Recently, Dr. Rick Patrick (FBC Sylacauga, AL) asked some difficult questions over at SBC Today. I’d like to address his queries, even if only as part of a thought exercise. I’ll quote and summarize as best I can, but in fairness to Dr. Patrick readers would be better equipped if they read his article in its entirety.
Dr. Patrick’s article, “Evaluating Missions Support Tricky” starts by acknowledging dual tracks in financial support for SBC missions. The Cooperative Program (CP) model still exists as a valued giving tool, but the Great Commission Giving Plan (GCG) has risen as another viable option.
Dr. Patrick struggles when attempting to compare and measure these two programs; more specifically, he wonders about the overall impact of the GCG Plan as applied by large, multi-campus churches. He posits a mega/multi church giving generously via the GCG, and asks:
“Suppose they [the church] also give massive dollars directly through NAMB and IMB, creating connections and building relationships within the denomination that can be helpful when candidates from one’s church apply for the church planting school or the church planting program through NAMB or missionary appointments through IMB.”
While we know sometimes large gifts lead to good relationships, we cringe at admitting that good, proper, financially-initiated relationships often lead to advantages others might not have. As Dr. Patrick pointed out:
“Does it stand to reason that a church that gives big bucks directly to various organizations might be on the receiving end of some preferential treatment when it comes to appointment decisions? In other walks of life, large financial contributions by organizations tend to purchase strong levels of influence.”
Dr. Patrick presents some hard questions: are certain candidates for appointment with IMB/NAMB receiving preferential treatment due to the relationships built through direct giving? Are candidate acceptance rates higher for mega/multi churches as result of their combined financial support power that smaller churches lack? He believes, “...until we can get more information from our mission boards enabling us to compare the acceptance rate of each individual church with the acceptance rate for all churches, we cannot rule out the existence of the kind of appointment bias…“
Let’s Get Nerdy
Dr. Patrick asks some legitimate questions. I dislike his requiring proof to rule out something improper, but logically he’s correct. I’d rather assume all is well in SBC Land, but human nature being what it is perhaps I’m displaying a bit of naiveté.
Suppose we gather a list of mega/multi SBC churches who follow the GCG Plan. For reasons that make sense to the voices inside my head, I have defined a mega/multi church as one with at least three campuses. This loose definition provides us a large pool, which will tend to even out the extreme data points. We could look at how many applicants our mega/multi churches sent through the application process over the last 18 months and how many are approved. We’ll call this the MM acceptance rate.
Eighteen months covers almost all of Dr. David Platt’s presidency at IMB. While Dr. Patrick does not say as much, I get a vibe that the change in giving patterns and the rise of mega/multi churches directly giving/relating to our mission agencies roughly coincides with Platt’s tenure. I hope that’s a fair assessment.
Now let’s create a larger pool of all SBC churches, excluding mega/multis, who send candidates through the application process. We’ll refer to this as the GC (general convention) acceptance rate.
Therefore, we can easily examine whether the MM exceeds the GC.
If MM = GC, then we can lay Dr. Patrick’s concerns to rest; likewise, if MM<GC, Dr. Patrick’s legitimate questions are answered. In these cases, large financial gifts from mega/multi churches do not result in relationships that can be observed via altered candidate acceptance rates.
However, if MM>GC by a large measure, then we’ve got a new round of questions. Financially-driven relationships form only a part of the picture.
- Is the ratio being skewed by one or two large churches whose numbers are statistical outliers? If the MM for most multi-campus churches is in line with the GC rate, but the overall ratio is altered by one or two highly active churches then a fair analysis (1) requires us to set the outliers aside before comparing MM and GC while (2) later examining the outliers to understand what makes them unique.
- Are these churches located near large, long-standing training centers (seminaries, strong Christian/Bible colleges)? I would imagine such a church might have a different sort of member than churches far from seminaries and training centers.
- Prior to our 18 month window, were these large churches already moving towards massive missional involvement that would have changed the character of their people sufficiently to make them better potential candidates? Were they sending missions teams around the world while establishing themselves as mission-oriented churches within their local communities?
- How multi-ethnic are these churches? Multi-campuses offer the chance for different flavors and styles, which can be attractive to immigrants and expats looking for exactly the right fit. Non-white applicants are uniquely gifted, and might stand out as exceptional candidates. Do these churches provide spaces for Deaf, Korean, Hispanic, and other language/cultural groups? Having sensitivity to the needs of other Christian groups both reflects and influences a missional mindset.
