Here is an addendum to the previous post. I don’t know who the “Editor” is – I guess it is IMB personnel.
Editor’s note: International Mission Board leaders have outlined a plan to address IMB’s revenue shortfalls and complete a reset of the organization in order to move forward into the future with innovative vision, wise stewardship and high accountability. The plan was presented by senior IMB leadership, including President David Platt, during an Aug. 27 town hall meeting including missionaries and staff, who collectively attended either in person or through digital communication. IMB trustees were informed of the plan during their Aug. 25-26 board meeting in downtown Richmond, Virginia.
Q: What is the status of IMB finances?
A: Despite increased giving to the IMB over the last four years, the organization has consistently spent more money than it has received. For example, looking at the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, a goal of $175 million was set for several years, but each year the amount received fell short. In 2014, IMB budgeted $21 million more than it received, so it drew from contingency reserves and global property sales to cover the shortfall. Not only did IMB fall $21 million short of budgeted revenue in 2014, but it also utilized global property sales to cover $18 million of budgeted expenses. In total in 2014, the organization spent $39 million more than it received. Since 2010, the organization has spent $210 million more than it has received. Fortunately, with contingency reserves and global property sales, the organization has been able to cover these shortfalls each year.
Q: Hasn’t Southern Baptists’ giving through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and Cooperative Program increased in recent years?
A: Yes. Over the last four years, Southern Baptists have seen increases in both the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering as well as Cooperative Program giving to the IMB.
Q: What has the IMB been doing to cover budgetary shortfalls? Could the same solution work for the 2016 budget?
A: IMB has been able to cover costs through reserves and property sales in the past. But this is not a long-term solution because IMB does not have an endless supply of properties, and there are many complexities involved with selling overseas property and repatriating the funds. Moreover, IMB is now close to depleting its reserves and must work to restore them to a more responsible level.
Q: Has the recent decline in missionary numbers helped cover the shortfall?
A: Yes. In 2009 the IMB hit a high mark of 5,600 missionaries on the field. Since then, missionary numbers have decreased to about 4,800. To address budgetary shortfalls, previous IMB leadership enacted a plan to slowly reduce the number of missionaries to 4,200 through normal attrition and limited appointments, while using IMB’s reserves — including global property sales — to keep as many missionaries on the field as possible.
Q: Why didn’t previous IMB leadership address these issues?
A: Previous leaders put in place a plan to slowly reduce the number of missionaries (through normal attrition and reduced appointments) while using reserves and global property sales to keep as many missionaries as possible on the field. This plan, however, is no longer sufficient to address IMB’s immediate needs. Simply put, IMB cannot continue to overspend as we have. Furthermore, IMB cannot continue to deplete its reserves.
Q: What is a financially sound level of contingency reserves for an organization like the IMB?
A: IMB leaders believe the organization needs to restore it contingency reserves to six months of its annual operating budget. By the end of 2015, the IMB will only have approximately four months of contingency reserves.
Q: What options have IMB leadership considered to resolve this financial crisis? What was decided?
A: IMB leaders have explored:
- Increased revenue
- Further reductions in missionary appointments
- Various modifications to IMB’s support structure
- Additional liquidation of global properties
- Significant reduction in IMB’s number of both missionaries and staff
The cost of personnel is approximately 80 percent of IMB’s budget. IMB leadership believes the organization cannot arrive at short-term financial responsibility or long-term organizational sustainability without making a major adjustment in its number of missionaries and staff now. The other options may still be considered in the future.
Q: Will IMB continue to send new missionaries?
A: Yes. In 2015, approximately 300 will be sent, and in 2016, we anticipate sending a comparable number.
Q: What does a “major adjustment” to missionary and staff numbers mean?
A: The IMB plans to reduce the total number of missionaries and staff by 600-800 people — or approximately 15 percent of its total personnel. Currently, approximately 4,800 personnel serve as missionaries and 450 as staff.
Q: There’s a big difference between 600 and 800 people. Which is it?
