As we continue to work through the issue of the IMB drawdown of its personnel there are a couple of issues which I think need further attention.
Administration
Based on the material that is being presented it would seem that 80% of the IMB budget is spent on personnel while 20% is spent in support of those missionaries and the organization. The IMB budget figure that has been used in the blogs is 300 million. This would mean that 240 million is spent on personnel and 60 million on administration (Although some may be spent on “ministry”, my guess is that the “missionaries” are the ministry of the IMB leaving little or nothing for what might be called ministry.). I am not sure that this is accurate, but it will do as a starting point for this discussion.
Years ago there was a discussion held with the senior leadership of the IMB (then FMB) about salaries and administrative cost. The Board was insisting that the salaries be raised for the senior leadership. The president baulked because his highest value was making sure that resources went to the mission field. It was important for him to keep stateside administrative cost down to around 10%. In order to do this, he “froze” his compensation package, much to the chagrin, I am sure, of those who were part of his administration.
Some years later as stateside administrative cost continued to rise the IMB Board changed another long held tenet. Historically, when missionaries left the field to work at “the Board” they resigned their “missionary commission” and were “hired” by the Board. This was a transition that was often painful and traumatic for missionaries since so much of their identity was tied to that word. The idea was to differentiate between administration and missions. This has now changed. Administrative staff that have a direct supervisory relationship with missionaries continue to carry the title missionaries. Others who work in equipping areas also carry this title. The purpose of this change is to move expenses from the administrative side of the budget to the missionary side of the budget. It would be helpful to know what the administrative (stateside cost of running the organization) versus the cost of keeping missionaries on the field is. I would not be surprised if the amount did not come close to 20%.
Some time back a query went out asking the senior leadership of SBC entities what their compensation packages were. This same series of questions suggested that it should be capped at around $150,000. (By the way, this is about twice the amount the previously mentioned FMB administrator earned when he capped his salary.) I don’t know what the current IMB senior leadership makes, but it might be interesting to know. I am not suggesting that Platt and the other senior vice presidents need to share their salaries, but it might be interesting to know what the group is paid and what percentage that amount is of the total budget.
Using the 80/20 divide, if we were to return to the 10% level of yesteryear it would provide another 30 million for overseas missionaries. I am not suggesting that 30 million would solve our problem, but if we have overspent 210 million over the course of the last seven years that 30 million per year would have covered the deficit and we would not have the problem we currently are experiencing.
Missionary Personnel
The other issue that has been discussed is the missionary personnel under appointment. There are several important issues which need to be clarified and discussed.
Historically, the FMB/IMB has had a turnover of about 4 to 5 percent of its missionary force annually. This is phenomenal and speaks to the high caliber of our missionary personnel and the stringent appointment process. This figure refers to those who leave the field before their assignment is completed. Those who retire or leave after completing their commitment are not included in this figure. As we have shifted to appointing more people who serve in a variety of different capacities it behooves us to analyze this information more in detail.
Besides those who are appointed as “career” missionaries, we now have other categories with different termination points. We have those appointed for two year terms in the two plus two program related to our seminaries. Others are appointed for two and three year terms for specific roles. Finally, there is a growing number of “career” missionaries who understand that four years is a “career”.
One of the other bloggers has indicated that it takes 7-10 years for a missionary to become effective. Most pastors understand that it takes 5-7 years for them to really become the “pastor” of a church. This relationship is made more complicated when you throw language, culture, and distance into the mix. I would not dispute the 7-10 year figure. Furthermore, the first five years of missionary experience are the most expensive. It is during this time that they go through “orientation” and language learning. These can take from 15 months to two years of this initial time frame. Once they begin to learn the language they begin to adapt to the culture and learn to relate to the people. This takes even more time. Their effectiveness during this timeframe is rather limited. Historically, the idea was that this initial cost would be amortized over a twenty to thirty year career. Obviously this does not happen if they leave after just a few years.
With the new paradigm of missionaries serving shorter tenures, missions becomes much more expensive. I think that this is part of the dynamic that we are facing and, at least, part of the reason for the shortfall. Obviously, as stated above I think another part is the continued rise in the cost of administration as a percentage of the budget.
Some of David Platt’s material would indicate that we are going further in the direction of this new paradigm. One figure that has been mentioned is that he envisions a time when we would have 10,000 missionaries. It would seem that many, if not most, of these would be short term missionaries. This brings up another question which has been mentioned elsewhere that the drawdown may exacerbate. Short term missionaries are only as effective as the career missionaries with whom they work. In other words, it requires a career missionary on the field laying the groundwork for a short term missionary to be able to come in and have an effective tenure.