- Are members at large churches with elaborate facilities more financially stable? Can they attend special mission events, training sessions, and opportunities? Do their pew-mates have more education, making appointment easier than more blue-collar churches?
We can go on and on. What sort of leadership do they have? Does the church offer missions training? Do they regularly invite international and domestic missionaries to live on church grounds or speak at church events? Has the church partnered with missionaries of various stripes long before the advent of their giving relationship? Do they send SBC missionaries directly to the field with 100% financial support, setting them up to partner alongside IMB/NAMB workers?
So while MM>GC might indicate a financially-initiated relationship that leads to a greater acceptance rate for specific candidates, the issue contains too many variables to place the responsibility at the feet of relationships between churches and mission agencies. Algorithms sufficient for analysis of every realistic variable lie beyond my ability even to guess. Math Nerds, here’s your chance.
What’s Wrong with That?
While Dr. Patrick does not examine this possibility, I would want to know why MM=GC or MM<GC. If these churches are pooling their resources, training their people, and sending mission teams, we could realistically expect them to have a few more well-qualified applicants than smaller churches. I don’t mean more spiritual candidates; training, experience, doctrinal understanding can all flow out of the quality of church leadership, both as represented by a pastor and by the entire body. If campuses are merging and megachurches are forming in order to better expand His kingdom, why aren’t we seeing some sort of raising of the bar amongst its missionary candidates?
What about single-campus churches in close proximity to mega/multi churches? Are their members able to access the resources of the entire Christian community in their area, or are the large churches tending exclusively to their own flocks? Potentially, we could see nearby churches sending candidates with better preparation thanks to the local multi-campus church opening their training sessions to all comers.
And if we’re going to be absolutely fair, what about churches who send candidates through the process at a lower than normal acceptance rate? What dooms their candidate so often, and what duty do our mission-sending agencies have to help those churches improve their candidate grooming process?
I appreciate Dr. Patrick’s providing an initial framework in which to examine the issue. However, it’s an extremely complex question that requires so much information I don’t know how we could possibly begin to answer it.
There is nothing to appreciate about Rick Patrick’s latest foray.
Here’s the pattern: Make an accusation (preferential treatment for certain churches) in the form of a question. Do so with no valid data (the sole evidence Patrick offered was the anonymous complaint of a disgruntled Calvinist) and let it hang out there. There is a market for this anti-Calvinist, anti-Platt, anti-Greear, anti-IMB/NAMB/ERLC/SBTS/SEBTS complaints. This one gains traction from the usual crowd.
But here’s what is so scurrilous about this one. It is manifestly clear that it has to do with J. D. Greear’s candidacy for SBC president and his church’s outstanding record of having about 150 members currently serving with IMB. Rather than the pastor and church being commended, Patrick attempts to poison the waters; thus, Greear and his church are placed under suspicion (btw, elsewhere Patrick infers that Greear is bragging because the number is known). More importantly, the 150 individuals who have answered God’s call, endured IMB’s extensive candidacy process, been appointed, left home, family, parents behind to serve (most of them) in difficult places, ARE THEMSELVES DEVALUED as possibly being the beneficiaries of having their appointments bought because Summit is a heavy IMB supporter.
This is not a sterile matter of acceptance rates. It is a personal attack on the pastor, the church, the 150, the IMB leader, IMB candidacy personnel, IMB trustees. Patrick should apologize.
Ethan does a decent job explaining why any “acceptance rate” metric would be meaningless even if it were tracked. I appreciate his effort but he misses the point. The salvo has been fired against Greear and Summit. That was the point. Fire off another anti-Calvinist conspiracy. No reasoning or explaining can put it back in the ammo box. The damage has been done.
Too bad.
I am not a Calvinist, BTW.
William,
If asking a question is a personal attack, then I certainly do apologize. I do think it’s fair to assess churches differently based on these two very different missions approaches.
My hypothesis is basically that (a) the CP folks will point to their percentages, while (b) the GCG folks will count their appointments—which may or may not be accepted at greater rates than the rest of the convention, due to factors such as the multi-campus effect, the possible preferential treatment, or some other theory, such as those Ethan has proposed.
Perhaps one day the acceptance rates of candidates from various churches may be compared and the data can be analyzed.
By the way, I think Ethan raises some good points here. These are complicated comparisons.
I think the IMB shouldn’t be afraid to directly answer the questions Rick raises. We need transparency not a group of rulers that refuse to let all SBs see what their private rules are. In fact: I call on the Trustees to take a public stand for transparency in the same way Wade Burleson brought transparency to the BoT.
