The fundamental problem facing the IMB is that they have two divergent model in place working against each other. They are funding IMB missionaries with one model and sending them to the field with another. Unless one or the other of the models is changed we will continue to have problems. The current IMB VRI process does not get to the root IMB problem and could actually make things worse.
Two Models
The funding model which had served the FMB/IMB well for seventy plus years focused on pooling the resources from the SBC churches and funding missionaries without them having to raise their own support. Missionaries were expected to encourage the churches to contribute to the funding system (Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon) while they are on Stateside Assignment (Furlough). It was a big deal to have a missionary in your church to speak and even a bigger deal to have a missionary go out from your church. If a church wanted to contribute to the support and ministry of a particular missionary they could do so with the understanding that although the missionaries name would be attached to the gift the money (over and above their Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon gifts) went into the general pool. Many churches put missionary support into their budgets and when “their” missionary came back to the United States the missionary would spend time with this church family. Special gifts by churches or individuals to the ministry of particular missionaries were permitted, but these gifts were under the supervision of all of the missionaries and to be used to further the work of the missionaries as a whole in a particular country. There were abuses, but, by and large, the system worked as long as the focus was on career missionaries with a Mission (all of the missionaries in a particular country or area) as the accountability group.
As mentioned in a previous blog, “it takes 7-10 years for a missionary to become effective. 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.”
It was also expected that the new missionary would have had some on-the-job training for the position which they would be fulfilling on the mission field. At least two years of work in the particular area of ministry was required. Whether the missionary was going out as a pastor (church planter), educator, administrator, physician, or nurse they were expected to have had at least two years of “real-world” experience post schooling. It was understood that it is important for people to practice their skills and “prove” themselves capable of doing whatever it was that they would be doing overseas. A positive side benefit to this time in the “real” world was the develop of relationships who served as a personal support system as well as active contributors to their support through the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon.
In other words, the funding model relied on a longevity factor and a trained missionary. Its focus was on providing the missionary with the basic personal and ministry funds necessary to do their work.
This began to change in 1965. Although short term volunteer “missionary´ college and seminary students had begun going out in the late 1940’s it was the creation of the Journeyman program in 1965 that began changing this paradigm. This program allowed college graduates to serve for two (sometimes three) year terms working alongside missionaries overseas. Once they finished their service, the time served overseas was viewed as their “two year real-world” experience and they could be appointed as career missionaries if they had the other educational requirements necessary to fulfill the role for which they were applying. Other short-term missionary programs were added to the mix and in the middle 1990’s a huge paradigm shift took place.
The IMB began focusing on the 10/40 window and “unreached” people groups. Basic to this shift was the understanding that the places in which the missionaries would serve were so different to their experience in the United States that on-the-field training was essential to becoming an effective missionary. It was not only the places, but also the methods which would be used that were different. The “mission” culture which had been developed over 150+ years along with its support system disappeared. Even relationships with traditional national churches and pastors were minimized. This new paradigm required that the existing missionary personnel be “retrained” and that new personnel would have to have a new style of training to be effective in this new reality.
As part of the process new short term programs were developed. These usually recruited new missionaries who had little or no “real-world” experience and may not have even finished their education. These include the Apprentice program and 2+2 among others. The idea was to equip these new missionaries in the systems and methods which were thought to be most effective in reaching those who had not yet been evangelized. These new short term missionaries are not compensated at the same level as the career missionaries, but they are part of the missionary contingent and receive extensive travel and transportation budgets.
Many of these short-term missionaries are appointed as career missionaries. Many of them, though, burn out because where they work is so foreign to their previous experience. A large portion of the personnel budget is spent on helping these missionaries through difficulties, training, and travel.
In other words this sending model relies on personnel that is trained on the field, with the understanding that hopefully the best will stay on to become productive and effective missionaries.
