with their age as with the direction I see the SBC headed—more of the societal method, more partnerships with outside groups, more influence from TGC, more non-SBC staff being hired, etc.
I guess it’s a difference in perspective. I think the last 10 years have been great for the SBC.
The adults in the room while the $210M in debt were being accrued were Tom Elliff and Jerry Rankin. Would you care to hold either of those old guard non Cals accountable? Seriously Rick.
Actually, yes, Ryan. And the trustees. I feel the $210 million figure was grossly underreported. I have publicly praised Platt for this. I agree something needed to be done, and I’m glad he did it.
But none of this is my biggest concern. If finances are the problem causing you to cut staff, you don’t keep adding the same number you did before. You freeze. They’re not. How can they justify hiring on the same number they’re laying off?
They are not hiring the same number they are laying off. Just not true.
That is a fair question, Rick. It is one that I am not as concerned about as you are, but it is a fair question. But your accusations of sinister motives on the part of Platt is wrong when plausible explanations have been offered to you as to why they are not freezing appointments.
In fact, if you want an explanation for your question from the IMB, I am sure they would be willing to provide it.
Adam,
What do you mean by “accusations of sinister motives” on the part of Platt? I don’t recall anyone on this thread, and certainly not me, discussing any “sinister motives.”
So you must be talking about something else and referring to it using the language of “sinister motives.” What is that topic? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Rick, you have been very clear that you believe this is about a REPLACEMENT of missionaries, not simply a reduction. Perhaps my understanding of what you are saying is colored by your tendency to view everything through Trad/Cal colored glasses. If that is not what you were suggesting when you wrote of replacement missionaries, I apologize.
Either way, I think you should contact IMB to get an explanation for your concern if you are concerned and do not have an ax to grind.
Adam,
Thanks for clarifying. What I meant by REPLACEMENT is simply this: under most downsizing plans, you have a REDUCTION ONLY—you subtract the number of people, but you don’t compound the problem by adding more staff to counteract the reduction—and you certainly don’t add the same number you drop.
This plan does that. For financial reasons, we must reduce by at least 600 missionaries. The VRI will be implemented in 2015-2016. Fine.
Then we are told we plan to ADD 600 missionaries over the same time frame—300 in 2015 and the same number in 2016. So it becomes 600 OUT (VRI) plus another 600 OUT (attrition) and 600 IN (new hiring).
One must wonder why, in lieu of this Voluntary Retirement Incentive, we did not simply freeze hiring for two years. The 600 “cut” would be the ones who never came on board to begin with, instead of the faithful workers now facing a transition they really don’t want to make or they would have made it already.
My experience with contacting SBC agencies, both at NAMB and at ERLC, has been routinely poor. I get a form letter by a Communications Specialist saying lots of nice words that do not get to the heart of my concern and accomplish nothing.
I don’t need another boilerplate response letter.
If it comes to freezing hiring then it must be done. As to the decision to continue 300 or so appointments, I trust the Board to manage this number. It wasn’t many years ago that we had over 1,000 appointments in a given year.
If the Board announced a total freeze on personnel hiring for a several year period then I’d expect the pipeline for new people to just about empty itself as candidates made other plans for their future.
If enough retirements and resignations are generated by the incentives and normal attrition that’s a wiser route. Will it work? Don’t know. No one does. We will find out before the end of the year, though.
Actually, my challenge was to watch Platt, hoping his passionate spirit might cause some if the knee-jerk critics to realize he’s actually doing something good to fix a problem he v didn’t create.
I predicted this am the kind of stuff we would see. David Worley and you have made my prophecies come true.
In modern vernacular the phrase “haters gonna hate” is not as vile as you’re making it, Rick.
It simply means ones bias is revealed by thier actions or in this case comments.
Your bias against all things Platt/Ezell is very, very well known.
I’m convinced if they contended that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship, praise and devotion leading to intense worldwide proclamation of the gospel to unreached people’s – you’d object….. Wait….oh.
I have never objected to anything of the sort. If I am not allowed to object to strategies, ministry philosophies, or policies—and still be considered a loyal Southern Baptist who loves Jesus and supports the Great Commission—then we have much bigger problems than a Mission Board Funding Crisis.
We MUST be allowed to think with discernment and evaluate the decisions and actions of our leadership without charges of disloyalty. Again, in the present case, I have clearly supported Platt in the VRI decision. My only real concern was and is the lack of a freeze to solve the financial crisis quicker.