A: The “600” number represents the change IMB leadership has known the organization needs to make to reduce missionaries from 4,800 to 4,200. The “600” number is most likely a minimum, with the larger “800” number representing a more realistic picture of the reduction of missionaries and staff necessary to put IMB in a responsible and sustainable financial position.
Q: How is IMB leadership considering the spiritual foundations of this practical issue?
A: IMB leadership stated that while the issue at hand is obviously financial, it is ultimately spiritual. God is not surprised by these financial realities. He has reigned sovereign over the IMB for 170 years, and He will continue to reign sovereign over the IMB for years to come. God has reigned sovereign over the direction of each personnel’s life to this point, and He will reign sovereign over these lives in the days to come. Because He is sovereign, IMB leadership encourages all of its personnel to seek Him, and ask Him how and where He is guiding each of them for the sake of His name. IMB leadership believes that, without question, God will continue to lead every one of its personnel on mission. It is expected that the 600-800 people who step aside from the IMB in the next six months will not be stepping “onto the sidelines of mission,” but instead will be moving into a new phase of involvement in mission.
Q: What is IMB’s plan for reducing the number of missionaries and staff to balance the budget while concluding the organizational reset leadership begun over the last year?
A: The next six months will involve two primary phases: 1) offering a Voluntary Retirement Incentive (VRI), and 2) concluding the reset of the organization, which involves a strategic review of how the IMB is organized and how it conducts both day-to-day operations and long-range planning. The second phase includes consolidating support services, recalibrating mobilization, assessing global engagement and re-envisioning training.
Q: What is a Voluntary Retirement Incentive (VRI)?
A: A VRI is an official program by which any personnel who meet certain eligibility requirements may choose to retire from the IMB and receive a particular financial benefit in their retirement.
Q: Is giving some of IMB’s most experienced and seasoned personnel the opportunity to retire a wise first step in addressing the organization’s budget needs?
A: IMB leadership acknowledges this is not an ideal step — but also that there are no “ideal” steps at this point. The reason VRIs are established is to provide personnel who may be considering retirement at some point in the near future an opportunity with incentive to take that step in the present.
Q: Is the VRI really voluntary?
A: Yes. This VRI is indeed voluntary. IMB leadership will not in any way encourage or influence any personnel to elect or reject the VRI. It is totally up to the discretion of an individual (or missionary family) who is eligible for the VRI to decide whether or not to elect or reject it. To help ensure that this decision is truly voluntary, supervisors across the organization will not even discuss with any individual personnel whether he or she should take the incentive. IMB leadership has designated people available to talk with personnel to help them understand what the VRI entails, but beyond this, the IMB will not point personnel toward a particular decision. IMB leadership’s aim is to eliminate any possibility of pressure or coercion in a certain direction, but to ensure that this program is indeed voluntary in every way.
Q: What will the VRI include?
A: IMB leadership wants to make this VRI as generous as possible, so they are working to use every possible means available to provide for the men and women who take this incentive. The details of eligibility and the incentive are still being finalized. Those details will be disclosed to personnel on September 10 in a Town Hall meeting. In the few days following that meeting, all eligible personnel will receive a packet of information that includes the specific details of how this incentive would affect them. The IMB’s tight financial position creates more urgency for this program now, because the longer the organization waits, the less generous it can be. This VRI will be the best option that can be offered.
Q: How quickly will the VRI take place?
A: Once individual details have been sent to eligible personnel in September, those personnel will have at least 45 days to decide whether or not to accept the VRI. Beyond the date IMB sets as a decision deadline, all personnel who take the VRI will continue on payroll through December, providing additional time to work through potential transition plans. For mission-field personnel with remaining stateside assignment, IMB leadership will work with those individuals through the ramifications of what that means for their retirement.
Q: What is the timeframe for Phase 2 (“concluding the reset”)?