Current Solution
The IMB leadership has known of this difficulty for a long time. The solution was a drawdown of the missionary personnel. This was to be accomplished through natural and normal attrition. At its zenith the FMB/IMB was appointing 500+ missionaries annually. In the past few years this figure has dropped to 300 or so in order to solve the funding issue. The problem is that an increasing number of the new appointees are short-term personnel, who exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. Prior to the mid 1990’s the ration of missionaries to short-term personnel moved gradually to where it became two to one. In other words, before the paradigm shift there were two career (long-term) missionary for each short-term missionary. Even that was putting a strain on the resources and the FMB/IMB went to a system of partially funding the short-term missionaries. My best guess is that the current ratio is about one to one.
A fellow blogger said that “2,285 people need to be offered a VRI in order to hope for 800 retirees.” I think more people will take the VRI than this blogger and maybe the IMB leadership think. There are two reasons for this. One, many will be concerned that none of the advantages of retiring will be there when they do decide to “retire”. Two, they may not be interested in doing missions in the new paradigm.
Past experience for IMB missionaries (and other organizations) show that when the organization is needing to make budget cuts one area where they look is the entitlements for retired missionaries. Prior to 1990 retired missionaries medical was covered until death. The IMB would also do their taxes. After that budget crunch these were changed. Since then other changes have been made. Many if not most of the items on the list VRI list are part of the current retirement package which missionaries can avail themselves of upon retirement. My guess is that many missionaries who receive the VRI letter will wonder which of the items on the list will not long be available should they decide to retire one, two, or five years from now.
The second reason some may leave is the dramatic change of missions done by the IMB over the course of the last twenty years. These changes promise to accelerate. One source indicated that Platt’s goal is to have 10,000 missionaries overseas. I think that the new paradigm looks like this: A few career missionaries creating a beachhead for multiple volunteer (self-funded) and/or short-term missionaries with a ratio of 1 to 9. Partial, but no full, funding for short-term missionaries. More churches sending their own missionaries who work under the IMB umbrella.
The above mentioned blogger speculated that if 800 missionaries took the VRI, then phase 2 and 3 may not be necessary. I think that phase 2 and 3 are coming regardless of how many respond to the VRI. Frankly, some changes mentioned in the subsequent phases need to be made regardless. Others will be made to facilitate the transition to the new paradigm. Whatever the changes, the IMB we have known will no longer be the same.
Root Problem Solution
As mentioned before the root problem is that the IMB is using one model for funding missionaries while implementing another for recruiting and sending them. I propose that a simple (but dramatic paradigm change) could be effected that would require no VRI and would get us back to solvency within a year (or two at the outside). This would be a shift in the way we do missions, but in reality it only would be the next step along the path we have been on for the past twenty years. If this step had been implemented at the time of the paradigm shift to recruiting people without experience and training them on the field for brief missionary stints we would not be in crisis mode at the moment.
“No missionary will receive IMB funding and appointment as a career missionary until they have two (or three) years of field experience. These initial years will be paid for by family, friends, and churches.”
I would speculate this suggestion may be part of phase two or three in the new paradigm transition. If what I think is correct it would have been much better for the Platt team to have implemented this change rather than use the VRI method. As mentioned in a previous blog I am afraid that the VRI method will cause us to lose the most valuable assets we have (long-term career missionaries), who are essential for the implementation of Platt’s new paradigm. I wonder if the IMB leadership team felt that the VRI was the idea which could be “sold” and its pain would allow them to implement the above paradigm shift which will be essential to reach their goal of 10,000 missionaries.
Many have said that they wish that previous FMB/IMB leadership teams had been as transparent as Platt and his team. I would suggest that in accordance with the communications styles of the day these leaders were as transparent and those who were interested in “reading the tea leaves” were aware of what was happening. Let’s keep our eyes and ears open so that we will not be accused of hiding our heads in the sand by the next generation of bloggers.
Thomas L Law, III
September 12, 2015
Tom sent this a few days ago, and my lazy self finally got around to posting it.
Interesting. Several interesting, important questions. Wish it had been broken up into a few pieces more focused on each one. That said, I’m always a bit wary of categorical conclusions as if these were givens.