When Dave posted the whole report and said, “find something to get upset about” I did. It was prompted. David Platt is a good man who loves Jesus. All of his decisions are not beyond reproach. If we start treating leaders that way, we are in trouble.
Again Rick, I’m not suggesting you are disloyal – or a non-Jesus lover – or even nonsupportive of the great commission – I am simply saying that your bias against all things David Platt/Kevin Ezell means that you, at times, end up appearing to be opposing the very things you actually support because you do not want to be seen as supporting Platt or Ezell.
It truly seems that your desire to be opposite the “Calvinists” leads you to precarious positions.
I understand that you have staked alot on being anti-Calvinist and it would be very difficult for you if some of those who have followed you think that you’re cozying up with “The Cals” in anything whether they be in the right or not.
I think this is why you tend to knee jerk toward being against whatever they say.
Can we please stop using the two terms “kneejerk” and “whatever they say?” My positions are reasoned, not kneejerk reactions, and they do not apply to WHATEVER they say, just to the ideas I disagree with.
And no, I’m not worried about what anybody thinks that about me cozying up with Cals or whatever.
Honestly, just take my actual words and don’t add all the baggage.
“Real Missionaries”
Funny…I thought all Christians were called to be missionaries. Each in their own missions field be it international, national, or even local.
Yes, in our church we seek to help every single member become a missionary. But we mean that in a very specific sense—not a full-time, seminary trained, IMB commissioned, language school graduate missionary—but just a regular Christian who witnesses wherever they go kind of missionary. There’s a difference. “Real” may not be the best word, perhaps. But there is a difference between a full-time, vocational, commissioned missionary and the kind of Christian witness we are all called to be.
Dear Mr. Patrick,
If you would listen to (or read) Platt’s sermon on lostness which is on the IBM.org website, you would understand his heartbeat is to make sure that everyone on the globe has an opportunity to hear the gospel. As to the low CP program giving; that is a problem that plagues many SBC megachurches. It really came to light when Charles Stanley was elected president of the SBC. And he has previously expressed his regret over that issue. Praise the Lord that we have a man at the helm of the IMB who is so passionate about the gospel.
I am encouraged by Platt’s direction. I still wonder why it took so long for the IMB to cry “Houston…”
Well, the bottom line is….that after GCR, name change/nickname, 50/50 splits for state conventions, and hiring Platt….we’re gonna be left supporting 4,000 missionaries….hopefully. And, before GCR, name change/nickname, 50/50, and hiriing Platt, we had 5,600 missionaries.
So, mission giving did not increase enough to keep up with inflation, cost of living, etc., even thought all of those things were done….which were supposed to cure what ailed us.
They didn’t.
David
PS. May the Lord lay on the hearts of every SB church and every SB person to pray for missions more…give to missions more…and, go on mission trips more. May the Lord truly give us a heart for missions, and for trying to win the souls of every person on this planet. Amen?
“Well, the bottom line is….that after GCR, name change/nickname, 50/50 splits for state conventions, and hiring Platt….we’re gonna be left supporting 4,000 missionaries….hopefully. And, before GCR, name change/nickname, 50/50, and hiriing Platt, we had 5,600 missionaries.”
Yes, and clearly we couldn’t afford it – hence the decade or longer of deficit spending. Someone’s gotta right the fiscal ship or soon we will be sending NO Missionaries. Just sayin’
the reduction in the missionary force was going on well before Platt was elected.
Gordon,
I never said that it did. I am speaking more about the supposed turnaround that the GCR, and name change/nickname, 50/50 splits, and Platt were supposed to bring…..to cure what AILED us.
David
Volfan,
It seems like Platt is bringing about a change.
Surely you didn’t think that such a change JUST happens simply because he is now on board?
Parson,
GCR and name change/nickname have been around a while. States have been going to 50/50 splits and laying off people, who work for state conventions for a little while now. Platt has been there….what? Time gets a way from me….a couple of years?
We used to have 5,600 missionaries. Now, we’re going down to 4,000 and maybe lower.
While I applaud Platt and the IMB Trustees for being financially responsible, that breaks my heart.
David
David, how does whining about the GCR and GCB help at this point?
David,
For what it’s worth, I do not consider your historical summary of events related to our current SBC missions strategy of a Great Commission Resurgence to be “whining.”