A: While the VRI is taking place in fall 2015, IMB leadership will simultaneously be working toward Phase 2, “concluding the reset” of the organization that has begun over the last year. In the next six months, leadership aims to bring this reset to a conclusion by making necessary announcements regarding the structure of Support Services and Mobilization, as well as any updates concerning Global Engagement and Training. At that time, IMB leadership will work through any further personnel adjustments that may need to be made based on the number of personnel who respond to the VRI; any structural changes emerging out of the reset; and any additional information available concerning IMB’s budget and reserves.
Q: How does the financial situation affect the structure of IMB Support Services?
A: Rodney Freeman, IMB vice president for Support Services — which includes global logistics, personnel and finances — will begin the process of consolidating these three areas into one team.
Q: How does the financial situation affect the structure of IMB Mobilization?
A: Until a vice president for Mobilization is named, Sebastian Traeger, IMB executive vice president, will lead in recalibrating this area.
Q: How does the financial situation affect the structure of IMB Global Engagement?
A: While IMB leadership does not foresee major structural changes in the area of Global Engagement, Vice President John Brady and his team, including each of IMB’s affinity leaders around the world, will assess the effects of 600-800 fewer personnel in the IMB, including IMB’s ability to place personnel in particular places or among particular people groups.
Q: How does the financial situation affect the structure of IMB Training?
A: Zane Pratt, vice president for Training, and his newly forming Training team will continue to re-envision the training of churches, Christians, missionaries and nationals in the 21st century.
Q: How will IMB handle additional personnel changes after the VRI?
A: IMB leadership desires to first provide personnel an opportunity to voluntarily transition into work outside of the IMB. In addition, IMB leadership will evaluate the effects of the consolidation of Support Services and the recalibration of Mobilization, as well as any additional adjustments in Global Engagement and Training, to discern the different roles and responsibilities all IMB personnel will have in the future. Many personnel will continue with the exact same roles and responsibilities they have now. Other personnel could potentially redeploy and/or relocate, either within the IMB or beyond the IMB.
Q: How will IMB measure if this two-phase plan is successful?
A: Ultimately, the goal is to put the IMB in a position to thrive in the future. With constant dependence on God’s Word and continual desperation for God’s Spirit, IMB leadership wants the organization to move forward with innovative vision, aggressively exploring how to best mobilize, train and support limitless missionary teams from churches in North America and the nations to reach the unreached with the gospel. IMB must be a wise steward of its resources, represented most clearly by a balanced budget with responsible reserves. And IMB must operate with a high sense of accountability to the churches we serve, the peoples we reach, and the God we worship.
Q: In summary, what is the goal of these actions?
A: “We must get to a healthy place in the present in order to move forward into the future with innovative vision, wise stewardship and high accountability,” Platt said.
Conclusion of Platt’s message to IMB family:
“I realize that all I have shared is a lot to process. And I am sure that the ramifications of all these things will sink in over the days to come in a variety of challenging, painful and difficult ways. But amidst inevitable heaviness, I want you to know that I have great hope for every member of the IMB family in the days ahead. As we know, God is going to make His glory known among all the peoples of the earth, and I am confident that He wants each of us to play a pivotal part in making that happen. Over the months to come, He will give many of us new parts to play, including new places of service and new paths for mission, both within and beyond the IMB. Regardless of where we find ourselves six months from now, of this I am sure: it will be good, and God will be glorified. In my time with the Lord this week, I was reading Psalm 31, where the psalmist cries, ‘You are my rock and my fortress, and for your name’s sake you lead and guide me’ (verse 3). Amidst difficult days in our IMB family, I am clinging to the fact that our Father is a rock and a fortress who always leads and guides us. In Psalm 32:8, He says, ‘I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go. He will counsel you with His eye upon You.’ Please hear that promise from the Lord. Particularly amidst limitations on who we can counsel with about voluntary retirement, know that the Lord stands ready to be your Counselor. His eye is upon you. And as we seek Him, He will instruct and teach each of us individually and all of us collectively in the way we should go. For in the end, ‘our times are in His hands’ (Psalm 31:15).”