I appreciate some of the thoughts. I don’t think any of us (not even former IMB people like the author) know where this is going, nor can they anticipate unintended consequences from major policy shifts.
On retiree benefits: Look at any major employer and you will find similar reductions in post-retirement benefits.
On potential career missionaries having to find funding on their own for their two years experience in the field: some of these monies would likely come from churches present gifts to CP and LM. It would have the advantage of paring down the pool of applicants, but then, the Journey program already does that. I’m not sure that the author has a better idea here. Would like to see more of the author’s thoughts on this.
The IMB’s partnership with individual churches is an area that needs more exploration and explanation.
I think with 300 new appointees, the ratio is close to 1:1, maybe slightly less than that.
William, you are correct. I don’t sit in the leadership chair of the IMB and, therefore, do not know where Platt is taking us. Nor do I know of all of the unintended consequences (obviously none of us do, but I presume that the IMB leadership mapped out as many of them as they could think of).
“On retiree benefits: Look at any major employer and you will find similar reductions in post-retirement benefits.” This is my point. Those who do not take the VRI will need know this and it probably will affect their decision.
Effective Jan. 1, 2016 the retirement policies for the IMB will change, with a primary effect of reducing the size and extent of the retirement package for all future retirees
I am carefully reading these ideas. It may be that more of a “self funding model” is inevitable. I don’t know.
But about the only thing that differentiates the SBC from other conservative evangelical denominations, such as Conservative Baptists, is that fact that the SBC has a “fully funded” missionary support model. I have seen the CBA [Conservative Baptists of America] funding model up close and personal for 50 years. I have seen missionaries struggle for years — typically 2 to 5 years — to raise the support they need to go on the field.
During the Silicon Valley .COM collapse some missionaries were in a bind because churches that had signed up to support them were scaling back, laying off people on their own staffs, and could no longer support the missionaries at the same level of dollar support.
I believe that the SBC should make every attempt to keep our current CP / LMCO funding structure in place for the IMB. We should not be enticed by the siren-song of self funding models. I think we would be better to level off the number of missionaries and fully fund them as opposed to “not supporting” more missionaries under the “societal model” which is tantamount to “marginal or no support”. We need a support structure which encourages long term assignments. That funding model is the current “fully funded” model.
Our goal should be long term effectiveness — not just putting people out there without proper training, without proven aptitude, and without needed language skills. I don’t think Gospel effectiveness necessarily equates to number of people on the field.
Roger K. Simpson Oklahoma City OK
The problem we have is that we are funding missionaries for shorter periods of time. The initial outlay to get missionaries on the field is the largest single expense. Add to that the increase in training them in methods that they would not experience in the United States makes today’s missions proposition an expensive one.
As more and more of the mission personnel serve shorter terms the process only gets more expensive. It has already been pointed out that we have paired the number of missionaries from 5,600 to 4,800. Now we are going to reduce that number to 4,000. In another few years we may be reducing the number even further if we continue to operate the way we currently are. What did Einstein say about continuing to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
I have no doubt that CP and Lottie will be affected, but I think that they will be affected anyway we slice it.
One of the comments related to the VRI is that those who accept it would be able to stay on the field if they wanted to do so. I would presume that those that elect to do this will be asking their churches and friend back home to support their ministries.
As others who would like to go but can’t because of the pairing back of mission personnel appeal to their churches, family, and friends you will have even more erosion in CP and Lottie.
Unless we can redirect the conversation we will not really be addressing the problem. What people are hearing is “send us more of your money, so that we can continue to do what we always have which has gotten us to the point where we need more of your money.”
Yes, we have a serious problem in our churches where 95+% is spent on ourselves, our comfort, and our lifestyle. Yes, we need to address this problem, but that is the issue for another blog.
Yep, Lawn-care alone could make up the difference needed !!!
