…then the IMB is going to be in pretty good hands.
If you can get past the cacophony of naysayers questioning every decision he makes, turning every action he takes into some kind of portent of evil, and if you examine the actions he has taken in his short tenure as president of the International Mission Board, you see a profile of courageous, visionary, godly and effective leadership. In both his public communications (one published this afternoon) and in communications to missionaries which I’ve seen but cannot publish, he exhibits the kind of leadership we need in the SBC right now.
If a couple of members in my church read what I”m about to say, they may be church shopping this weekend. I’ve never been a huge David Platt fanboy. I appreciated him and had respect for him, but he wasn’t at the top of my favorites list. If there were CDs of sermons of 100 top Baptist preachers of the last 20 years, his would probably not be among the first 10 I picked up. In fact, when I heard the rumors that he was going to be the IMB president, my response was twofold: “huh?” and “meh.” I thought a career missionary should have the job and there were a couple of names that I’d hoped to hear picked.
All of that is to say that what I’m about to say does not come from a fanboy who was predisposed to give unqualified support to the Platt administration. I wanted him to succeed, but I had some serious doubts as to whether a young whippersnapper pastor without international missions experience could be an effective IMB president. I’ve come to believe that his appointment was a blessing arranged by our God. I’ve seen some leadership trends from him that make me believe he’s going to do a great job at the IMB. Let me spell them out.
If David Platt is going to be the kind of leader who faces tough issues directly, we will be blessed.
I don’t know what David Platt knew when he entered the office at the IMB, but evidently he realized pretty quickly that we were on a years-long over-spend that threatened the financial health of the entity. This had been going on for most of a decade and very little had been done to change the situation. A few steps had been taken, but in his first year, the deficit was 21 million, or nearly 40 million if proceeds of property sales were removed. The IMB has run a deficit of 210 million since 2010.
And David Platt, within a year of walking in the front door as president, has developed a plan to deal with this. It’s an undesirable plan (he admits this in his letters). No one wants to draw down 600 missionaries. But he is, evidently, not the kind of leader who procrastinates. A 40 million dollar annual deficit is not going to continue under the Platt administration. He took decisive action.
If David Platt is going to be a transparent leader, we will be blessed.
One of the common complaints about the SBC through the years has been the secrecy under which our boards have operated. Quick question for you old timers: Do you ever remember an action anywhere near as controversial as this in which the entity president has been anywhere near as open, transparent and forthright as Platt has been on this issue?
He has spoken out, revealed his process, answered questions. He has given his missionary force unprecedented information about this. He is the president and they work for him, but if you read the communications or watch the videos, Platt is comforting, encouraging, and humble in his dealings with the missionaries.
His responses to critics questions have been instructive and encouraging as well. There have been several issues raised by responsible parties both inside the IMB and outside of it. In his recent letters – both the public one that was released to the SBC family and the one sent directly to the missionaries of the SBC – he directly addresses issues that have been raised. “Pastors have asked me…” “Some of you missionaries have been asking….” When have we seen this level of responsiveness, transparency and grace in a situation such as this?
If David Platt is going to eschew the blame game, we will be blessed.
Platt is taking a lot of heat for trying to fix a problem he did not create. President Obama has spent pretty much his entire administration pointing the finger of blame for all the problems in the land on W. We can argue whether that is fair or not, but there is no question about his tendency to play the blame game. “I am just trying to fix the problems he created.”
In both of the letters I read today, Platt went out of his way to protect the IMB administration from blame – not his administration, the past administration. To be honest, I’ve been a little rough on them in some of my comments, wondering how they let this go on year after year. Platt plays apologist for Dr. Elliff and even back into the Rankin days. He defends them against two charges specifically.
- He responds to the commonly made charge, “Why didn’t anyone tell us about this?” Listing a series of articles and warnings, he demonstrates that the previous administrations made it plain that there was a problem. We may not have paid attention but we cannot claim that we were not informed that there was a problem.
- He also makes it clear that the previous administration was dealing with the issue. They were using the attrition method that others believe should be used now – letting retirement and resignation gradually get us down to the number we could afford. He says that method is no longer workable, but he makes it clear that the previous administrations did have a plan. They were not fiddling while Rome burned.
Think about it. In a time of great stress, when he is under criticism, he did not throw his predecessors under the bus. He honored them. He defended them. That’s Christian character.
If David Platt allows his employees to question, even criticize him, we will be blessed.
“Touch not God’s anointed!”
I can almost hear some pastors and leaders telling their people something like that when they responded to a shocking announcement like this. In the letter circulated to the mission force, Platt addresses responses from missionaries. We’ve received some here. It is safe to say that there is among our mission force quite a few dissatisfied, disgruntled, fearful and even angry servants of God.
In all of his communications, he has given validation to the feelings of the missionaries. Platt has given them assurance that he understands why they are upset, why they
If David Platt leads from conviction and is not derailed by criticism, we will be blessed.
A good leader has to balance being sensitive to the feelings of others and being convictional in his leadership. If he tries to keep everyone happy, he will never accomplish anything significant. If he cares nothing about the feelings of others, he can become arrogant and unfeeling. Platt seems to be striking that perfect balance here in the first months of his administration.
If David Platt continues to work WITH the Trustees, we will be blessed.
Platt did something important here. He led – forcefully and intentionally. But he also made his case to the trustees and by every account he had the backing of the trustees this decision. It is important that president and trustees work together and it is clear that in this case, that is precisely what happened – it was as it should be. The administration administrates and the trustees oversee and make sure that what is happening is proper.
What We Don’t Know
We have no idea if the Platt plan will work. We don’t know if churches will give more. We don’t know if things will turn around in the SBC – the real key to increasing our mission force. There is a lot we don’t know. The future will give answers to those questions.
But, in my opinion at least, what we do know is that we have seen excellent leadership from David Platt in his first year at the helm of the International Mission Board.
Amen!
Well said. I too was unsure of the choice, though I do like David Platt. What I have seen from him so far has me encouraged.
I wouldn’t consider myself a fanboy of anyone, but ever since I heard him speak I’ve liked him. One thing I know, because it’s transparently clear, is that he’s the type that’s on his knees with his heart broken before God before he’s anything else. That should inspire our own motives.
If our SBC leadership wants to really be “radical” in their Christian faith and missions support, maybe they could live on the same amount that our missionaries and seminary profs make? THAT would get a whole lot more money to the mission field, and maybe some seasoned missionaries could actually stay on the field, instead of having to retire early.
Just a thought.
David
Wow. Just wow.
It would just kill you to be gracious toward Platt, right?
Apparently Vol has information that none of the rest of us have. He has seen David Platt’s personal finance budget and other financial records and knows how much he lives on. Care to share the information, Vol?
Well, of course David Platt makes more than the missionaries.
Let me suggest that David start the process by accepting the same salary as his youth pastor.
How about calling for Paige Patterson to make that sacrifice?
David, we are not communists. We do not insist that everyone be paid the same. Our missionaries have great value, but you pay the president more than you pay the missionaries. Baker James Cauthen got paid more. Keith Parks got paid more. Jerry Rankin and Tom Elliff got paid more. Actually, David Platt was well known at his church for his frugal ways. I wonder if he may have taken a more frugal salary than others have taken in similar positions. I don’t know and neither do you.
But this kind of implicit diminuation on false premise is just not fair. I don’t know what the IMB president makes, but it is a small dent in the 40 million annual deficit.
So, what do they make? What do the SBC Entity heads make? $180,000? $250,000? $300,000? plus a lot of really good perks?
If they do, then I’d rather see those salaries, and other big salaries in leadership positions, cut down significantly. I’d rather see that money go to supporting missionaries on the field….how about you?
Also, I think Platt is doing what he has to do financially, and I applaud that. I do wish that it would have been a hiring freeze, rather than getting rid of the seasoned missionaries. And, I do think the Trustees should’ve voted on such a huge change. But anyway, I applaud Platt. I am FOR the IMB and our missionaries.
May God bless our SBC, and move on Churches to give more…or, more Churches give.