Wow…how sad.
David
My question is – how can we overspend by 210 million since 2010? How could we let that happen?
Why weren’t these kinds of steps taken sooner?
That is definitely a big question. I imagine they might have thought it was
“just a down year” or some such thought. You can’t really cut major costs at any organization, church, business or IMB, without cutting staff. As they stated, that’s where most of the money is at.
But your’re right that many steps should have been taken before. But easy for me to say I guess. I wouldn’t have had to let anyone go. Regadless, I’m glad they are addressing it now.
On a different note, how much property does the IMB have overseas? To help cover that amount of shortfalls it must be alot, and in some desireable areas too. I’d be curious to see some sort of list on that.
The IMB in years past purchased properties more often than they rented. These were residences, offices (for leadership), camps, education centers, etc. Over the years many of the cities where these properties lie have grown and land is valued at a premium. The organization has moved away from purchasing land, though, as their philosophy of missions has changed.
I know of a house being used today as a regional office that has been in the organization for at least 40 years. An old friend lived in that house as an MK. Great neighborhood, nice piece of land. Value is through the roof. However, as has been said, it is quite hard to sell land and transfer that much money to the IMB in the US. Many countries have laws requiring that a certain percentage remain in country for use in the economy.
Thats very interesting and helpful. I learned something on a blog today!
When I was a missionary kid in Taiwan, it was normal for the IMB to own the homes the missionaries lived in. I don’t know exactly how many homes they owned – compounds, homes (nice ones), etc.
In 2010, I went back and my old home was now a high rise apartment building. The IMB sold the land and got both money and an agreement o be able to rent apartments in that building either free or at a reduced rate.
As I understand it, though, the problem is that, at least in Taiwan, the laws prevent them from taking the profits for these real estate sales out of the country. They can help with missionary funds in country. That is my understanding.
The world of missionaries in 2015 is so different from the world of the early 70s when my parents were missionaries.
Bottom line: Cutting down on the number of missionaries by 600 to 800 is really sad. Laying people off at home is really sad. Giving that doesn’t reach our goals is sad. Telling people, who are willing to go, that we can’t send them is sad.
No matter the reasons. No matter the excuses. No matter the blame. This is sad news.
David
I find myself, honestly, more angry.
Why don’t we give more?
Whatever one believes about the GCR, the stats they published were riveting. The average Christian keeps about 97% of his or her income for himself. The average church spends 94% on itself.
There’s a dying world out there and we are becoming increasingly selfish. We are keeping more control ourselves – doing “mission trips” that may or may not have impact while we are reducing our mission force by 25%. It stinks!
You are sad? You are nicer than I am. I’m upset. Not at Platt. It seems he’s doing the right thing. We’ve overspent by 210 million in 5 years. Can’t do that. He’s got to do something and what he’s doing hurts.
Very, very well said – you da man Miller!
Yes, David. We certainly agree on that. I am glad the IMB is taken steps to be fiscally responsible, but I am sad that these steps are necessary.
Will they have to do this layoff regularly because we add 300 personnel each year? How about knowledge passed down from older missionaries? How voluntary will it be and what will they do if enough people don’t resign? These are all questions my brain is trying to wrap itself around. Also, I think we need to consider raising support for at least part of the salary as a viable option. How else can the IMB support limitless missionaries? Was that Platt’s ideology speaking before his financial advisor laid down the law?
Rose, I think there is normal turnover ever year. Missionaries are appointed and missionaries retire. What the plan is, as I understand it, is to have MORE retirements than hirings. In reality, I guess they are looking for 900 to 1100 retirements.
So, they want the old ones to retire; to leave the mission field; so they can appoint 300 new ones, each year? Why the need for the swap? I mean, are we talking about asking missionaries in their late 50’s and early 60’s to leave? Are we asking them to take early retirement? So that we can then appoint 600 new, young missionaries?
I’m not quite understanding this.