What l am suggesting (I don’t know that it is the best idea) is that we find other ways to prepare those who are going to the field short of using IMB funds. Prior to the 1990’s the preparation ground was the local church. The missionary received their training in the local church and when they got to the mission field they were basically ready to hit the ground running as they learned the language. They knew what a church looked like and how to start one. They knew what discipleship looked like and how to disciple someone. Both of these were done much like what they were in the United States. Were they the best methods? Maybe not, but the missionaries were not having to unlearn what they had learned in their churches in order to learn something new.
Now we expect the missionary to implement discipleship and church planting methods that are foreign to their experience in the United States. There are a few places were T4T and Discovery Bible Study is being implemented in the local church in the United States, but they are meeting stiff resistance. Missionaries that come back from the field and want to implement them are finding it difficult. Recently trending on Facebook you see, “[Paige] Patterson said he does not question the sincerity of missionaries who believe in church-planting movements and insider methods of evangelism, but he believes they are in error.”
I don’t think that we need to export the United States church overseas like we may have done at one time. But the IMB will continue to find it difficult to fund training new recruits while funding them. Something has to change.
On the issue of training, I agree with Dr. Patterson in regards to those specific methods, but disagree that this is an either/or option as your post suggests. It’s possible to be trained in biblical and effective missionary methods in this country and not export something unique to the U.S. onto the mission field that isn’t appropriate. As someone who has served as a pastor for over a decades, worked closely with IMB and non-IMB personal for global mission work, and am now transitioning myself into full-time missions, I’m still by no means an expert. But, I’ve been well-trained by one of our seminaries and had more practical experience than the average pastor. What I’ve seen firsthand is that the best methods for making disciples and establishing churches are universal. They require some adaptation to specific regions/cultures, but follow the same essential outline. I think someone who works at/with a healthy church while attending a good seminary would actually be well-prepared for what they will do on the field. I would rather not move away from the finding model that makes the SBC unique and (in some ways) more effective. Blessings!
Please reread my post. What I said was that the change in the process of training was one of the costly issues which are affecting the viability of the current IMB models.
Perceptive post. Is strategy field-driven or home-base-driven? Is the bottom line fulfilling the Great Commission on the mission fields of the world or is it sending more missionaries? I am afraid that for a time—not sure to what degree this continues to be the case—the driving factor for Southern Baptists has been the total number of people sent to the mission field, not necessarily the on-field effectiveness of those sent. We will one day have to answer to the Lord for our stewardship of resources. Perhaps He is doing something similar now to what the master in the Parable of the Talents did when he said, “Take the talent from the one who hid his talent and give it to the one who invested his talents wisely.” Putting our missions dollars as churches disproportionately into sending out more and more short-term teams is another symptom of this same basic mindset. Yes, it is true the Lord of the Harvest is infinitely wealthy and He wants us to dream big and plan big. But at the same time it is required of stewards that they be faithful and wise with that which is entrusted to them.
One of my concerns is that as the IMB offers those 50 and over VRI packages it will lead to eliminating those that we need most if we are going to be effective. In fact, my perspective is that if we don’t have our most experienced missionaries on the field (who I think will opt for the VRI in greater numbers than expected) it may put our missionary future in jeopardy.
Thomas Law I don’t know you or your background but you have made some very good insightful observations of the way things were and are today. I think the paradigm shift began and was gradual through the 80s and 90s and took on a life of its own with New Directions after 2000. Jerry Rankin told our missionaries we were not here to do missions but to enable our churches to do missions. We were constantly encouraged to recruit mission teams from churches. I support churches sending mission teams but not as the primary strategy for doing missions. Your idea of the new paradigm with a few missionaries supporting many short termers and volunteers may be the way David Platt is leading us.