David
PS. Some of you really need to calm down a little. Good grief. If anyone disagrees with you, or if anyone disagrees with an SBC leader, then it’s like scream and holler, and burn the the knave, who dares disagrees. Calm down just a little.
David, the inanity and vanity of your reply provokes a response.
It’s not about disagreement. It’s about the lack of grace. I mean, look at the lengths you went just to say something negative and undermining about David Platt. Why the need to ALWAYS put him down?
Vol,
Surely you understand why many were taken aback by your comments regarding Platt’s salary – or your perceptions thereof – after Dr. Platt had just released such a thorough, humble, transparent, God glorifying statement concerning such a grave matter.
It seemed a little out of place is all.
Also if David Platt took absolutely no salary and all the money was used to continue the current trajectory of spending – little benefit, if any would be seen – while starving Dr. Platts wife and children.
I’m not saying to starve anyone. I’m not saying that Platt should not be payed. But, if he, or the other entity heads, or the staff of the entities, are making humongous salaries, then maybe they should consider CUTTING them? Not to zero. Not to poverty levels. But, taking the cut, along with the missionaries….especially if we’re gonna be radical in our faith.
What size salaries are these people making? The heads of our entities?
David
Again, David, why don’t you start by announcing that you’ve accepted a salary matching your youth pastor’s (or whatever the lowest is in your church) and are donating the difference to the Lottie Moon offering.
That would be a great way to start this. When you do this, you may start a trend that will catch on. You take a salary equal to the lowest salary in your church and donate the rest to Lottie Moon.
We will call this the Volfan Challenge.
Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?
Or are you only asking others to sacrifice?
I’m not the one making $150,000 or more plus great benefits.
David
So, that’s no to making the sacrifice yourself? Just demanding others do it?
Vol,
I got to say I never took you for a progressive.
Volfann
I am not sure Platt should make what a missionary makes but I do think anything over 200,000 dollars a year including perks is too much. That is hard to explain to the many folks on salaries, fixed incomes etc. who make the CP work. Now before I get accused of being for one leader and against another leader for whatever reason, that statement goes for ANY agency head, president, et. al.
I really like Platt. I have made that clear here several times, but it does seem that there is an attitude that he should not be criticized or that he can do no wrong. That scares me, not healthy.
I know I should stay out of this, I am smarter than I am going to demonstrate, but David Miller you have been a little crank lately. Perhaps a chill pill……just sayin….
Dave Miller
There is a point that must be made here. Putting who makes what aside for a moment the analogy of comparing a church to an SB entity falls terribly short. Churches spend their own money. I have not put a cent into Vofann’s salary. He is responsible only to his congregation who provides his salary, and they to him. Not true with a SB entity. That is CP dollars hence my money, your money, and every little old lady who gives every sunday. The salary is set by a BoT who represents the churches. In other words apples and oranges.
Again I will say, anything over 200.000 including benefits is too much.
My point wasn’t really regarding Platt’s salary. I don’t care what he makes. It was simply that even if his salary were $1 million dollars, we still wouldn’t know how much he actually lives on unless we had access to his personal budget and financial records. He makes the salary the trustees offered him. He may turn around and give a large portion of that to his local church and/or international missions.
Your point about Vol taking the same salary as his youth pastor is spot on. So Vol, do make the same salary as your youth pastor? Are there members in your church who make less than you do? Maybe you should suggest the church cut your salary next budget year.
…And then give the amount to IMB to keep missionaries on the field.
I make more than my Youth Pastor. I don’t make over $100,000….no where near it. And, I drive a 2006 van with 175,000 miles on it, and a 2007 Chevy truck with 95,000 miles on it. I live in a parsonage. I tithe and give to my Church. I give to Lottie, Annie, the State offering, and many other special offerings for ministries.
Also, my salary is available for every member to see. Every member can know what I make….to the penny.
What’s the harm in every employee’s salary being known to all of us, who pay the bills? And, should anyone be paid more than $150,000 per year with great benefits? If we are in this to serve God? If we’re in this as a Minister of the Gospel?
David
PS. Again, I am FOR the IMB and our missionaries. God bless David Platt, and Kevin Ezell. God bless all of our entity heads. I’m praying that God will do great and wonderful things in our beloved SBC. I truly hope that the end is not near for us, and that we can all work together, to promote Jesus and preach the Gospel and win souls.
Ad youth d Tarheel are both wrong on this one. A youth pastor almost always has less experience and less qualifications than the pastor does. Many of the missionaries under Dr. Platt have more experience than he does. Many have the qualification of being bilingual. I really think this is apples to the oranges.
Apparently I have a remedial smart phone. My apologies.
John, for obvious reasons I usually read fluent typo – but I cannot make out why my name is in your comment – LOL.
“…fluent typo…”
Love it! I’m going to have to remember that one. There’s got to be a missionary translator position for that one.
“fluent typo” is right up there with “ringy dingy clingy chicken dinner” or whatever the heck it is 😉
Tarheel, I will be in St.Louis, I can’t wait to meet you. I have this mental image of you and I wonder how close I am LOL
DL – I’m sorry you have a mental image of me – trust me though – it’s worse than you imagine! 😉
“What’s the harm in every employee’s salary being known to all of us, who pay the bills? ”
There is no good reason to hide salaries. This is one thing that should be readily available from everyone who get paid by donations.
Do you add the value of not having a mortgage on top of that salary? Since you live in the parsonage – do they pay your electricity bills and all of that if so do you add that to to your advertised compensation – I bet you make a whole lot more money than most of the members of your church when you factor in all of those benefits.
If your church members were to start running around saying maybe we ought to cut pastor Worleys salary so we can give more to missions – I wonder how that would go over?
I pay taxes on the rental value of the parsonage. I pay my own electric bill, gas bill, etc. And, I get enough to pay my bills every month, and I have enough to buy a cheeseburger or two, every so often.
David
But do you report the value of not having a mortgage on to your salary – for example the fair market value of the house is $800 a month do you report to the church that $9600 as you’re eve do you report to the church that $9600 as part of your advertised compensation?
Vol – I really don’t care – I’m only asking you these questions to demonstrate that whenever examining someone else’s salary it’s always easy to say whether paid too much or that’s not fair or they should take less and give it to X – it’s always easier when talking about someone else’s.
And to be quite honest trying to dictate what someone else should be paid – or how they should designate their money – or how they should give by reducing that salary – is not typically born of noblility.
Now if you want to set an example go for it – but projecting what you think is right for them to do with their salary on to someone else is not cool.
IMHO
I am not sure what Platt, Ezell and the others should be paid, however, I am sure that whatever it is, it should be known.
I don’t disagree that the salary range for the presidents (and Exec. VP’s) of all entities should be known and readily available – not specifics but ranges.
I also think that all entities should have to report on their website contact information for the members of the Board of Trustees – and we should not have to move heaven and earth to find the I also think that all entities should have to report on their website contact information for the members of the Board of Trustees.
Sorry – SIRI is playing copy cat again.
The “same” salary might not be reasonable, but I would like to know what those salaries are. That kind of transparency would be great. Plus, seeing the minutes of the meetings where they discussed various options would go a long way to rebuild trust. His open letter was great but it really did not address the questions that have been asked, especially why the SBC report did not report on this significant issue. It would seem that this issue should have dominated the SBC report. The IMB has lost my trust, and Platt’s first steps have not restored it. I am thankful that he is addressing the financial issues, I am not satisfied with “just trusting” anymore.
At the SBC this past June, many were concerned about the revision of hiring policies at the IMB. I suspected Dr. Platt was going to get a lot of questions about this, but he didn’t. Why? Because, like you said, he dealt with the issue head on. He stated clearly and forcefully that he had no intention of allowing “charismatic chaos” (his own words) among our SBC missionaries. I don’t know about anyone else, but I was impressed. I’ve always liked David Platt, but my respect for him greatly increased after his IMB report this year.
His presentation this summer was when I first started realizing what an amazing leader he was.