I think it is always appropriate to evaluate what leaders tell us they are doing. When they say this is going to be a Great Commission Resurgence, we are right to look for one. If we do not see one, we are right to ask the question, “Why?”
It’s part of evaluating whether or not we are moving in the right direction, something I don’t think we can possibly do if any such evaluation is characterized as “whining.”
Dave,
Over half the blog posts on this blog are somebody “whining” about something.
Also, I am praying for our missionaries, giving to missions, and going. That’s what I am doing. It still saddens my heart to see what is happening.
Getting rid of those less conservative was the first “magic pill” that was to spur the growth of the SBC and its mission force. How well did that work?
John
Without that it’d be worse!
Doctrinal conservatism is not the problem here.
Ah! I see! No proof needed, just a bit of pontification.
I also notice you did not dispute that this was the first magic pill which we were told would make our missionary efforts soar, bring in more revenue, and increase the number of missionaries.
John
I figured turn about was fair play…
Kinda like you offered no proof that the conservative resurgence has caused the downside – I think there is ample evidence that the economy has a big part to play in that fiscal reality.
However, if you want to know what happens to denominations that abide and kowtow to liberal theology and practice – see the missional “successes” and booming finances of of the mainline denominations. Oh that’s right….
Sorry, John – you can’t blame this one the theology of the “mean ole conservatives”.
I don’t believe I said the “conservative resurgence has caused the downside.” Actually, I would agree that economics was a major (if not the major) culprit. What I said was that I recall people making such statements as once the SBC got rid of the “moderates and liberals” mission work would multiply like gangbusters, money would pour in from those who were (then) withholding contributions because of the “liberal taint” at the mission boards, and we would have an unprecedented number of missionaries. If you want to disagree with me or my theology, fine; but disagree with what I actually said, not the words you put in my mouth.
John
Well obviously the SBC has not “gotten rid of all liberals and moderates” – have we, John?
So then . . . all that is needed is for me to leave, and the SBC will have coffers running over and 10,000 missionaries?
Tell me, which would you prefer: to interact with what I said, or to use ad hominem attacks against me?
John
I’ve thought that for YEARS, John!
John has commented here for a long time. I could be wrong but I don’t recall him saying anything particularly liberal.
I don’t get into CR debates because they predate my involvement with the SBC, but from what I have gleaned, while the ends may have been noble the means certainly were not (not always at any rate). It sounds like there were a lot of civilian casualties.
Economy of course is an issue. But unless I am missing something a major factor is the fact that we have gone from 10% average to around 5% per church giving to the CP. That is lots of scratch.
I have a concern about direct missions by a local church. If that is “new money? we are golden, but if it is a re-direction of CP funds then a problem.
Re. the CR….I don’t know if it affected the CP or not, this could be argued either way. However, the CR was not about money. It was about Scripture. I lived through those years (and before), attended many meetings and in my circle if CP drops then it drops. Scripture was viewed by those involved in the CR as more important than money. It was the moderates that kept taking about a reduced CP as it moved forward.
And John, I don’t know exactly what anyone else said, but I do believe that keeping the denomination from going down the liberal path is essential.
Show me a single liberal or even moderate (whatever that means) denomination that isn’t dying rapidly. We are plateaued with a small decline. Most of the mainline denominations are shooting downward with a trajectory that looks like a roller coaster after its initial lift!
So, yes, staying true to the Word of God is essential. Not following the mainline denominations, or the American Baptists, or the CBF, or other such groups is VERY important. It doesn’t solve all of our problems.
I tell you this, if the stuff I was taught in college and in my last year of seminary by a couple of my professors came to dominate the SBC, it would have shipwrecked us!
So, I never said the CR would magically fix everything, but I thank God for it and I believe that we are WAY better off for it than had it never happened.
Actually, what I said was not a comment on the CR/Takeover/whatever, either positive or negative. Neither was it a judgement about whether it was needed or not. It was simply a recollection of what I heard people say (no, not including you, Dave) one of its side effects would be. Consequently, there is no need to admonish me about how “necessary” it was. What would be nice would be if someone actually interacted with what I said.
BTW: am I liberal for believing that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that the Bible is the inspired, infalliable Word of God, that abortion as retroactive birth control (as well as homosexual activity) is wrong/sin, or because I believe that saving faith is more than a set of doctrinal beliefs?
John
You know my comment above was a joke, I assume.