When I was appointed 35 years, ago we had a general orientation in the US on cultural and language learning methods. We learned mission strategy on the field by working alongside veteran missionaries and with national partners. Language learning was emphasized. This would be different depending on the field where we were serving. Under New Directions we actually moved away from personnel being trained on the field if by field you mean where they would serve. I don’t know any missionary that did not support focusing on the 10/40 window and unreached people groups. However, field personnel had little input into strategy or training. A one size fits all or cookie cutter approach was developed. New personnel were warned to not get too close to the older missionaries in order to not be infected with traditional methods. The same went for working with local church partners. This was not true everywhere but it was very common. Often newly appointed personnel arrived as team leaders and were often sent to very difficult areas where they were the only IMB personnel. Many did burn out or become disillusioned, partly because the support system changed or in some cases disappeared. Many also did tremendous and courageous service for the Lord. Travel and training was taking place constantly but little of it was specific to your ministry.
Your idea of the current solution may be where we are moving. For many churches this would be a difficult change if they have been supporting the cooperative program and Lottie Moon for years. I agree with Roger Simpson that I would hate to give up on a method that has been successful and effective for several generations.
David Rogers comments of stewardship are also well spoken.
My wife and I were appointed in 1978. Both my wife and I, also, grew up on the mission field as MKs. Your description of the chain of events follows my own experience and, I think, help clarify the situation in which we now find ourselves. You speak very eloquently for the other side of the equation. As I mentioned in my post we have two different models at odds with each other. My post addressed the financial side and a way of dealing with this issue while continuing down the path which the IMB seems to be traveling of having fewer career missionaries and more short-term and “volunteer” missionaries.
I appreciate what you have to say about the elements of mission work we have given up in order to travel down this road. I agree with you, but don’t see us changing this part of the paradigm.
I, too, yearn for some of the things that were given up as we moved to New Directions. I understand that there were some Missions (groups of missionaries in a country) that may have been detrimental to the work, but my experience was that the Mission created a social framework to help missionaries through the difficult times (of which there were always many). In an effort to help missionaries once the Missions were dissolved the IMB created the position of “member care”. How can one or two couples take on the task of helping all of the missionaries in a region?
The cookie cutter approach to missions is another major problem. The absurdity of this was present in the transition in Paraguay, where I served. It is basically a homogeneous country were every one speaks a version of Jopara (mixture of Spanish and Gurarani). With New Directions we now had a Spanish Team and a Guarani Team trying to figure out how to split the population.
The first time I met a CSI (Cooperative Services International branch of the IMB) missionary was as he, appointed to Brazil, traveled through Paraguay. I laughed since Brazil was one of the most inviting countries to evangelical missionaries. l stopped laughing when I realized that none of the Brazilian missionaries (nor national leadership) knew that he was even working in the country.
I hope that this conversation helps us begin dealing with both sides of the paradigm. Again, thank you for your insightful comments.
This is one of the better posts we’ve seen speaking about the very difficult positions we’ve found ourselves to be in. There are so many programs for short term personnel now, and each one has their unique set of training, benefits, and roles to play on the field. Preparing for their arrival, mentoring/training them, assisting them with their daily life is not only costly, but it is very time consuming for those serving full time. We’ve been encouraged in recent years to pour our lives into them even if they don’t stay on the field “because it will be of great benefit to them when they minister in the future in the USA.” While that may be true, there is sacrifice on the field to accomplish that goal.
We thank you for your prayers as we continue to pray about how God is leading us regarding the Voluntary Retirement. Many of us wish to remain on the field and continue to reach those who don’t know Christ yet. At the same time, we realize someone has to leave. If we stay, then who will have to leave? As far as we realize, we haven’t been pressured to retire, and yet we personally feel the pressure to help solve the financial crisis. We pray for God’s guidance. But all in all, whether we stay or leave, we want to thank all of you who have prayed and supported us over the years. We have to pinch ourselves every morning to make sure we aren’t in a dream that God has provided such an opportunity through the IMB for us to serve Him in this foreign land telling others about Jesus. Even if our days here are numbered now, it makes us no less thankful for the years that we have been blessed with. Please continue to make missions a priority among Southern Baptists, and work together to reach every people group on this earth.
That’s interesting Thomas. My wife and I were also appointed in 78. We served in East Asia which was ground zero for the paradigm wars. I could tell stories similar to yours on over lapping strategies and member care difficulties but that is for another time. Maybe sitting around the retirement home telling stories.