You have no idea what you are doing, do you?
I’ve followed your stuff and you cannot divorce this from its context. This isn’t about transparency, openness, or methodology. It’s about devaluing Greear and Summit by positing a special privilege based on money.
You show no awareness of what exactly Summit does and how. You haven’t asked Summit or IMB anything. You got an anonymous whine and ran with it.
If you want to say that in spite of Greear and summit’s success you think the giving plan is not healthy for the SBC then say so. You don’t need to poison the waters to do that.
Rick,
The Summit is geographically close to SEBTS, the most aggressive and innovative missionary training seminary in the SBC. Many SEBTS students came there due to a calling to career missions. By the inherent nature of their calling it is natural that the local church they decided to attend during their seminary training would be one of the most missions-minded churches in the Triangle, which is an easy drive from SEBTS.
Personally, I thank the Lord they are involved in a local church during their seminary years, but that is the subject for another post entirely.
“You have no idea what you are doing, do you?”
William Thornton, he knows exactly what he is doing and you have made a correct observation as to the purpose of what he is doing.
I believe that it was Dr. Stetzer that first made the observation that originally, Traditionalists complained about Calvinists in part because Calvinists did not believe in evangelism. Not long after that the Traditionalists began to complain because Calvinists were getting all of the opportunities for evangelism.
Mr. Thornton, I do not know Dr. Patrick’s personal positions on the matters you’ve mentioned, but to be perfectly blunt they are irrelevant for this discussion, I believe. The impact of financially-established relationships is something we can ask about, and so that’s the aspect of the original post I chose to address.
Even as a thought exercise, discussing the question and its applicability to this specific problem can lead us to an understanding of the issues.
You are, of course, absolutely entitled to your view of Dr. Patrick’s post; I would never want to imply otherwise. And if – an important word here – some poor motivation lies behind the original question then that’s something to be addressed within the overall SBC body of Christ. However, I cannot even attempt to address it, and so I’ll stick with the issues I’ve chosen.
Thanks for your perspective. I appreciate your candor.
I have no problem with your analysis. Rick Patrick’s personal positions, and that of the anti-Calvinist SBCToday, are altogether relevant to this. This didn’t start as a sterile examination of these matters. It cannot continue divorced from its context.
William is exactly right here. And he’s right to take Rick Patrick to task for his ridiculous attack.
It should not be a military secret what the home churches are for newly appointed missionary candidates.
I attended an appointment service personally. As I recall, the home church of the candidates was announced. It might take a little work to put this together but I don’t think the home church for any given missionary is a secret. Once that information is obtained then you could see if any trends show up.
Everything else being equal I’d expect a church with a membership of 2000 to have 20 times more missionaries being appointed than a church with a membership of 100.
Does the IMB have videos of the commissioning services for the last several years? If so, then it should be possible to glean the needed dataset by watching these videos.
Roger Oklahoma City OK
I agree that a larger church should, in theory, have more missionary applicants than a smaller one. The question being debated focuses more on acceptance rate than sheer numbers.
If a GCG-giving mega/multi church of 2,000 has 20 missionary families in place through IMB/NAMB, we might expect a church of 1,000 to have 10 families appointed. A church of 100 members would have one missionary family. If the largest church sends 25 member families through an application process and 20 are approved, that’s an 80% acceptance rate. We would expect to see roughly a similar pattern across the SBC; churches large and small could expect roughly a similar rate. However, if the MM acceptance rate of 80% is well above the acceptance rate at a mid-major and far above that of a small church, we find ourselves potentially facing the questions Dr. Patrick originally raised.
Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable with the current staffing locations of our Missionaries can help me with this, but what is the percentage of missionaries who are serving in Closed countries? Places like Iran, India, China, ect? It stands to reason that the IMB would be resistant to reveal personal information of such missionaries. The larger the church, the more extensive their ministries and abilities, the more likely the missionaries it sends are recorded in some way shape or form. Correct me if I am wrong, but there are extensive protections set in place for our Missionaries in closed countries and in today’s technological age, not only should be protecting the identity of our missionaries, but the churches that send them as well. So I go back to my first question, what percentage of our missionaries are in closed countries? Could that not be a valid reason why information on which churches are sending are kept confidential?
As someone who limits the use of his photo online in relation to ministry/Christianity, allow me to applaud you for seeing this.