It’s nice and fine that he’s not going to allow “Charismatic Chaos”, but what is he going to allow? What is the good in removing that restriction, unless it is to allow Charismatics onto the mission field sanctioned by the IMB?
Donald: All you have to do is a search on this very controversy in 2006 and you will find your answers. There is no charismatic chaos in PPL. It’s private. Period. It was true then it is true now and I believe David Platt knows this.
Now you guys are levying around all kinds of accusations that are just not true Donald and I for one wish you would 1. Keep those accusations on SBCToday where your home seems to be or at the least 2. Make accusations and objections based on some sort of truth, even a kernel would be nice.
Donald, you can only believe what you are asserting if you are willing to call David Platt a bald-faced liar.
Is that what you are saying?
Amen Dave Miller! Excellent post.
As for my being unsure – The “jury” for me was still out on Platts selection until I heard him at the SBC in June – I was all but absolutely sold then.
The way he’s handled this has completely solidified my support. The IMB is in excellent hands.
Some of our financial woes in SBC missions is due to:
1) Churches sending their own on volunteer mission trips….only so much money to go around;
2) economy downturn;
3) Churches following the CP giving examples of the leaders….Platt and Ezell;
4) GCR….people giving to all sorts of things(mission things), and reporting it as missions giving, but it’s not CP, Lottie, and Annie;
5) Churches keeping more money home, to do other things with it;
6) Pastors and Churches not happy about some of the changes that have taken place in the SBC…..for example, not liking the 50/50 state convention split, which they see as hurting state ministries, thus they give more to those state ministries, instead of to the CP, Lottie, Annie;
7) some people in the pews not giving, as they should….some of them give great, generously, and sacrificially….but, I just don’t think some of the give much…not as much as they could.
8) Churches not teaching missions and emphasizing missions, like they did in the past….thru RA’s, Acteens, CIA, Mission Friends, WOM, etc.
What do yall think?
David
If churches followed Platt’s giving example, the IMB would be doing great. They weren’t great fans of their state convention, but gave large amounts directly to the EC for the IMB (and perhaps for NAMB). They gave, but they bypassed the state office – if I understand that correctly.
So, their giving example isn’t bad for the IMB – just for the CP.
The GCR did not negatively impact giving. That is ridiculous in my view. The GCR was about promoting missions. You are playing the blame game there. “I didn’t support it, so now that we are having trouble, I’ll blame it.” I think it is is completely false.
Basically, it seems to me that you are saying, “Because my side didn’t win and get our way in all the votes in recent years, the SBC is suffering.”
I do think there may be some people who got mad because they didn’t win votes and played the petulant game of self-pity.
But what we are seeing is giant, societal trends. To simply blame the fact that “your side” didn’t win really seems to be the blame game, David.
Blame it on Platt and Ezell (ie the Calvinists – even though Ezell isn’t one).
Blame it on the GCR.
Blame it on people not liking the direction of the convention.
Blame it on…
Did you ever read the GCR report? The research nailed it! American Christians keep over 97% of their income for themselves. Bingo – there’s your problem
Then, SBC churches tend to keep around 94% of their offerings for themselves. Bingo – another problem.
Conventions tend to keep a lot for themselves as well – some argue whether that’s a problem – I’m a fan of the 50-50 split.
But our basic problem is selfishness. When we keep 97+ percent for ourselves as individuals and 94% as churches – well, duh, our missions programs are going to have some lean times.
We don’t have to play the blame game much beyond that.
Regarding points 1, 4, 5, and 8,
You don’t teach missions, per your #8, without some kind of short-term mission effort, per your #1. I’ve seen more people turned on to missions, and giving to missions, by going themselves for two weeks or two years.
Your #4 and #5 are nearly the same thing. But we should be spending on other mission efforts because the IMB doesn’t cover everything. Some examples (details left out to protect them and the work):
1) We have IMB missionaries associated with our church reaching a difficult-to-reach people who a) require short-termers as part of their strategy, and b) have started a powerful short-term effort that they couldn’t do themselves lest they are compromised. That needs to be funded too.
2) We have former short-term missionaries to Uganda who have been able to maintain a mission effort to northern Uganda since the decline of Kony’s reign of terror in taking in and raising the orphans left in his wake. That’s not part of the IMB’s particular scope for that area to my knowledge.
3) Short-term “private individuals” are able to go into places under the auspices of local churches that the IMB as an organization has been kicked out of for political or other reasons.
4) Some churches are also doing what they can to reach out to their local communities. That might fall under the NAMB, but even the scope of the NAMB doesn’t cover everything. For example, my church hosts the local CEF chapter that focuses on Good News Clubs in schools. In the past five years over 900 kids in our area have professed new faith in Christ, the vast majority of whom are being raised in unchurched families.
So I’m not going to begrudge churches on points #4 and #5. That’s a healthy thing they are doing. Additionally, those activities contribute to your issue in #8 which, contrary to #1, increases, not decreases, giving to the IMB. The reason is because it puts things into perspective for people. The money that people would have otherwise blown on the trinkets and baubles of their own self-interest are turned around and funneled into missions. My kids told me that they see that we could have had more nice things as they have been growing up, but having been to the short-term mission field themselves, and also serving with our CEF teams, they said that they were glad that we did without some things because they see the importance of what we have been giving to. You can’t buy that, argue someone into it, or preach them into it. You get that mission bug by living it.
Jim
As a young pastor and until basically middle age mission trips by churches were non existent to rare. In c.1988 even in the state of Florida where mission trips have flourished they were just taking hold. Yet CP giving in those days was at approx. 10% then decreased to approx 5% My point…larger percentage prior to mission trips that since.
Also commitments made at Oklahoma Falls Creek Assembly in the 50’s thru c1975 or 1980 produced more foreign missionaries than any other and at times all the other camps combined (within SB circles) yet none of those teenagers had been on a mission trip, but they had been raised in G.A’s R.A.’s an YWA’s
Not saying what you said was not true, just not sure we can make book on the fact that mission awareness now with trips is higher than before w/o trips.
You know, some have said it outright, some have implied it with a nod and a wink, but part of the reason for the angst over missionaries close to retirement being given an incentive to retire is the assumption that they are mostly non-Calvinists and that Platt is going to replace them with Calvinists. Yes, it’s the same half dozen people making the accusation but it’s already out there. If Platt was not a Calvinist I doubt we would see nearly the opposition we are. I could be wrong but I don’t recall ever seeing the suggestion that a non-Calvinist entity head was making too much money, and should live on what his least paid employees make.
Yes, the plan is probably not perfect and the process open to criticism. Perhaps we should be thankful that for once we know what the process was. I think something this important should have had a formal vote. But they didn’t, so that horse has left the barn. The trustees clearly had input and clearly approved the plan, and obviously they are content with the process. Nothing wrong with thinking that a hiring freeze might have been the way to go. They considered it, and rejected it. So that’s done. Yes, retirement incentives cost money, but if they didn’t work, no one would use them, so obviously the leadership and the board think the expenditures are worth it.
I’m sure some other entity heads are out there watching this unfold and thinking “If this is what transparency gets me, leave me out of it“
I had a whole section in my post on “Blame it on the Calvinists” as the root of all this, but I took it out because I didn’t want that to be the focus of the discussion. I still hope it won’t be, but that’s the elephant in the room.
Not to sidetrack the discussion–and if it does feel free to delete my comment, Dave. But, it really encourages me that anyone would even be worried that Calvinists would be the ones going on the mission field. That encourages me because the charge has been made so many times that Calvinism doesn’t lead to missions. And I think historically there have been periods when wrongly applied Calvinism did lead to a decrease in missions–so I’m glad to see that “too many Calvinist missionaries” could even be a charge leveled.
C’mon guys… is it necessary that one be accused of being anti calvinist just because he believes that a hiring freeze is better than getting rid of veteran missionaries or perhaps questions a decision that Platt has made, or thinks that anything over 200,000 including perks is too much. I don’t care if he is calvinist, not calvinist, pre, post, A, or pre trib, mid trib, post trib or has no idea what day it is..anything over that is too much.