Like the post above, my wife and I had spent half our lives with the IMB when we retired. It was one of the greatest honors of my life to have represented Southern Baptist on the IMB and to serve with some of the finest servants God has on this earth.
It looks like you may be in Arkansas. I am currently in OK. If you ever get over this way give me a call. I would enjoy visiting with you.
I know a lot of IMB missionaries read SBC Voices, so I want to post this information from Mid-America Baptist Seminary in Memphis.
With the coming transitions to our International Mission Board field personnel, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary would like to partner with the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention in providing relocation assistance. This would be for the IMB personnel affected by the early retirement plan which is being enacted.
Our proposal would be to provide housing in our Mid-America Student Housing Apartments for personnel returning stateside. We would provide a one, two, or three bedroom apartment for a period of one year from the date of move in. Utilities would also be provided at no cost to the missionary. The missionaries would be chosen by the IMB and we would then move them into our Student Housing complex. Our apartments are commercial grade and are all less than nine years old.
We will commit 30 apartments to this program effective immediately and await your instruction on how best to proceed. There is no time limit on this offer and we stand ready to serve our Southern Baptist missionaries with dignity, respect, and honor as they move to the next stage of ministry.
Missionaries who want to avail of this offer should contact Clyde Meador at the IMB. We have also asked the other seminaries to consider helping in a similar way. Our hope is that many of the larger churches will help our missionaries as they make the difficult transition back to the USA.
Mark, I apologize.
I fullly intended to post that and I just forgot. I’m totally swamped right now and am giving the blog the short end of the stick. But I did intend to post this. I think it might should be a separate post at some point, maybe toward the weekend. It is a great thing that MABTS is doing.
This is great news. I, too, think that it merits its own post.
Getting a job in the United States, at this time, is not an easy proposition. Churches, in their hiring process, make glaciers look like they are moving at the speed of light. Those that are 45 to 55 have the best chance of landing a job. Those that are approaching 65 may not be able to find one. I don’t want to be the harbinger of bad news, but this is what I have experienced.
I have told the missionaries with whom i have spoken that they need to begin making contacts. They need to begin the process if they even have a idea that they might accept the VRI regardless of whether they have gotten an offer yet or not.
My experience is that it takes a year or more to get a church job. Four months is not enough time. This will give those who can take advantage of it the time they need to find where God is leading them.
Pray for the missionaries who received their VRI packets yesterday afternoon. I know that this is a terribly difficult decision for most of them, with a short turn-around. We need to lift them up as they struggle with what God would have them do.
Thanks to Tom for a thoughtful post. Here are my responses. In March the IMB told us professors of missions that in the future the IMB will deploy fully funded missionaries, partially funded missionaries, and unfunded missionaries. My guess is that in the future our fully funded career missionaries will primarily serve in two major roles: trainers of national workers and facilitators/coordinators of volunteer teams from churches, tentmakers, and short-term missionaries who serve overseas for two or three years. If my guess is correct, then we’ll see the amateurization of missions. It is hard enough to win people to Christ, disciple them, train leaders, and organize new churches if one speaks the language and understands the culture. If one does not, it will be monumentally difficult. In nations where English is widely spoken the short-term workers can be somewhat effective, but in many countries lack of language proficiency is a great handicap.
“The amateurization of missions” is a good term for the trend that I am seeing.
My concern with the “retirement” of our most experienced missionaries is that we might lose those who can train the next generation. We could be starting all over again.
Thomas we are in East Asia now on a 5 month retired reserve assignment. When I get back I would love to get together. I get over in your area fairly often. Or you can come to Little Rock. You and Mark Terry ought to meet me in Little Rock sometime and we can have a summit.
That sounds good to me. Tom, I think we might have studied at SWBTS at the same time. I received my mdiv in 1975.
I fear the Cooperative Program is slowly dying. I know two evangelical denominations that had to change from the Cooperative approach to the societal approach, in which missionaries raise their own support.