One of the issues in the drawdown is who will remain. Career missionaries generally go out between ages of 25 and 35. Stateside job opportunities peak for most people between 45-55. Currently, missionaries who are 55 and have 25 years on the field can retire. I would hope that the leadership does not offer a blanket process whereby those over a certain age and number of years’ service are offered a package. I would hope that they would pick and choose those whom to let go based on criterion of usefulness to the ministry in which they are involved. If we are simply trading older more experienced missionaries for fewer younger cheaper missionaries we are creating some serious problems for the future. But another aspect of this is that after the offers go out there may be some who decide to “retire” even if they do not get the VRI because they are unsure as to whether other changes may be coming from IMB. These two issues may mean that we lose the most valuable elements of our missionary team.
The decisions being made now will have a profound effect on our ability to do mission in the years to come. It is imperative that we ask all of the appropriate questions and search out all of the viable alternatives before we do something which will have a terrible negative effect on what has been a tremendous heritage.
Thomas L. Law, III
August 31, 2015
IMB’s 2014 report, available in the 2015 SBC Annual, gives the figure $247.8 million as “overseas programs” and $52.4 million as “stateside supporting.” That’s 17.4%. Equivalent figures from five years previous are within a percentage point.
I would favor any stateside cuts that did not reduce the level of support (security, training, handling emergencies, etc.) for those in the field. At a $300m budget some savings are probably doable. “Administration” is an easy target but there has to be an administrative structure, some leadership/strategy, training, etc. I don’t think the dollars are there.
Overall, IMB is a relatively low admin outfit. I think it is just conjecture to say that we have doubled administrative costs as a percentage of budget.
I agree with your questions. By definition, a VRI plan will reduce longer tenured people. In the short haul this may affect some missions. Is this a better route than shutting off new appointments for a few years or RIFing first termers so that some close to retirement can get that last term in? Wouldn’t it be prudent to offer those close to retirement incentives and see how the Lord leads. They will retire one day. The time table may be changed by the incentive.
These are tough questions and ones that I cannot answer.
Comparatively speaking the IMB is not a relatively low admin cost outfit. Most missions agencies have a lot lower admin cost.
OK, fair enough. Show me the comparative figures. You may be right but probably not in regard to sending agencies with the same model. If IMB wanted to just route money raised by ‘faith’ missionaries they could eliminate a lot. These envy us for a reason.
William,
Thank you for the research.
“IMB’s 2014 report, available in the 2015 SBC Annual, gives the figure $247.8 million as ‘overseas programs’ and $52.4 million as ‘stateside supporting.’ That’s 17.4%.”
I agree that overall the administrative cost are relatively low compared to other “non-profits” in general. But historically they have been lower. It is my understanding that at the beginning of the Rankin years it was about 12%. Using your figures, returning to that amount would give us and extra $17.5 to cover annual deficits. Also, as I understand it some of the “stateside support” is supplemented by the “overseas programs” part of the budget.
From the Platt report it is my understanding that the plan is to cut 15% of the 450 employees currently in the “stateside support” portion of the budget. If it were a 15% cut in the money used stateside it would put us about halfway there, but I don’t think that a 15% cut in personnel equals a 15% cut in stateside spending.
If memory serves me did not the old FMB prior to Rankin put administration at 10%
Yes, that is what I was referring to and advocating in my article.
I am not sure that a VRI has to target those with the longest tenure. In fact, I think that a VRI that does that will create more problems than solutions.
In every organization there is “dead weight”. As much as possible the VRI should address that issue. From an administrative position they ought to offer a “buy out” to those that they would like to see go. Besides the “dead weight” it would also include those sector where strategy has changed. For instance if we no longer are interested in having missionaries in a part of the world, the missionaries in those countries could be offered an exist plan as part of the VRI (this was done once before). Then all of those who did not take the VRI would be forcefully terminated in January.
If they did it this way they could save themselves some legal headaches. If they only offer the VRI to those over a certain age (and tenure) and then terminate those same people they could be opening themselves up to age discrimination law suites. If on the other hand, they pick and choose those who receive the VRI across the age and tenure specturm. There would no longer be an age issue if they were terminated, even if they were of a “certain age.”
My concern is that those who do not get the VRI offer might decide that it is time to pack it in, because they might think that if not this year, next year. Unless the root problem is address then we may face these same issues in another year or two. This could mean that our “best and brightest” might opt to leave the field because of the ongoing uncertainty. It is my understanding that an “apprentice” earns about 80% of the salary of a career missionary, but by definition an apprentice works under the supervision of a career missionary. If those career missionaries leave then who is going to develop and train the next generation of missionaries.
There are tough questions to face, Thomas.
To be honest I have had an issue for many years. I love preachers/pastors I am one. However, IMB is a large corporation. Has there been any study/analysis by business professionals regarding cutting cost. Does Platt have such on an advisory team.