David
No, it is normal for old ones to retire and young ones to replace them. That happens every year anyway. That is the norm. Nothing pernicious there, David.
300 come, 300 go.
What the IMB is trying to do now is get an extra 600 to 800 personnel reductions. They won’t all be old people. It might be a couple that has served one term and decides they don’t want to remain as career missionaries.
I don’t know the stats but there is a high number of couples who go as missionaries but don’t stay for a lifetime. My folks went for one term.
No one is being laid off. This is exactly what Platt has described: an absolutely voluntary retirement process. IMB staff and field workers have been told in absolute terms that we cannot encourage nor discourage our friends and co-workers from leaving or staying. Period.
The IMB will establish a set of criteria for eligibility by Sept 10. Around Sept 14 the package will be delivered to those who qualify. They will have plenty of time to decide and sufficient time to transition from old jobs (or fields of service) to a new location.
As for the addition of 300 new personnel, those will be offset by the usual attrition via end-of-term and resignation for the usual personal and vocational reasons.
So, will the early retirees be given a severance package, or early retirement pay offs, or something like that?
What’s the point of asking them to retire early, if we’re gonna just put 600 new missionaries on the field? Why are they being asked to retire early? If we’ve got the money to give early retirement packages, and to put 600 new missionaries on the field in the next 2 years?
I just don’t get it. Please help me understand.
David
Salary, benefits, etc consume roughly 80% of the organization’s funds. Moving towards a voluntary reduction (via retirement) of about 800 people between now and the end of the year will provide a short term relief for the financial crunch. This counts for field workers and for Richmond staff. Remember that – US staff will be voluntarily reduced as well. That will hopefully put us around 4,000 field workers and a smaller Richmond office staff. Richmond staff, though, will not likely be replaced.
In addition to the early retirement, we still have the usual flow of exiting workers. People resign for medical, personal, and vocational reasons. A few people are fired. Some have already planned retirement. It is this number of people that will serve to offset the addition of 300 new workers in the coming year. Remember that – the VRI folks are the major reduction. Regular attrition offsets regular addition, keeping the number of field workers at around 4,000.
If we encouraged early retirement and got our numbers down to 4000 and appointed no new people for a year, we’d be down to 3,700. If we stopped for 2 years, we’d be down again to 3,400. Appointing 300 new workers a year simply keeps us treading numerical waters, neither increasing nor decreasing.
Ethan,
But, we will still have less missionaries on the field than we had several years ago; right? I think we used to have 5,500 or so on the field, and now we’re hoping to have 4,000? Is that correct?
David
This is correct. We hit 5,600 a few years ago and today have roughly 4,800. That’s why I’ve used the theoretical target number of 4,000.
Leadership at one time pursued leaving as many people on the field, reducing appointments, and allowing natural attrition rates to reduce headcount. This is moving too slowly, hence the radical announcements today. We just cannot fully support more than 4,000 field workers.
I have no inside information. As a former IMBer, my first thought is the simple fact that longer-tenured personnel receive a higher salary (goes up every 5 years). That might be a factor in the math. God bless the IMB.
I thought the GCR, and state conventions going to 50/50 splits was gonna lead us to new heights in mission activity? Some people thought that Platt would make giving and mission activity go up.
What happened?
How does anyone make people give more?
Isn’t that the job of pastors (not that it is in their control either)?
Bill Mac,
I guess a better word would have been “cause.” Those things would cause, not make, but cause more money given and more mission activity.
I’m sensing a cultural, regional thing going on here….where my area uses words differently than Bill Mac’s area. 🙂
David
Mission giving IS up.
David, Platt did not cause this. The problem has been going on for more than a decade through at least two president’s tenure.
I know you want to pin this on a Calvinist, but that is just not fair. It’s ridiculous.
Let’s see…I mentioned GCR, 50/50 splits, and Platt…I don’t think I said a word about Calbinists. But, now that you bring that up…
🙂
Does anyone know how much money the SBC has in the bank ie.. endowments
, trusts and reserves.