And you and I have had this discussion before. I maintain that you believe in inerrancy and still don’t understand why you refuse to admit it!
John – I apologize – I was not calling you a liberal – but I can see how my comment, the way I phrased it, could lead you to believe that I was – I was simply saying that we haven’t got rid of all the liberals in response to what you mentioned in the previous comment.
Again, I’m sorry that I came across that way – that was not my intent. I should have phrased my comment better – or actually probably not made it at all.
(Also in fairness / you’re putting words in my mouth – I never said you should leave the SBC)
http://imb.org/update <– put your email address in and David will include you in periodic updates about the IMB straight from the President of the IMB so you're not dependent on non-IMB media for understanding news about the IMB.
OK…did that…got a message that a confirmation would be sent in “three to four weeks”.
Awesome. I picked it out of his report at the Annual Meeting. The use of church name and role suggests those might be validated before including the person on different kinds of lists. But Platt was the one making the offer. I’m sure he will make good on it.
Must have laid off some interns 😉
Dave,
Let me ask this. I did see David Platt’s report at the convention and just now looked at the video again. I heard what Platt said and asked myself a question at the end of the report that didn’t make sense then and it still doesn’t make sense. Below is the way Baptist Press reported this:
My question then and now is; “How can we “blow open that funnel” with the deficit he reported? While your title for this post is correct it seems clear that concerns abound. Why not place a hiring freeze in place? The BP reports about the “blow open” more so than the deficit. Thus, coming out of the convention IMB report I heard all about the increase in Missionaries, I heard all about the passion of our new IMB President, but I never heard anyone leaving that place say, “We have a deficit and have been operating with a negative income budget burning up our reserves at the IMB.
While I do have concerns about the replacement Missionaries, especially with the removal of the policies in May, I believe my concerns focus mainly on the logic in calling for removing missionaries and within two years being back at the same level of Missionaries. So, I will be looking with anticipation to hear our IMB President report in June that we operated on a balanced budget and did not use any of the reserves.
That is a very clear and logical argument, Tim. As I have proposed it over the past 24 hours or so, I have been widely criticized and much maligned.
They are now saying when you factor in the attrition rate, and consider other financial variables, the math works out. I don’t buy it. I believe that’s fuzzy math.
If you want to drop missionaries by 600 and staff by 200, then just do it…but don’t keep adding more missionaries and staff at the same time. You simply don’t hire and downsize simultaneously.
Another consideration worth tracking is the general recommendation driving the entire strategy, namely the desire for a six-month reserve rather than a four-month reserve. Once we hit the six-month reserve, I hope we will keep it at that level.
Because many of those who pass through the funnel will be IMB missionaries – but not all will be fully funded – and some not funded at all because they are living off of their retirement or off of Uncle Sam or whatever – Who will send the checks to whoever the people are – or maybe income from the jobs they hold in country.
*wherever they are (not whoever)
I didn’t agree with hiring Platt. I don’t agree with Platt on several issues. I think he says some things that are way too radical….falling off the edge radical. But, now he is my IMB President. I pray for him. I love him in the Lord. I want him to succeed. And, I do believe that he has had to do some of the things they’re doing to be financially responsible. We can’t just keep spending more than we’re taking in. So, my hats off to Platt and the IMB for doing what they’ve gotta do, to balance their budget.
Still, my point is….GCR was supposed to help this…..name change/nickname was supposed to help this….50/50 splits was supposed to cure this….even Platt, himself, was supposed to help this situation. They didn’t.
But, I am FOR things getting better. I am FOR more and more missionaries to be sent to the world. I am FOR more Churches giving MORE to the CP and LOTTIE and ANNIE, so we can get missionaries back on the field. I am FOR winning people to Jesus all over the world.
So, God bless David Platt and the IMB and our wonderful missionaries.
David
Thank you, David. I am glad you spent 200 words or so declaring your love for the SBC and the IMB and our leaders. It should go without saying that all of us who post at SBC Voices love and care about the SBC. If we didn’t care, we wouldn’t bother.
Sometimes, I think there are some here who believe we “oppose” the SBC or the Great Commission or Jesus or something—which is absolutely ludicrous—just because we oppose many of the directions of the New SBC, such as the GCR, the softer side at the ERLC, NAMB partnerships with groups like Acts 29, and certain IMB policies and decisions.