Do any of you remember the one and half million bail out the old SS board gave to Dr. Elder and the controversy it caused. Too much is too much…and yes I know that BSSB/LifeWay receives no CP
Bill Mac, I have not read this half dozen that are insinuating or outright saying the VRI is being offered for the purpose of getting Calvinist appointed as missionaries. Do we really have 600 Calvinist waiting to serve as missionaries? I have not seen this accusation anywhere.
As I was trying to figure out who you had in mind it occurred maybe you think I insinuated such. Let me be clear, I think Dr. Platt has a goal to systematically changing what the IMB looks like. I think the PPL was to get a different missionary and not more missionaries. However, I do not think the desire for a new kind of missionary has anything to do with theology.
Seeing how you brought the Calvinism issue up, it may indeed be true some are DP antagonist because he is a Calvinist. I am convinced there are some regulars at Voices who have “Radical” tattooed above the cheek line on their backs and would defend Platt regardless…. because he is a Calvinist. That gate swings both ways. You are to be commended for not defending a vote of the trustees not being taken with the implementation of such a drastic measure. No one has the ability to convince me if Paige Patterson were to give a directive that Muslim students could be PHD candidates in archaeology and the trustees all seemed cool with it at a town hall meeting that a few on this website wouldn’t go into cardiac arrest.
I have not seen this accusation anywhere.
Dean:
Unfortunately my curiosity often leads me to the dark corners of the anti-Calvinism blogosphere where these half dozen people mostly snipe from the shadows. I really need to reign in my curiosity in that regard. It ends up doing me no good. No, it wasn’t you I was thinking of.
For the record, I’ve never been a fan of Patterson. I think the Klouda affair was disgraceful. But although I think the Muslim Ph.D. student was probably a bad idea, I never saw the reason for the embolism-inducing fury it seemed to have produced. I think it was a mistake but a mistake born out of good intentions and the backlash likely did the SBC more harm than the Ph.D. student ever could have.
I agree with Bill, except that I’ve started staying away from that “dark web” blame-the-Cals sites that exist in the SBC today. They are unhealthy for my spiritual growth!
But I also agree *cue food fight* that the Patterson/Muslim student affair was driven by anti-Patterson sentiment, like opposition to Platt is sometimes driven by anti-Calvinism.
Such hidden agendas are unworthy but all too common.
When this news first broke some of the early comments were from the anti-Calvinism brigade hinting at a replacement motive for the action. They dropped that pretty early but it was the early talking point.
Dave,
You said, “I agree with Bill, except that I’ve started staying away from that “dark web” blame-the-Cals sites that exist in the SBC today. They are unhealthy for my spiritual growth!”
Is this being gracious? Is this being mean-spirited? Are you not doing exactly what you accuse Rick Patrick, me, and others of doing?
David
David, not gonna play the game. Such sites exist. I stay away. I find them unhealthy and unproductive.
I made a balanced point. The anti-Calvinists oppose Platt idealogically like many oppose Patterson.
That you can only see one side of that might be instructive to you.
Do you deny that such places exist?
I was asked point-blank the other day, “Is this an attempt to replace theologically Traditional Southern Baptist missionaries with more Calvinistic ones? Will our missionaries on the field be more Calvinistic when the old ones retire and the new ones come on board?”
My answer: “We can neither prove that intent nor deny that effect.”
But fortunately the lack of proof doesn’t stop you from casting aspersions.
Dave,
Calling your Brothers in Christ and fellow SB’s at SBC Today the “dark web” sounds very devisive. To insinuate that your Brothers in Christ are “dark,” or sinful, is not gonna promote healing and unity.
David
The truth, for me, is when the Calvinists revel in the fall, sin, mistake, poor decisions, whatever of a non-Cal there is something inside of me that wants to defend the non-Cal even if he/she is indefensible. I am sure this happens to others in both camps.
As for as the dark side rumors are concerned, it would not surprise me at all if more Cals make it to the mission field than in recent history. Southern Baptist have more who profess the Doctrines of Grace than in the past and some Cals may be inclined to join Dr. Platt at IMB. To believe Dr. Platt would scheme using financial shortcomings as an opportunity to replace non-Cal with Cal missionaries says a tremendous amount about who would share such a thought. Dr. Platt has always given me the impression if he is a Cal he does not wear it as a badge of honor nor does he use it to define who he is. His preaching has always been a challenge and a blessing to me.
I still maintain the concerns I shared last week when the news broke. To those is added dismay no vote was taken by the trustees.
David, I never mentioned SBC Today. I said in the SBC today. Not in SBC Today. Grammar matters.
Dave,
So, that wasn’t a play on words to imply the SBCToday crowd? Whom you consider Anti-Calvinist?
David
Grammar matters. “In the SBC today” and “at SBC Today” are two different things.
I noticed the similarities. But the difference in wording is intentional. I was not speaking of one blog.
I don’t discuss SBC Today here. I prefer others do not either. You are free to go there and discuss it. There are also FB discussion groups where my name us regularly trashed, I’ve been informed. If you aren’t already involved feel free to join.
But I don’t want th u s to he another discussion of this nonsense. Let’s get back on track
“But fortunately the lack of proof doesn’t stop you from casting aspersions.” Actually, it is the only thing that DOES stop me from casting aspersions.
If I were to cast an aspersion, I would say something like, “David Platt and Sebastian Traeger, both Calvinists, are simply trying to replace Traditional Southern Baptists with Calvinist Southern Baptists on the mission field in order to advance their reform agenda in Southern Baptist life.”
But instead, I did the opposite, pointing out that the evidence does not allow us to make that claim or to cast that aspersion.
By the way, though falsely accused of such, I don’t talk about conspiracy theories, for it is irrelevant to me whether the SBC is growing more Calvinistic by intention or by accident. If we are becoming more Calvinistic among our leadership than we are in our churches, that is a situation that calls for a remedy REGARDLESS of whether or not anyone ever intended to bring such a reality about.
In other words, I really don’t care if there’s a conspiracy. I care that Calvinists are over-represented and Traditionalists are under-represented in SBC leadership, however it might have happened.
Rick, we are not devoting another comment thread to your “stuff.” This is over.
Perhaps we should broaden our horizons a little and stop seeing every discussion thru the eyes of anti-anything driven and see the broader picture of who we are as SB. That would help us discuss the pros and cons of leadership without assigning motives to each comment.
Preachers make most of the “noise” from blogs etc. but the vast, vast majority of those who make the CP work are laymen who probably cannot tell who in our leadership are Cals., Trads.or any other handle/label we employ. They make a judgment on leadership free of this.
Point: assigning motives to comments is an insult and very unproductive.
I am convinced there are some regulars at Voices who have “Radical” tattooed above the cheek line on their backs and would defend Platt regardless…. because he is a Calvinist.
That may be true. Consider that both Driscoll and Caner are both still staunchly defended despite their shenanigans. It is unhealthy to be so firmly entrenched in one’s camp that you are blind to what goes on within it.
Bill Mac
That is the point, it is unhealthy and has at times led to undesirable consequences. Accountability is our friend….
Who on this site has defended Driscoll?
Tarheel: Not sure it has happened here. I think it has, but I wouldn’t swear to it.
I don’t actually remember that. I think the most common “defense” of Driscoll, early on, may have been like mine – Driscoll says a lot of really good things until he says something that makes me really uncomfortable.
Don’t think there was ever much of a full-on Driscoll fanatic here. Honestly, I was amazed at his ability to state things clearly – until he said something awful.
I am not interested in anyway what Dr Platt makes so the following comment has nothing to do with that issue.
I have heard through the years that Dr Rankin’s salary was never higher than the highest paid missionary on the field. I always appreciated him for this. I heard it so much I assume it true.
I never heard that. I just don’t know.
I’ve heard stories of Platt’s frugality. I don’t know where the money from his books went. If the church got that money, they obviously made bank on him. If he got the royalties, they likely didn’t need to pay him much.
I have no idea what Platt’s financial arrangement with the IMB is. But I would wager a kidney that he did not negotiate a huge financial deal. I’m sure it’s a package I’d like. It’s likely a good one. But there is no evidence that Platt has ever been a materialistic type.