Electronic directories, extensive social media promotion of churches and members, high-profile mission trips all ease the process by which a diligent opponent of Christianity can identify international Christian workers. If Burned at the Stake Baptist Church announces that their youth minister has left in view of a call to international missions, five minutes with a decent search engine can turn up past mission trips, personal blogs pouring love on Muslims or Hindus, and plenty of Instagram photos. Add in the increasing use of face recognition software in international airports and Facebook’s own face recognition algorithms and it not a stretch to go from “We’re proud to commission our own….” to “Gotcha!” in a matter of months.
Having just read Ricks article – I’m in agreement with William.
As usual – I found a little basis for agreement with Rick’s opines – His title identifies what seems to be an intention to make a bust on a certain candidate for president of the convention – followed by his usual and quite predictable foray into soteriological divisiveness.
These “questions” seem more like charges/accusations than a genuine desire for inquiry. Of course, I do not pretend to know his intentions or his heart – but given his history – I think I’m making a reasonable assessment.
But….
I did find one paragraph with which I agree:
“Let me begin by saying that I include myself among those who feel that multi-site churches are not biblical and that each site should actually be reported as a separate church rather than lumped together. In essence, I believe these organizations are actually structured like mini-denominations featuring a type of connectional polity foreign to the Baptist tradition.”
I’ve been known to make effort to say churches (plural) and not church (singular) when referring them.
“These “questions” seem more like charges/accusations than a genuine desire for inquiry.”
Yep. It’s called the “Art of the Spin.”
Yeah. Rick would certainly have a hard time if he ever entered O’Reilly’s no spin zone.
It seems I aded an “a” inadvertently in my post above – it should read:
*As usual – I found little basis for agreement with Rick’s opines…
The IMB staff meets yearly with the missions professors at our SBC seminaries, including Mid-America. At the meeting two years ago, the IMB told us that 68% of our missionaries serve in restricted access countries and 75% of the requests for new missionaries were for restricted access countries. Of course, the 68% number is surely somewhat different now, due to the Voluntary Retirement Initiative. As to Rick Patrick’s article, churches that give more to missions would most likely be more mission-minded. That strong missions emphasis would result in more members being appointed as IMB missionaries. The correlation would be natural, even assumed.
To clarify, I do not believe GCG churches are giving *more* to missions than CP churches just because they are circumventing the usual CP missions channels and offering their gifts in a different and more directed fashion. I also do not question that they have more members being appointed than other churches do. That is perhaps the easiest statistic to verify and report. Again it is a good thing that they are going.
My concerns are not with the overall number appointed by a church, but with the acceptance rate at any specific church. Of the total number of applicants, how many are accepted and how many are rejected? What percentage is managing to make it through the missionary appointment process?
Another way of looking at it would be to ask the question, “Who is being rejected and why?” If the geographic considerations being raised here and elsewhere are to be factored into the equation, it might be helpful to communicate to those coming from the general SBC at large through CP Plan churches that they are more likely to get appointed if they sense a call to certain regions than to others.
Then again, as I have argued elsewhere, I am not certain that our current strategy is optimally blending the frontier mandate with the harvest mandate: http://sbctoday.com/a-tale-of-two-countries/
Rick: The problem is that your question is in reality an accusation, and it will essentially hang out there as an accusation until and if someone proves it to be untrue. As Ethan points out, that would be very difficult, so the accusation will likely hang out there for a long time. If Greear were not Calvinistic and a candidate for the SBC presidency, would this accusation have been made?
Your question is an accusation that my question was an accusation. No matter who might be running for office, if a multi-site, GCG church boasts of having numerous IMB appointments, I think it is legitimate to explore how they got those appointments, and to ask if it is really fair to compare a GCG type church with a CP type church since the fruit of these two approaches will necessarily be so different in nature.
Is the SBC now developing “missionary pipelines” between churches, seminaries and mission boards? Do churches with seminary extensions and connections, such as Cross Church in Arkansas, Lakeview Church in Alabama, and, yes, The Summit Church in North Carolina, have acceptance rates higher than average? Do all Southern Baptists have access to these new pipelines? Are these arrangements fair?
These are legitimate questions—no matter who may be asking them. I fear that the concerns I have shared in the past—about the direction of our convention, the GCR implementation, and the lack of proportional Trad representation in SBC life—have created a situation where anything I say will now be read only through that one prism.
Thus, in the future, Ethan Moore and others who wish to reflect upon my ideas would probably be better off not citing any of my articles. If a writer happens to be curious about the same questions I am asking, they should just write a piece under their own byline and share their own opinions and observations. Referencing my work in this forum will only invite an unnecessary distraction and inadvertently hijack the thread.
Ethan’s ideas are the ones that deserve to be discussed in this comment stream.