I hope we can eventually arrive at a reasonable place where those who support current leadership directions and those who question certain of these actions can just focus on the issues and not insinuate a disloyalty on the part of some that simply doesn’t exist at all.
No Rick – we don’t think you opposed Jesus – or the great commission – or the corporate program – but we do know that you oppose anything suggested by people with whom you disagree regarding soteriology.
That we know.
*Cooperative program
False. I do not oppose David Platt’s hope for increased CP giving. I do not oppose the model of the Missionary plus a network of “SBC Layperson Helpers” overseas. I do not oppose budget balancing.
There’s three things right there that Calvinist David Platt supports that I do not oppose. Once again, you are not being fair with me. I do not oppose ideas just because they come from Calvinists. It fits your narrative to lump and dump me into a little marginalized category, but it simply isn’t true.
My question was posed to me by a business man in our church. He knows nothing about the silly rehashing of hiring Dr. Platt or the ‘what did we know and when did we know it’ conversation. His question was simple, “Are the people who are responsible for going so far in debt out of their jobs?” It was a failure of leadership beginning with Dr, Rankin and flowing on down.
I agree with what he is asking. Where we are right now is what it is. What steps personnel wise are being taken to make certain it is corrected. The people who made this disaster possible shouldn’t be the ones who plan our way out. I am not talking about Dr. Platt, but about others.
Budget has to be balanced. Seems all agree on that at least. Basically, this comes down to a point even many if not most churches themselves are facing: money.
Platt hasn’t been in position long enough to judge IMO. But it’s crystal clear until we find a way to drastically increase funding, this will continue in the wrong direction. Budgeting only makes us solvent, not strong. It’s a necessary first step. But the root is as it has been for several years now, a buck isn’t going as far as it used to.
I don’t know what the answer is for that other than a burden among our members for reaching the world. I’m for all the creativity possible in attacking the issue, but bottom line, is the bottom line.
The regular readers of this blog know that I’m a retired IMB missionary and current missions professor. The deficit spending began during the economic recession of 2008-2009. The leaders of the IMB hoped that giving to the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon Christmas Offering would rebound in a major way when the recession ended. That rebound did not happen, at least in a major way. That is how the deficit accumulated. The IMB leaders coped with the deficit by spending down reserve funds and selling real estate overseas. Dave Miller is correct; many properties, especially in Asia, were purchased right after World War II at low prices. Now, those properties are worth a lot. The IMB has sold all its property in Singapore and Hong Kong. In other countries the sale of properties continues. David Platt and his colleagues realized that the property sales could not continue indefinitely, so they are addressing the deficit spending by reducing the budget. Because 80% of the budget is spent on missionary personnel. That is where the budget reduction must come. I believe we should declare an SBC day of mourning over these missionary reductions. We have 16 million SBC members and 46,000 churches. Surely, we could support 5,000 missionaries.
It’s always good to get the straight information, Thank you, sir.
“The deficit spending began during the economic recession of 2008-2009.” This is an important bit of context that seems to be missing from a lot of the discussion. The worst recession in 70 years created problems for lots of non-profits. The GCR began in 2009 in the midst of a recession.
Amen! It is a sad day. May our members give faithfully. Each one!
I’ve been reading some of the comments regarding freezing the hiring. I’m not sure, but I suspect that Dr. Platt’s concerns are similar to mine:
I know that not all of the foreign missionaries in the SBC are sent through the IMB. I don’t know how many aren’t. I suspect that they are being funded largely by Southern Baptists, either through line items in churches or by individual members giving. The reasons for this vary. Some are fulfilling a mission purpose that is outside of the scope of the work of the IMB in the area where they are (like working with Samaritan’s Purse, Cru, Reign, CEF, etc). Some didn’t meet some other criteria the IMB had at the time (weight, prayer language, or some kind of accommodation needs), were refused by the IMB, and now are either picked up by some other mission agency (like Wycliffe or New Tribes) or raising their own support and going it alone.
That said, if the IMB shuts down the influx of new missionaries altogether, their hopes being dashed for an appointment through the IMB, they will find other agencies and some of the funding that once went to the IMB will follow them. That’s my concern. We need to balance, but we can’t afford to stop.
They could also trust in God’s timing and wait. Some of the other agencies you mentioned do not plant churches, are full of heresy and teaching that does not accord with Scripture and/or do not have a good system of accountability for their employs in terms of work ethic etc.
Some of us had to wait and we are thankful.