I do not.
Evidently 210 million less than we did 5 years ago!
by my estimation
we have taken in over 700 million in just Lottie Moon offerings where has all the money went ?
According to this Christianity Today Article, the IMB has $168 million in reserves and a budget of $301 million for 2015. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/august-web-only/southern-baptists-will-cut-800-missionaries-imb-david-platt.html
Thanks for info
Dave,
I am glad that is your reaction. It makes it more likely that I did not miss something at the annual meeting. It was just never presented.
It would be interesting to look at the Book of Reports and see if under “Revenue” in the IMB report, they noted a significant amount coming from Reserves.
The trustees knew it, even if those attending the annual meeting did not.
This is so unprofessional, it’s unbelievable. If an organization has a revenue shortfall, that has to be reported to those governing and those supporting the organization.
The fact that that did not happen baffles me.
Again, I could have missed it. But it seems like everyone missed it.
I believe that Platt did reference the deficit spending, didn’t he?
I don’t know. If he did, that would be a step in the right direction.
But we have all of these trustees. You would think this would be standard talk in the convention. If I were a trustee of an institution that receives CP money, spends, and has a mission, and we were borrowing from reserves to cover shortfalls, I would tell people about it. It would be common knowledge.
Is it possible the trustees did not know?
Just posted the report. He led off with it.
Im like you Louis. Why didn’t we more of this at Columbus?
Watch the video of Platt and his presentation at Columbus. This was the basis of his whole presentation.
We’re you in Columbus? Did you listen to Platt?
Although these items happened years ago, the “give away” of Ruschlikon (sp?) and the opportunity that was lost to relocate the IMB to Memphis on land that was going to be given to the IMB and would put the IMB in the distribution center of the world (at the urging of IMB staff, the existing facilities were redone with excessive cost overruns, so I understand), would be actions that we might really want to reconsider.
I know nothing about that. Do tell.
Rushlikon is a pretty well known story. The IMB had a lead on some property in Brussels, I think. They could have sold Rushlikon for a tremendous amount of money and relocated the work, and had money left over.
Rushlikon was, to my understanding, not doing much in the way of education. It was under-performing. It was also a sabbatical haven for liberal profs here in the U.S. I don’t believe the IMB could afford to keep funding it for the European Baptists.
The IMB was still under the leadership of Dr. Parks. He and the staff and others convinced the trustees that if the Board did not give Rushlikon to the European Baptists, that the SBC would lose its trust in the SBC. So, the SBC gave Rushlikon to the European Baptists, or at least a subset of them, a more liberal subset I am told.
After the gift, the European Baptists sold Rushlikon and did their own thing. They had no intent on keeping it open.
The IMB lost the opportunity in Brussels.
The IMB has gone on in Europe, but this was a sorry chapter.
The other story came from a friend who was on the IMB Board. We all recall that not all of the trustees were enamored with the leadership of Dr. Jerry Rankin. Most of that was discussed in terms of minor doctrinal issues that had employment and missions implications (prayer language, baptisms etc.) I am not saying these were not important, but in the grand scheme of things, they were not fundamental.
My understanding is that there was also some disappointment in Dr. Rankin’s executive leadership capacity, particularly on financial matters.
This was all told to me. If you know someone who was on the IMB board at the time, they may be able to confirm this.
What I have been told was that there was a donor in Memphis would was prepared to donate or sell at a greatly reduced cost a large parcel of property to the IMB. However, that would have required the IMB to relocate to Memphis.
The other plan was to refurbish and redo what the IMB had in Richmond. There were plans presented, and the staff greatly favored staying in Richmond, and presented the figures to show that would be more financially feasible.
The vote was to stay in Richmond, so the Memphis move never materialized.
As I understand it, the refurbishment and improvements to the Richmond facilities had substantial cost overruns. I do not know whether people claim they should have been foreseen, however.