If the salaries of the entity leaders and seminary presidents were revealed, I’m guessing his would not be among the highest. That is absolute, pure, total speculation.
Seeing how Lifeway doesn’t receive CP money that entity head doesn’t count. I have always thought and hoped Annuity pres was highest paid. I hope so! He is in charge of my retirement, which I plan on being able to draw when I reach 80.
I think knowing the salaries of the entity heads is not a bad idea, but I’d be much more interested in knowing the salaries of mega-church pastors, especially those who are well known for browbeating their congregations about tithing.
The idea that church members (polity anyone?) don’t know the salary of their pastors just astonishes me.
I agree, but I also astonished that folks don’t know what an entity head gets as well. Our churches pay their salary. I pastor around 70 or 80 people and my salary is posted in the foyer so that even visitors can see it. If pastors ought to reveal what they are paid so should entity heads.
John, “Amen!”
Dean
I repeatedly heard that…have no idea if it is true or not.
My prayer is that Calvinists and all the Non-Calvinists, and all the Dispensationalists and Non Dispys, and all the one’s inbetween them all, can all get along, in the SBC. My prayer…..truly….is that we’ll see God bring healing and revival to the SBC. And, that His Spirit will light a new, fresh fire in our hearts. That is truly the desire of my heart.
Thus, I’m backing out of this conversation, and really, I wish I had never entered into it. Proverbs 18:7
That is what I’ll be praying for. I want to encourage others to pray with me.
David
I’m done with it also. It is mid-night 30 in Montana and I have another grandson in another football game early in the morning. To be very honest I am more concerned with the outcome of tomorrow’s game than I am about whether or not Platt is a Calvinist. Have great day tomorrow.
It hat would be a wonderful thing!
Ok vol, I’ll engage your questions:
1) Churches sending their own on volunteer mission trips….only so much money to go around;
Same what state convention to keep larger and larger portions of the churches contributions for themselves so that they can do their own missions – only so much money to go around.
2) economy downturn;
Yep.
3) Churches following the CP giving examples of the leaders….Platt and Ezell;
I wish more did… But clearly they’re not.
4) GCR….people giving to all sorts of things(mission things), and reporting it as missions giving, but it’s not CP, Lottie, and Annie;
Our church has consistently increased our cooperative program dollars despite our counting other mission endeavors that we participate in.
5) Churches keeping more money home, to do other things with it;
State conventions too.
6) Pastors and Churches not happy about some of the changes that have taken place in the SBC…..for example, not liking the 50/50 state convention split, which they see as hurting state ministries, thus they give more to those state ministries, instead of to the CP, Lottie, Annie;
Pastors and church is not liking the fact that the state keeps most of the money that they send – and they’d rather see it go to the SBC.
7) some people in the pews not giving, as they should….some of them give great, generously, and sacrificially….but, I just don’t think some of the give much…not as much as they could.
Yep.
8) Churches not teaching missions and emphasizing missions, like they did in the past….thru RA’s, Acteens, CIA, Mission Friends, WOM, etc.
Those are not the only ways to teach missions – but I do think it’s likely that lots – most?? – SBC churches don’t do a good job with this.
The first time I ever heard David Platt preach, I paid for the videorecording. I was deeply impressed with his passion. I think he is gifted in many ways. Like Bart Barber and others, I did not favor his election as IMB President. I did not like his CP record and certain aspects of his missionary philosophy. I am very opposed to the expansion of anything like societalism.
Regarding the present overspending crisis at IMB, I am glad that Platt is addressing the matter directly. I applaud him for doing so. Regarding the process of the decision, I wish a few board members had been sitting in working together with Administrative Staff when some of the details were being ironed out. I also wish the Board had voted on the plan. With regard to the result of their deliberations, I still think the three year hiring freeze option is preferable to the early retirement option, for a variety of reasons I have addressed elsewhere.
As for the level of post-decision transparency and information shared, Platt and his team are to be commended. They have indeed listened and responded to many of the concerns.
The issue of executive salaries, and all IMB expenditures, is probably not going away. The $210 million of deficit spending was a game changer. From this point forward, the financial scrutiny of the IMB is going to intensify. I think we need to keep in mind that there are two crises: (a) the undergiving by our churches, and (b) the overspending by our IMB. Going forward, increased disclosure will be expected. If today’s letter and updated FAQ are any indication, we are off to a very good start in the new era of transparently sharing all IMB financial information.
I like David Platt and applaud him for stopping the bleeding. My only wish is that he would have been a pastor who supported the Cooperative Program. If he would have championed CP to the audience that read his books, maybe things would be different–or at least better than they are.
Kelly, I appreciate that sentiment and I would agree. However, I’m not in the state he served in and don’t know the background of their decision.
But one part that matters to me, in defense of his record (not that he needs my defense at this point), his church was VERY supportive of the IMB, the agency he leads. They were supportive more of national Baptist work. They gave a relatively small amount thru CP but did much of their giving directly to the national apparatus.
They gave well, but bypassed the state convention. I’m not sure of the reasons nor am I interested at this point.
Still, in general, I agree with you.
The CP works best when we give simply.
And works better when state conventions don’t suck up 2/3 of every dollar.
It continues to be my contention that this is a larger part of the problem than the giving of churches who go around the state conventions to give directly and largely. In fact it’s likely that the case could be made that these. Churches might not do that if the state didn’t suck up most of the money.
I understand your concerns about state conventions and can only speak of Oklahoma, where I am the Women’s Specialist. More specifically, I can speak to my budget. Most people who complain that we “keep” too much, don’t realize that 15% of my budget goes back to IMB personnel from our state each year as Christmas gifts. Almost 10% of my budget goes to support missionary parents, MKs, appointments gifts to new IMB personnel from our state, and emeritus personnel. Money budgeted toward equipping leaders always includes promoting missions and educating women in our state about missions. Two years ago, our state hosted the IMB MK re-entry retreat at a cost of more than $25,000. In addition, women in our state have given more than $50,000 directly to IMB projects at our state women’s retreat in the past two years. All this to say, don’t discount the effectiveness of a state convention.
I’m in Iowa, where our structure is so small it is hard to extrapolate.
I don’t know the specifics of Brook Hills decision-making or why they decided to do that, and frankly I’m operating more on memory than any specific or detailed research. But it is my understanding that they wanted more of their offerings to get to foreign missions so they made that election.
While it is a choice we are free, as autonomous churches, to make, it is one we hope not too many churches will elect.
Those all sound like Noble endeavors – and I’m not against any of them – but we’re constantly hearing that churches who choose to not give to the state or somehow robbing the cooperative program because they give directly to the mission boards – or “doing thier own missions” –
but no one wants to say that states are robbing the cooperative program by keeping it in their state and doing their “own missions”.
States are not “robbing the CP” to do their missions. The purpose of the CP is to fund state missions and national missions together. The state is PART of the Cooperative Program. It’s not just the national entities cooperating with one another, but the national entities and the state conventions cooperating.
States may take more than is healthy for the national SBC at times, more than I’d like them to take, but they have a legitimate claim to the Cooperative Program.
If that’s true – then churches aren’t either when they “do thier own missions” or go around the state convention and give directly to the mission boards or the EC.
I appreciate the Georgia WMU and GBC for doing similar things for GA based IMB personnel, their kids and families. I don’t know what the total sum of this is (I doubt it to be a significant part of the GBC budget) but every nickel of it is money well spent.
No church is doing anything wrong if it gives money “around” the state convention. It’s a choice each church is free to make.
However, it’s damaging to the CP when churches make that decision.
I saw a report recently, and since they started keeping accurate records (early 30s if my memory serves), the average yearly pass-along from state conventions to the EC has remained fairly consistent. It’s been in the 37 to 39 percent range pretty much every year.
Strangely, since the GCR, with so many conventions talking about increasing their share to the national convention, the rate has actually gone down a little. States are keeping a fractional amount MORE than they did a couple of years ago. I was surprised at that.