I would enjoy getting together with you, Mark, and Ron. I, too, received my MDiv from SWBTS in 1975.
The trend lines which are found in another post on SBCVoices (https://sbcvoices.com/a-high-level-glimpse-of-funds-received-by-the-international-mission-board-1950-2014-roger-simpson/) don’t bode well for our missionary efforts. Obviously, the missionaries that received their VRI package offer yesterday afternoon are going to have to take this into account along with what Ethan Moore said, “Effective Jan. 1, 2016 the retirement policies for the IMB will change, with a primary effect of reducing the size and extent of the retirement package for all future retirees.”
The article errs in putting the Apprentice program in the same category as Journeyman. And probably makes the same error in putting 2+2 and 2+3 into the same category as Journeyman.
As the article states, Journeyman is a short term program BY DESIGN. One could argue the extent to which paying a young person 60% of an already small salary impacts the long-term ability of the organization to send long-term missionaries, but I’ll leave that to the author for now.
2+2 and 2+3 are not, however, designed to be short-term programs that take resources away from long-term appointments. They’re designed to get potential long-term personnel to the field that much more quickly. If some of the people in those programs are entering them with the intention of never serving long-term, that certainly isn’t the fault of the program or those who envisioned it.
The Apprentice program, similarly, is not a short-term program by design. While those who designed and implemented are sure to disagree with me, the Apprentice program is little more than a cost-savings program. EVERYONE in the Apprentice program applied to serve in a CAREER appointment.
Several years ago, however, someone looking at a spreadsheet observed that the largest amount of attrition takes place in the first year of the second term. In other words, the IMB was spending lots of money to get people to the field, to get them through through their language program, to transition them to their field of service, to bring them home for Stateside, and to send them back to the field after Stateside only to have them decide to leave for good fewer than 12 months after that return.
The result of that was the “Apprentice” program. Instead of sending career missionaries, the IMB now sends “apprentice” missionaries, pays them 80% of an already small starting salary, gives them 80% of their field parity (still never understand how that works…do new missionaries get a 20% higher exchange rate and 20% discount on their utilities compared to veterans?), asks them to jump through certain hoops, treats them condescendingly for 3 years, and then gives them the opportunity to go home “no questions asked” instead of going on Stateside at the 3nd of the 3 years. The idea was to try to get certain ones to go home after one term instead of during the 1st year of their 2nd term.
But it was not, nor has it ever been, a short-term program. EVERYONE on the platform at those appointment services (“We sold our business to follow God’s call,” … “We left a successful pastorate in a growing suburb to move our six kids to the desert,”… “We sold our house, shot our dog, and gave everything we own to the poor in order to get to the field as fast as possible.”) signed up for career and is being sent as an apprentice.
I want to give serious consideration to this articles conclusions. However, when the article so fundamentally misunderstands the difference between the various so-called “short term” programs he maligns, I find myself questions every other presupposition as well.
Ann, Your response makes my point (thank you). You are correct, each of the “short-term” programs is different (otherwise they would not exist as separate programs). I was using a short cut in order to make a point. Your explanation of the differences is very helpful. But, it affirms my conclusions.
The point I was (and am) making is that we have moved to creating more programs for people whose initial commitment is short of a career. These short-term programs are part of the “training” process to prepare missionaries to remain on the field. Even with a reduced salary these programs produce an expense for the IMB, and salary is only part of the expense.
By the way, one of the reasons 2+2 and Apprentice programs were created is because “someone looking at a spreadsheet” noticed that many of the Journeymen were returning to the field and were very effective when they did. Besides noticing that people leave during their first year back on the field (as you point out), they also noticed that there were other times when missionaries naturally leave the field. One, of course, is as their first term ends (or as you point out immediately after they return). The second, is when their children begin to return to the States ford college. The third, is when their aging parents begin to have problems.