In the end, my contact was really disappointed in the financial reporting and decision making at the high levels in the IMB. My friend never showed any concerns about the doctrinal issues that were so prominent a few years ago. But he was very concerned about financial mis-management.
I do not know anything about the staffing at the IMB and who is in charge of these kind of things.
But I will say again that if a person is leading an organization and reserves are being used to make budget, that discussion is front and center of any annual report.
And you would think that the trustees, Baptist Press, etc. would have been all over this.
I would like to see the IMB reports in the Book of Reports for the last 10 years to see if it is mentioned.
And I would like to see the presentations to the trustees during the same time period.
There are 2 scenarios. (1) Covering the financial shortfall was not adequately explained to the trustees and Baptist Press and was a staff run thing that the financial reports did not disclose. I frankly cannot imagine that to be the case. Or – (2) the data was disclosed and neither the IMB executive leadership, the trustees, nor Baptist Press ever reported, disclosed or ran a story on it. I cannot imagine that being the case either.
This whole thing is a mystery!
Louis, you make some good points about the financial management of the IMB. However, their are good arguments for staying at the current Richmond office on Monument Avenue.
1. If the IMB were to move to Memphis, it might be challenging to get a good price on the existing office building in Richmond. I looked at the building on Google Maps and it looks like a very dated, 1960’s structure which is not located in an area of other office buildings, but instead is in an older and from what appears to be “old money” residential part of Richmond. This begs the question of who would be willing to pay a good price for the building because these funds would be needed for the construction of a new building in Memphis (or wherever.)
2. By contrast, the North American Mission Board HQ in Alpharetta, GA is Class A office space in a prime corporate office area of Atlanta. NAMB could sell their space easily at a good price if they ever had to.
3. The cost overruns on the remodeling of the Richmond building sound like a management issue. Perhaps, Rankin was not as capable in financial areas as is required for one to head up an organization with such a large budget, as you seem to imply. However, that is not an issue of the geographical location.
4. For international travel (which I would assume is somewhat common for IMB personnel), Richmond is about a 2 hour drive to Dulles International Airport which offers nonstop flights to most overseas destinations. By contrast, international travel from Memphis requires making a connection at an international airport, most likely Delta’s hub at Atlanta. Flying from Dulles takes two hours off a flight to Europe (as opposed to Atlanta) and four hours all together from Memphis. This makes a big difference when you’re looking at long international flight trips.
4. You mention that you knew of an individual in Memphis who was willing to donate a large parcel of land for the IMB Headquarters. From the looks of their current offices, it doesn’t appear that the IMB needs a lot of land and if they are looking to cut personnel, they will probably need less office space than they currently have.
As far as selling real estate overseas, I would be very cautious. The question arises that if you do sell this real estate and get away from owning assets, you will then have to rent (or buy cheaper housing). If you rent, then you have now obligated yourself to having an additional monthly expense you didn’t have from now on into the distant future. While you may get a short term windfall of cash for selling, from a cash flow perspective, renting is never good when you haven’t been renting before. Rents will most likely go up every year, to boot.
The bottom line is the financial challenges of the IMB didn’t just blow in today like Hurricane Katrina, it’s just today is the public acknowledgement and “the day of reckoning.” While David Platt is not responsible for the choices made by previous leadership, hopefully he and the other leaders are making wise decisions to get the IMB on better long term footing.
Excellent thoughts and analysis.
This is the kind of exchange that blogs should be about.
Probably like we’ve all seen a few churches do, IMB hoped that financial issues were temporary, and instead they are permanent. The scope of it, $210 million, is because of the overall larger size of the budget–but we’ve all likely known churches that used up large swaths of reserve capital getting through regional economic issues, and in turn then had to either layoff staff or encourage retirements.
Overall, it’s a sad thing. Obviously a long-term plan is needed, because giving’s not going up enough–either at the local level or at the send-it-on level. Plenty of work to be done, though.