I don’t think that is accurate. The XComm reported the state’s ‘keep’ to have declined about 3 points. I can link the article later.
I don’t know – I got a document I’ll send to you. Not sure where the disconnect is.
My source asserts that the states are keeping keeping less of the CP dollar than in the decade before the GCR report. Your source shows the last two reporting years show they are keeping slightly more.
We both win.
I don’t think the slight changes in percntages are enough to matter.
Kinda goes back to the old adage about how you can make statistics say anything you want, I guess.
As for the report Dave mentions, it may be found here – http://www.sbc.net/pdf/cp/CPStatistics/HistoryOfDivisionCPFundsBetweenAllStates.pdf
It is updated regularly and appears on SBC.net in the CP section under the “Statistics” menu choice. The historic splits of individual state conventions are also listed under separate pages.
As for what Brook Hollow, or any other church, gave to the CP Allocation budget around their state convention (the national-only side of CP, leaving out their state ministries, and thus not classifiable as “CP”), those amounts are reported in each year’s SBC Annual in the EC report section, this year starting at page 170. The amounts listed may be in addition to regular CP contributions or in addition to separate, direct gifts to one or more entities. Each year’s Annual is also availabel at SBC.net at this link – http://www.sbcec.org/bor/2015/default.asp
Tarheel
I agree with your assessment. That is a valid point. I do think two other points should be made. I have no idea why Platt bypassed the state. I do know for a fact that SOME larger churches by pass for more political reasons. Be that as it may, I think the larger problem is waste. If our laymen knew abut some of the waste spending in our entities they would have a kaniption, and Lottie would roll over in her grave.
Tarheel
Another point…Churches give a % to their association and a % to their state. Why not a % to the assoc., a % to the state, and a % to the EC. Let the local church make the decision.
As a field guy who is on his third IMB president, I just don’t care what Platt earns.
Platt does things I cannot. He’s a gifted, driven speaker and writer. He has visions and ideas along with the will power, connection, and calling to make them real. He’s taken a church along to the mission field and inspired many others to tag along for the ride. Consider that, those of you who are pastors: changed the way his church viewed missions and got them on board. Not easy to do, I hear.
I begrudge him not a single dime, but for those who would like a publicly-posted line that says, “D. Platt – $xxx,ooo” consider this: Platt’s likely international travel to closed and dangerous places in order to be with his people will place him at risk if the world knows he earns 6 figures and is associated with Christians.
Seriously.
Yep
Platt’s likely international travel to closed and dangerous places in order to be with his people will place him at risk if the world knows he earns 6 figures and is associated with Christians.
Illogical.
Then allow me to say it this way: I travel to closed countries. I also write on Christian websites about missions, but I don’t use my real name. My income level is unknown.
However, suppose I were to put my photo, my real name, my association with Christians/IMB all out on the internet for people to see. Can I still travel to dangerous places? Sure, but with caution. Add in the notion that I work for a company with a operating budget in the hundreds of millions and that I earn six figures. Still safe? No, most assuredly not.
This likely does not drive anyone’s disinclination to share Platt’s salary, but it is a factor to consider. I’d even think twice about having him in my car on the field in some of the places we have people.
“If we don’t hang together, we’ll hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin.
I don’t venture on these sites often because it’s not good for my blood pressure. But as someone who knows David personally and knows the answers to many of the questions posed in the comments, I appreciated this article by Dave Miller and think he is exactly right – The IMB is in good hands.
Thank you, sir.
I agree. Great insight. I also know the answers to the questions and they are less mysterious than you would think.
Several random thoughts:
The hallmarks of the Platt presidency are tranparency, humility, prayer and courage.
The cynical presumption displayed in the comments is disheartening.
One of the signs of true humility is to accept that often there are people who know more than you know and can be led by the Lord to bring good to difficult situations with or without your opinion or approval.
If you really seek understanding, contact your state convention IMB trustee(s). They will be happy to walk you through it using the public documents. As ‘trustees’ they/we are trusted with confidential matters, but can reassure you on the trustworthiness of the process.
There comes a point in any discussion when everyone must stop talking and let the Lord do what He is going to do.
That is all…?
Well I must say ladies and gentlemen that we have beat this horse to death which one shall we beat next 🙂
I have a general reality-check question to the pastors here. While the pastors I know have some kind of general influence in setting priorities for church budgets, I’ve never met a pastor of a healthy church that actually controlled the budget of the church. Especially when the church gets past a certain size, the senior pastor doesn’t have time to worry much about the budget. You certainly don’t get large having a budget committee and line item officers that both the pastors and the congregation trust. To what extent could Dr Platt control the CP giving of his church?
Jim, I am afraid my experience is completely opposite of what you share. Pastors of larger churches that I happen to know concentrate on two things. Ministering the Word and sharing the vision key leaders. They absolutely shape the budget priorities. I watched with my own two eyes Drs Rogers and Elliff commit 50 and 75 thousand dollar checks from their respective churches on the spot at the convention one year.
If DP can’t influence his local congregation what makes anyone think he can influence missionaries or the SBC?
Don’t conflate influence and control. Likewise, don’t conflate the difference between pastoral ministry and ministry presidency. I don’t know about pastors who have the power to commit that kind of money from their church budgets outside of some kind of oversight from congregational organization and fellow elder accountability, but that kind of control isn’t healthy. The argument is made that Dr Platt didn’t give money from his church to the IMB in the way that he should have. I wouldn’t expect him to have that kind of control. Influence, yes. Control, no.
Jim, it makes no difference if it is control or influence a person possesses. If he possesses either he should be held accountable for his church’s vision concerning mission. Leadership is influence. DP used his influence to shape CBH. He will use that same influence to shape the IMB.
I am not speaking in hypotheticals. Large church pastors, for the most part, set the course their churches follow, from staff size to mission giving.
As to the convention story, in the 90’s, there were a # of black churches burned. Our SBC president asked the convention to pray for these congregations. Dr. Rogers stood at a mic and declared we need feet with our prayers and pledged 25 thousand dollars from Bellevue. Dr. Ellif stood and pledged 25 thousand as well. Dr. Rogers returned to the mic and declared Bellevue was twice the church of First Del City and if they could pledge 25 thousand Bellevue would pledge 50 thousand. That is how I remember it. I do remember as a young pastor thinking I had to sweat if I was going to get $500 to go to the convention and these guys are pledging tens of thousands of dollars.
Jim
You and I most always agree (great minds think alike,right). However, here I think we might see this differently. I am not sure how to differentiate between influence/control at this point. But I would bet my entire annuity account that one word from him on his churches missions giving would be affirmed.
I am going to leave this here because this thread is getting a little tense unless one can provide chapter and verse, but I only bet on sure things. BTW I am giving 2 to 1 on my Cardinals 🙂
I don’t know if all the churches work the same way, but megachurch pastors generally are able to “accomplish their vision.”
I hate to agree with Dean, because he is so wrong about so many things – mainly about sports – but I would guess that whatever the church gave was what Platt led the church to give.
You have never looked more intelligent – RTR!
I guess I’m naive enough (and I honestly believe that I could be) to think that a) Godly men would want accountability (I would); and b) non-pastoral church leaders would want to protect both their pastors and their congregations by providing godly accountability. I would have hoped that accountability existed in the SBC structure as well.
Since it doesn’t, then we can’t conclude that neither Dr Platt’s former church nor the IMB is complicit in his leadership.
On the other hand, if they are, then we have to understand that while Dr Platt is influential, it’s probably because he has a team that agrees with him enough to go along with him. Driscoll, in contrast, demonstrates that you can’t maintain a rule enforced by bullying indefinitely (without killing detractors like many despots do, of course). Jesus instructed us that our method of leadership shouldn’t be like that.
My point in this exercise is that Dr Platt isn’t working alone. If Dr Platt was ever wrong in his church’s giving patterns, you have to blame the whole church as well, whether they did it without Dr Platt’s directive or whether they followed Dr Platt unquestioningly.
The question now is whether we are willing to say that the IMB is similarly broken, or we are going to trust that the necessary controls for accountability are in place. That’s the difference between control and influence.