Now my point, again. The IMB will have to decide which model they need to follow because it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to continue the way they have for the last years (even with reduce personnel and the possibility of continuing the reduction). One model depends on long-term career missionaries with the bulk of the training done in the States before these missionaries make their way to the field. The other model would depend on short-term missionaries with a few career missionaries to create the beachhead for these short-term missionaries. Obviously, with this second model it will be imperative that some of those who go for brief tenures (Apprentice, if you will) continue on as long-term career missionaries to replace career missionaries who retire. With the first model the apprentice period would be fulfilled in the States before the missionary is appointed.
I don’t think there is any way we will return to the first model (and maybe we shouldn’t). That is why I am making my suggestion that we only appoint as career (long-term) missionaries those who had served for a period of time on the field. This way we can husband a dwindling resource and focus it on those missionaries who have gotten to a point where they can be very effective.
Ann, I am in no way questioning the commitment of those who go out in the Apprentice program. I am sure that everyone who goes is anticipating continuing and hoping to serve for a long time.
One of the issues that affect your premise is this new generation. I have have lived here for 20 years now and no one else has even close to that tenure. Most come for 5 to 7 years and then say things like, ‘we have done our time’. This is not just true for people living in difficult places like me but even for people on Mainstreet USA. In general our society does not value nor strive for 20 to 30 years of service in any job much less a difficult one. I hate this- for the record- but in the end reality will have to shape our missiology.
This is one of the reasons for my suggestion that those who first go out pay their own way. This would be one way to discover those that are on a trajectory to serve 20 and 30 years, like Ann in on I presume. I know that there are some out there. We need to find them.
An IMB staff member told me the average tenure of an IMB missionary is now 9 years of service. Of course, that number will change with the retirement of hundreds of veteran missionaries.
WOW! That is worse than I thought.
I am extremely conservative in the sense that I resist change for change sakes. I believe the apprentice program was instituted to save money and has no other purpose. If we suspect some one is not intending to come for a career we should not appoint them as an apprentice either. We have the ISC and other options for them. Ann I apologize if you were treated condescendingly by other missionaries. I think you should get paid 100% salary and field parity.
I was fortunate to arrive on a field where I was encouraged, supported and mentored by the missionaries who were already there. I hope I have done the same for others.
I corresponded with an IMB missionary who is feeling pressured to resign / retire. But he can’t retire at his age with only a few months salary. He had wanted to retire from the IMB, but in his late 60s, not his 50s. So he is looking for a job.
Later I heard a couple of young missionaries who are about to be appointed by the IMB. Saw their excitement of going to the mission field.
Both on the same day.
A strange day indeed.
David R. Brumbelow
We do live in strange times.
I posted an “An Open Letter to IMB missionaries considering the VRI” on my website which might help your IMB friend facing “retirmement”: http://tomlaw.org/blog/an-open-letter-to-imb-missionaries-considering-the-vri
I am hearing from missionaries that they perceive a threat from the IMB administration. That is, you had better accept this offer. The next round of personnel cuts will be much more onerous.
To be fair, the IMB administrators may not have meant to threaten the Ms, but their announcements are perceived as threats, at least by some Ms. Remember that perception is reality.
The IMB has been reducing the missionary force over the past few years, from 5600 to 4800. They did that by limiting the number of new appointees and allowing the normal rate of retirements and resignations to achieve reduction. Obviously, the IMB administrators decided that pace was too slow.
Many of the missionaries are perceiving a threat. I’ve been told that they are afraid to “like” or “share” my post because of a perceived threat. I really don’t think that the IMB leadership would be that petty, but as you say “perception is reality.”
It may be a perception Thomas yet a real one in these times. My son is in his second year as a Journeyman and is concerned the IMB will be limiting career appointments even more when he gets back and then goes thru Seminary. I am also a brother of a 20 year IMB Missionary who’s heart is broken as they have received the dreaded 50+ “voluntary” retirement proposal. Due to this I am not using my name here as I would not want any potential repercussions to be on either of them. Sure wish there were another way to solve this for sure and pray for true followers of Christ will rise to the need for doubling missions support.