Thanks for that comment Mr. Payton. For those of us serving and seeing the day to day workings of all of this, we all know that there is much room for cutting costs. On the field there are many “leadership” positions that are simply not needed. Many in those positions are not primarily doing the work of taking the gospel to lost people, but simply “overseeing” many other missionaries who are. And, in the that capacity they are constantly spending money to travel and attend meetings that most of us know are not necessary. The best accountability and training takes place for us simply in the context of our close knit teams. There is a bloated bureaucracy that can be stifling and actually hinders our work. And it costs!
Thanks for your ministry and faithful giving brother!
Amen!
I repeat myself with the most sincere and noble motive – –
Change the Metric by which ministry effectiveness is measured. It is virtually insane to expect an increase in funding for Missions when the primary support base (local churches) are drying up like the California desserts.
If & when our churches are transformed and begin to measure ministry by the glorious and lasting transformation of people into the image of Christ, funding for missions will no longer be an issue. This is a both/and issue. We must plant new churches and simultaneously see God renew existing churches if we are going to see the clear trends (downward with rapid increase in that direction) change.
In Grace,
Tom Fillinger
http://www.igniteus.net
803 413 3509
I have often said that they issue is one of discipleship. If we developed true “disciples who obey” all of these issues would be moot. Churches would have all of the money they needed plus all of the ministry volunteers that were needed. We would have more missionaries and missions dollars than our current system could handle.
Unfortunately, we have moved away from disciples making disciples to a group process that has not worked. We need to get back to the basic which Jesus taught as he taught the thousands, but discipled the few who in turned discipled others.
Simple question: imagining that we can’t rewrite history and that we don’t want to pursue pogroms and inquisitions to properly punish people who were acting well within their authority in bringing us to this situation, what’s next?
I suspect Platt is hinting at something he hasn’t fully elaborated or explained. And if there are mega churches effectively appointing missions personnel that is the next secret I’d get off my chest if I were him. Open up on what that side process is by which churches today are already directly supporting and selecting missionaries if it is already in development or already in use.
Greg
The questions becomes…. is there enough mega churches to reach the numbers we need?
When my wife and I were appointed by the FMB (now IMB) in 1975, Baker James Cauthen was the president of the FMB. He insisted that the home office administration cost no more than 10% of the budget. I wish we could return to that. I also would like to see all the Richmond professional staff paid the standard missionary salary. This is what Campus Crusade does. They raise their support, of course, but the president of Campus Crusade has the same salary as a campus worker at a university.
Mark
I know this is not the point of this thread, but as an old codger I just have to say, the BJC days were good days for the FMB. He was a priceless jewel. I heard him in 1972 stand before 6000 teenagers at Falls Creek (Oklahoma youth camp) in a 3 piece suit preaching an expository sermon on missions. You could have heard a pin drop.
DL,
We old guys must stick together! I heard Dr. Cauthen at Falls Creek Baptist Assembly in the summer of 1969 (I think.) The Lord used his powerful messages on missions to move me toward missionary service.
I also heard Baker James Cauthen at Falls Creek – probably 1972. He preached 10 sermons that week in the tabernacle. As a high school student, I was impressed! Don’t remember the numbers, but there were many, many students who surrendered to the call of missions that week.
Mark/Stephen
For years it was noted that more preachers/missionaries were call at Falls Creek than any other place, and at times all other assemblies put together. I don’t know about recently but I would expect that it is still true.
It is my understanding that now Falls Creek tops 60,000 a summer. I miss it.
Good discussion here even though much of it could be related to saying the cows are already out of the barn and no way to get them back in.
I was appointed when Dr. Cauthen was president also. No one could send out the
missionary call better than him. I also served under Keith Parks and Jerry Rankin. Under Parks and Cauthen we did try to keep US costs down and number of personnel at the home office low. Under Cauthen to a fault some felt. The emphasis was on getting as many people to the field as possible.
Some how the number of VPs and Associate VPs grew greatly in Richmond under Rankin. We were told that when Keith Parks retired the trustees wanted to hire a super church pastor but Keith’s salary was so low they couldn’t find anyone to who could afford to leave their church. That may not be exactly true but I think there was an element of truth there.
I am disappointed that there has been no mention of cutting travel costs. Anonymous M is correct. We have wasted much money on unnecessary travel and meetings. After New Directions, it seemed anyone with any type of supervisory position spent an exorbitant amount of time traveling and going to meetings and getting training and more training. Big meetings were held and personnel were brought in from all over the world with no thought of costs. Missionaries on STAS would often be flown back to the field for meetings they could have received a summary of by email and been just as informed. I haven’t noticed a change in this yet. We have a number of field personnel serving in the USA for a variety of purposes, none as important as what they could be doing if they were on the field. They continue to accrue field longevity. There are people in the home office and state convention offices that could have performed these duties just as well.
I am not saying all administrative decisions were bad but I hope we are looking at other cost cutting measures besides cutting personnel. I am troubled that David Platt seems to feel cutting field missionaries is the best and most efficient way to cut costs.