I’m not saying that Platt would have simply dictated to his elders at BH or to the Trustees at the IMB, or that there was no accountability. Not at all.
But if he believed that the state convention deserved more support, he could probably prevail in such a discussion. I’m just saying that the missions giving trends at BH likely reflect his beliefs and desires.
I am NOT saying he operated dictatorially or that the elders at his church were simply rubber stamps.
Jim
I would not assume that such pastors do not have accountability. However , I think another word is “integrity”. From what I know from day one about Platt (i.e.from the time I first heard his name), on a scale of 1-10, I would place his integrity at a 15. (BTW for those who keep putting the Cal in this issue, I am not a Cal).
As far as any comparison to Driscoll…. well….OK ’nuff said.
You do raise a valid point in one way. I think I have seen men who had integrity, and a heart for for God in the beginning part of their ministry but was given too much unilateral authority and the results were less than desirable. This is just a theory, however, so no way to prove that. Maybe they fooled me in the beginning.
Several responses to the comments:
1. Arguing that Platt’s salary needs to be made public is a red herring. His salary is “known.” It is known to those who set his salary (i.e. the trustees). So, either we trust the trustees to do their job or we don’t. Also, using the argument that “my church members know my salary and we post it in the lobby.” That’s just silly. I realize that for years smaller churches have done this. But there are a multitude of reasons why this is a bad idea and the overwhelming majority of church staff experts have written ad nauseam about it. A majority of larger churches have their personnel detail costs hidden. The overall number is known, but individual salary amounts are not listed.
2. Arguing that Platt should make the same as the missionaries on the field is just silly. In what world does the chief executive make the same amount as his employees? A missionary who is responsible for a $50,000 budget makes the same as the man responsible for $500 million budget? A missionary with a Master’s degree makes the same as the executive who has five degrees and one of them is a Ph.D? A missionary who writes a monthly newsletter makes the same amount as a man who is a NYT bestseller? I’m not saying that what the missionary does isn’t important – it’s absolutely vital. But pay should be commensurate with responsibility, education, experience, expectations, and gifting.
3. The Calvinist argument just drives me crazy. I realize that there are Calvinist zealots who are on a crusade to rid the world of all non-Calvinists and desire to replace every pastor, elder, staff member, convention executive, seminary professor, etc. with a Calvinist. But that is NOT Platt. You only need to look at his staff when he pastored Brook Hills. He wasn’t looking for Calvinists to fill his staff. He was looking for the best possible, God-called pastors to serve alongside him. He hired as many non-Calvinists as he did Calvinists. So, if he wasn’t on some Calvinist crusade as a pastor when hiring guys he worked alongside every day, why would he possibly do that with missionaries? Platt is a Calvinist. But he is not on a mission to convert the world to Calvinism. He’s on a mission to see the gospel taken to the nations.
Thank you.
BC, I haven’t read every comment in this stream so someone else may have been arguing for DP to make a missionaries’ salary. I said I wasn’t interested in what DP makes but I had heard throughout my ministry that Dr. Rankin would never take a salary higher than the highest paid missionary on the field. I have friends who have eaten in his home and they go on about his modest life style. I am impressed with this. However, I do not feel this should be our policy for pay concerning our entity heads.
David Worley made that suggestion several times.
Ok Dave and BC, I am sorry. I didn’t read all the comments closely. I am opposed to such a notion.
Dave,
I said that “tongue in cheek.” Although, I was saying that maybe the extravagant salaries that are made by SBC Entity heads and Staff should be cut before missionaries are told that they need to retire early.
I said I wasn’t gonna comment on this anymore, but then Dave had to go and talk about me. Well, I’m gone, again.
God bless our IMB and our missionaries. I pray for David Platt and the IMB. I love the SBC.
Bye,
David
I don’t think there was anything in your comments that indicated it was tongue in cheek. I certainly didn’t understand it to be that.
You’re assuming they’re extravagant (a subjective term anyway).
Also, are you suggesting all entity heads take pay cuts and that money be sent to IMB to keep missionaries on the Field? If a seminary were to start having financial troubles would you suggest NAMB and IMB personnel should take pay cuts so the seminary can keep training missionaries
Or Lifeway? Should IMB employees take cuts so they can keep operating and selling evangelistic materials that NAMB missionaries use?
Or pastors in Tennessee? Should they take pay cuts so as to raise monies sent from thier church to keep missionaries on the feild? (I am confident – that it is like any other church field – that at least a few people think your salary and benefits are extravagant) ?
bcprof
Point #2 does not belong in this discussion for more reasons that I can type. Field missionaries, are not “employees”. If they are then DP is also, he is an employee of mine. None should be considered “employees” except in a legal sense for the IRS etc. Many field missionaries have Ph.D’s. Many have more experience that Platt has years of life. Field missionaries have GREAT responsibilities, they are in daily contact with people going to hell. This list can go on but you get my point.
I am not saying Platt should not receive a good salary, just saying that this argument does not belong in the discussion of how to pay God called men.
DL,
My point #2 was in response to comments already made in this thread. I didn’t bring it up. I was arguing against the suggestion that Platt make the same as missionaries on the field. If missionaries aren’t employees, then what are they? Every minister of the gospel who draws a salary is an employee. Field missionaries and David Platt are all employees of the IMB. Each one of them is accountable to someone. The field missionary is accountable to an immediate supervisor, who is accountable to an immediate supervisor, who ultimately is accountable to Platt. Platt is accountable to the board of trustees. He is not an “employee of mine.” You can’t hire, fire, institute salary, make structural changes to the organization, etc. Platt and all the missionaries at the IMB are ultimately accountable to Christ. But, just because he or any one of them feels lead to do something, doesn’t mean they will be allowed to do it, because there is an authority structure.
I’m not arguing that just because he has a Ph.D. he should make more. As I said earlier, it’s a combination of responsibility, education, experience, expectations, and gifting. And, probably a host of other things. I was simply trying to illustrate that the argument that he should make what field missionaries make doesn’t hold water, any more than a senior pastor making the same as the associate children’s minister.
ALL of our missionaries have great responsibilities. I absolutely believe that. But what they don’t have is the expectations and accountability of a 500 million dollar budget, thousands of employees, and crafting the vision, strategy, and structure of one of the largest mission sending agencies in the world. He also is in daily contact with people going to hell, and is responsible to figure out how to best help every other missionary on the field fulfill the calling to reach as many people with the gospel as possible. Not just in one part of the world, but in every part of the world.
bcprof
I completely understand the process of things. I do not view our missionaries, entity heads, pastors etc. as “employees”. They are men called of God each who do a vital task according to their calling, placement by God and gifts. I understand process, structure and most assuredly accountability, but the word “employee” cheapens the task at hand. I guess we will simply have to disagree on this.
I have never said in any of this three or four day thread that Platt should make what field missionaries make. I have said that anything over 200,000 including perks is excessive.
s in the words of Dave Miller
” No church is doing anything wrong if it gives money “around” the state convention. It’s a choice each church is free to make.
However, it’s damaging to the CP when churches make that decision.”
AND WE ELECTED A GUY TO BE HEAD OF THE IMB who was damaging to the CP. not very smart.
And, a year later, if we keep harping on that instead of moving forward, what good does that do? How does bitterness and recrimination solve anything?
I don’t necessarily agree that giving to the IMB/NAMB/seminaries around the state is damaging to the entities – it is damaging to state coventions though.
One day Platt will stand before God and give an account of how he lead his church to take the gospel to the nations and how he lead his church to be good stewards of the money his people gave. Until you know the reasons why he opted to give money DIRECTLY to the IMB instead of the state convention in AL, I’d withhold your judgment. I know the reason why those decisions were made, as did the trustees of the IMB. He gave a thoughtful, reasoned, principled rationale for why he lead Brook Hills the way he did. And his reasons were good enough for the trustees. Platt’s allegiance is to Christ and not the CP. In 2014, Brook Hills gave almost 15% of their overall budget to take the gospel to the nations. People who preach blind allegiance to the CP, rather than allegiance to biblical stewardship are misguided. I can’t speak for Platt, but I would be willing to guess that if you asked him, he would say – if your state convention is the best avenue for you to give to take the gospel to the nations, then give to it. But if it is not, then give in some other way.