Why wasn’t it shouted from the rooftops in Columbus, Baltimore, etc., that over the past six years, the IMB has been spending $35 million more per year than it has been receiving—resulting in a six year total deficit spending amount of $210 million?
I’m glad David Platt is addressing it now, even though I question some aspects of the manner in which he is doing it—for example, without a hiring freeze. But this deficit spending should have been stopped a long time ago.
Were you in the room when Platt made his report?
Because I remember him addressing deficit spending. I can’t be sure, but I think he addressed it. Maybe your memory of the report is different.
But, perhaps he simply wanted to wait until he had a plan in place before he addressed it in full. Why jump the gun?
You are right, Dave. I recently asked for and received the PowerPoint from Platt’s report. I looked at it just now and the very first slides describe the budget shortfall.
Adam:
Thanks for that. That was presented at the Convention?
I think that was Platt’s first meeting. If he did that, I am greatly relieved with regard to his reporting.
Yes, his report in Columbus. Yes, Columbus was Platt’s first annual meeting as SBC President.
Lo and behold, Rick, I just listened to it. Guess what David Platt LED OFF with in his report this year? The fact that we are deficit spending?
That was the lead point of his presentation.
Evidently, those who are wondering “Why is this the first we are hearing about this?” didn’t bother to listen when David Platt spoke at Columbus.
You got to it before I could. Bingo!
I just posted it.
You are the man. I may have missed that.
But what about Eliff and Rankin?
And what about the trustees from those years?
Rick is right. If I had been on that Board, I would have been shouting from the roof tops.
And what about Baptist Press? They attend the trustee meetings, don’t they?
I would love to know why this was allowed to go on so long. I guess I can think of two reasons, beyond simply bad leadership.
1. A heart for the world that wanted to get as many missionaries on the field as possible. We can’t pay for it longterm? Okay, but we can do it now, so let’s do it. Besides, we don’t want to send people home.
2. A wishful thinking response that says, “Maybe it will all turn around.” 2010 was also the year of the GCR was it not, or was that 2011? Maybe they has some kind of false hope that a miracle would take place and suddenly we’d have 40 or 50 million extra each year.
I’m guessing their hearts were in the right place, but it was denial. I don’t know when the thing turned south. The only number I’ve heard is in the IMB releases – 210 million since 2010. I don’t know how things were in 2009 or 2008.
http://bpnews.net/31674/trustees–imb-budget-shortfall-could-affect-600-positions
http://townhall.com/news/religion/2011/06/08/lottie_moon_offering_$1456_million_in_2010
GCR was adopted in 2010 Orlando. Perhaps we were already substantially behind and then we just carried on?
Additionally, I think there may be something to think through on this: for some people, the belief would be that we should spend and spend, having faith that God would provide before any checks bounced. Others would take a different approach, that we shouldn’t spend more than we take in. Perhaps we are seeing a shift in viewpoint from Rankin and Elliff to Platt on that matter. I know I’ve seen churches spend reserves in tight times based on the “This is how God provided for this year, by giving us (property, stocks, etc.) to sell.”
Ultimately, you have to make changes. Especially if the donor side never adjusts back upwards.
I’ll stand by the idea that Rankin, Elliff, and Platt all have a heart for reaching the nations and want IMB to be effective and sustainable. I’d say that they have different mindsets about how to make sure things are sustainable. Platt probably sees the long downtrend in CP Giving (across decades) and knows it’s not coming back up, while his predecessors perhaps hoped it would.
The analysis and sober comments by Dave Miller, Louis, and Bill Mac hit the right notes. None of our entities are as important to Southern Baptists as the IMB, so they have to be healthy financially. The deficits are untenable and I’m with Dave in expressing a bit of surprise that they have been so deep for so long. It’s a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The flow of CP dollars is fairly predictable and the LMCO has had its best two years in 2013 and 2014.
I have no criticism of the deficit reduction plan. If the VRI’s don’t generate enough reductions then the next step will be extremely difficult. I trust the leadership to do as much as they can to be generous and fair with all.