“The damage has already been done.” How? I really want to understand this. Example – a church gives $1,300,000 to the state convention for a given year. The state gives 55% of that money to the SBC through the CP. 50% of that money goes to the IMB. So in essence $292,500 goes onto the mission field. Or, that same church gives $1,000,000 directly to the IMB to get to the mission field. So, how has Platt’s conviction to biblically steward his church’s finances hurt getting the maximum amount of dollars onto the mission field and thus getting the gospel to the most amount of people.
Those who continue to armchair quarterback his leadership of the church he pastored should really take a step back until they are equalling or exceeding what his church is doing – sending over a million dollars onto the field every year, sending thousands of people on short-term international mission trips every year, appointing scores of mid-term missionaries (serving 6 months – 2 years on the field) every year and supporting dozens of long term missionaries around the world every year. And of course that doesn’t even include the radical experiment where for one solid year they canceled every ministry at the church to send every available dollar they had to the mission field.
I agree that not giving to the CP hurts state conventions. That is unfortunate. But honestly, some state conventions need to reevaluate the reasons why churches are going around them for their giving, because they are not wisely stewarding the money that is being sent to them. Some states send as little as 18% of their total receipts to the SBC. And, how is the money that is being kept in the state being used? Possibly to fund schools that have religion departments that don’t even believe in the authority, trustworthiness, and inerrancy of the Bible? Or state conventions that have bloated over-staffed personnel budgets and very little useful ministry to go along with the budgets.
I’m not at all suggesting that is the case with all states, or even many of them. I am simply offering some reasons why blind allegiance to the CP is not a good thing. I love the CP. The CP helped fund my seminary education. I’ve personally benefited from the CP and agree with the CP in principle. BUT, I think most people agree that the CP needs to be reevaluated and restructured. And, I think in the years ahead, you’ll see that happen. And, I think you’ll see Platt being a part of the leadership in helping to bring about that change.
bcprof
You may “love the CP” just not sure you understand it. Again I fined your arguments lacking. If a church chooses to give to
CP, not give to CP, give around the state or whatever, that is their right and business. But it does damage the CP. At this point I am not even saying that damaging the CP is all bad. Just saying this process does damage it. We all have reasons why we should go around or avoid it.
In what ways do I not understand the CP? Has there been something I have said that has been inaccurate about how the CP works? If so, please correct it.
bcprof
Very simple. You validate what BH did because they had “reasons”. We all have “reasons” not to give to CP, the list can be endless. If all of us yield to these “reasons” then the CP would greatly suffer. The CP works when we ALL participate. Now, I am not saying the reasons are not valid in the minds of the churches. That is their business and perhaps CP should be dismantled or greatly revised, but that is another discussion. Just saying if we all did what BH did, that you validated, it would destroy the CP. Hence you do not understand that for it to work all must be involved. Not equal money but equal sacrifice.
bcprof
I have sent a reply that is evidently “in moderation” Not really sure if it is my computer which is doing very strange things the past 4 days or if it is the Moderator.
Wanted you to know that I am not ignoring you, my brother.
DL,
Thanks for your post. It’s not that I didn’t understand the CP, it’s that I don’t agree. I fundamentally challenge the idea that a pastor has to lead his congregation to give money to something that he believes would be bad stewardship. I’m not suggesting that a pastor has to agree with every single thing the state or even the SBC does in order to commit to the CP. You are correct that everyone has reasons for why they do what they do in relation to the SBC, CP, and state conventions. If everyone did do what BH did, and the CP was destroyed, then I’m okay with that – because clearly the system was broken. Each of us is accountable for our own biblical stewardship of resources.
I actually have a post in the works that this is one of the fundamental changes since “back in my day” when I was a young whippersnapper. (I think I may actually be younger than DL – so he’s part of this as well)
Back in my dad’s day, we were denominationally focused, loyal, whatever word you wish to use. We trusted that the denominational structure was the best place to park our missions money. The idea that we could decide better how to spend the money than our denominational leaders could was unthinkable. We trusted them.
Several trends, among them the CR and the rise of megachurches (in an sense, denominations unto themselves) has given us a much greater freedom to substitute our own wisdom for the denominations. The kind of comments you have seen here would NEVER have been posted about Baker James Cauthen in the 60s. We believed he knew exactly how to handle things. He was the president!
There was a denominational trust that simply doesn’t exist today.
I blame George Bush.
Dave
1. Everyone is younger than me.
2. Your analysis of trust is spot on.
3. I don’t blame George Bush, I blame Tarheel
Blame Tarheel? Fine with me.
bcprof
It does need work. My issue is the issue of waste in both the state and national entities. I have spoken to this many times.
You are correct we are each accountable to our Lord for what He has given us.
Thanks for the dialogue, I always learn…blessings my brother.
Dave, as you work on that blog you have to include how the Internet has led to much of this distrust. When I first entered the ministry my DOM provided most of the information we received both from the state and national convention. Most was positive. Today we know most everything immediately and read a dissenting opinion almost immediately as well.
Also the world was big then and there were few places that competed for CP dollars. Gideons, Campus Crusaders and a few mission sending agencies. We had to work hard to develop relationships with missionaries. I read updates constantly by email from missionaries around the world.
Miller and Payton, you guys are waaayyy older than I am – if it’s messed up – it’s your fault (um, excuse me – it *may* be your fault) – guess my generation (Platt is in my generation) will have to fix it. 😉
😉
The problems exist on two levels: Waste & Management. So we have a Waster-Management problem. (You guys take it from here.)
it seems like the damage has been done.
i don’t know Rick Patrick but he isn’t the bad guy for expressing concerns that LOTS of SBC pastors have about this issue and the others concerning the SBC.
Greg
You make a valid point. This thread seems to revolve aroundI love DP he can do no wrong or I don’t like DP he can do no right. That causes us to lose our objectivity when considering trying to weave our way through situations in which we have limited information or perhaps full information. These issues must be decided on principles not personalities.
Dave
My last comment was said t be “in moderation”. What is the issue?
Because you’re a Cardinals fan – our moderator doesn’t like those. 😉
It’s not just a matter of being a fan – it’s a moral conviction. Any team that has Jon Lackey must be opposed.
Oh my..Lord why have you burdened me with these doubters.
You cheer for a team with John Lackey and you appeal to heaven? That is hypocrisy man.
I hear you my brother, but October is acomin!!!!
Don’t know. There is a protection system here that requires that a first-time commenter be approved. If you use a new email, or even if you misspell your name, it may read you as a new commenter and require that I approve you .
Those comments did have a different email than some of the others.
Sometimes, demons invade the system and simply do evil things.
Be assured that you were not put under moderation intentionally. I imagine it was the introduction of a new email that got you caught by our system.
Dave
I think it was my computer. It has been acting very funny last four days. Thanks for responding to my question
Demons, man. Don’t discount the presence of demons inside computers.
LOL
On compensation, how about one of you guys emailing imb and ask about salary ranges for executive level people? They might answer.
NOTE: to the missionary who has left a series of harsh and critical comments – I allow missionaries to post anonymously, but I do not allow them, or anyone, to use fake email addresses. The one you are using appears to be such. I emailed and got no response.
Frankly, I think your comments are unhealthy anyway, but if you wish to have your comments considered, they need to have a genuine email address attached. I could tell from your IP address that you are, in fact, serving internationally, so I assume that you are a missionary. I’m sorry for the anger and hurt you feel.
But if you want to vent that anger here, you need to use a real email address. If the email address you used is real (pretty sure it isn’t) then just respond to my email.
Dave,
Thanks for a great post. David Platt is a focused and godly leader making tough decisons at a critical time. Im thankful for his strength of character and love for the IMB and the SBC. We are blessed to have him.
Thank you, Mr. FIRST Vice President.