The recent series of articles about the IMB has raised issues about the reduction of personnel and its impact on long-term finances. I would like to address just a few of these from a field worker’s perspective.
Unless I say otherwise everything in quotes below is a faithful paraphrase or summary, not an actual quote. Oh, and get some coffee: this is a long one.
__________________
Ministry vs. business
Some readers object to the business-like approach Team Platt has taken in regards to finances. Cutting workers hardly sounds like faithful reliance on God’s provision. Offering people money to leave seems a bit too mammon-loving. “Strong-arming” people into leaving hardly reflects the fruits of the Spirit.
At every step in this process, Platt and Traeger have emphasized prayer and calling:
“Pray about your next step in faith. If God is calling you to retire, then go. The finances are there to help you in your transition. If God is calling you to stay, stay. The IMB appreciates your faithfulness. Know His calling through prayer, then faithfully obey His calling regardless of the decision.”
There is an objective business side to all of this, but there’s business in church finances and family budgets as well. Let’s replace the word “business” with the phrase “a logical evaluation of financial facts and options that leads to wise choices.”
There’s no strong-arming: we have clear directives that emphasize the need for a pressure-free decision. No one is throwing gobs of cash around to incentivize the process; the VRI is really an acceleration of the retirement schedule that is already in place.
Leave now or you’re broke.
Buried in a comment stream is the following full quote: “The only reason to have a ‘best offer you’re going to get’ is to move people to accept it – playing on the uncertainness of their future support.” The impetus for his comment came from the notion that the VRI is a great deal, but all subsequent retirement offers will be bad. If I recall correctly, the notion of “strong-arming” came up in the same thread.
Some facts:
- IMB has a current, non-VRI retirement package. Variations exist for age, years of service, etc. Employees who filed retirement papers prior to the announcement of the VRI will receive this package regardless of their actual retirement date, plus a small boost. They are not eligible for the VRI.
- The VRI has many of the same elements as the current plan, plus some tweaks to ease the shift.
- According to an announcement from IMB leadership, effective January 1 the IMB will apply a new retirement package. While this may not be a portion of the rationale, VP Sebastian Traeger highlighted a reality of today’s market: few people join an organization in order to retire from it. Even if the changing of work culture in the United States is irrelevant, financially-speaking the IMB must do something to preserve long-term economic health. Reducing the size of a retirement package is one way.
Yes, the retirement package from the IMB will shrink in the future. Yes, it will be smaller than the current package as well as the VRI. Yes, this IS the best package you’re going to get from the IMB for retirement.
No, this does not mean you should abandon calling in order to make sure you grab that brass ring, nor is it an attempt to scare you into leaving. They are just facts and realities.
Phase Two?
If few workers accept the VRI we may turn the Phase Two of reductions into a quest for the elusive 800 departing workers, but in reality Phase Two is more about allowing people to chance to leave, whether they are uncomfortable with where the IMB is going or just feel called to move on. Phase Two might provide some sort of transitional support, a silver pillow on which to land more than a golden parachute to break the fall.
Yes, this part is largely opinion, but I’m a really smart guy who sharpens his own knives, so you can trust me on this.
Someone objected to “selective transparency” for Phase Two details. Platt’s team said details are light for now because those details just do not yet exist. Of course, that was when they announced the VRI so perhaps some details are being worked out.
It’s math, folks.
A repeated refrain has been, “If we appoint 300 in 2015, and another 300 in 2015, how on earth will cutting 800 people now really make a difference?” This question frustrates me because it’s just basic math. There’s no funny business or Enron-esque book-cooking. Using estimates, I’ll paraphrase from an earlier post/comment:
- August 28, 2015: Total IMB missionaries – 4,800. This includes 250 of the expected 300 appointments in 2015 already on the field.
- October 2015: Add the last of our 300 for 2015, nearly 50 new people, bringing 2015 total appointments to 300 people. Total field personnel – 4,850
- December 2015: Normal attrition (pre-planned retirements, firings, health-related departures, end of terms for short-term folks) reduces personnel by roughly 80 over 4 months. VRI drops another 800 folks. Total – 3,970
- December 2016: We will add 300 new workers in 2016 while losing somewhat fewer than we would normally lose through normal attrition. Total – roughly 4,000 people.
Yes, 2016 will see fewer retirements since so many will leave now, but health issues, firings, and end-of-terms will still reduce numbers by around 200 or so.
Why will this work?
In the short-term, we will quickly reduce our staff by 800 people. Since personnel costs (salary, benefits, medical, dental, housing, transportation, travel, visas, legal documents, MKs) account for 80% of the IMB’s operating costs, knocking 800 people off the top is a great way to cut expenses. In the long-term, we will be able to manage expenses better and balance the budget.
Something unpleasant to mention is that the older workers cost more. We have more longevity pay that pushes up the price for keeping us. Did the bean counters realize this? I imagine. How much did it drive them? Ask them, not me, because I do not know.
What’s wrong with the culture?
Someone mentioned a culture change within the IMB, prompting the question, “What’s wrong with the culture?”
In the article, “Another Blank Check” I pointed out the radical directions we are taking as evidenced by a series of decisions and styles. Refer to that list if you like. Other observers agree that business as usual cannot continue. Overspending needed to change. New funding patterns were necessary. Transparency has been praised. All these are examples of change, but there are more.
- Churches do missions. The IMB helps them.
- IMB trains churches to go themselves.
- Partnerships with church-paid independent SBC missionaries.
- Joint NAMB projects.
- Curating and collecting tools and materials instead of always producing our own.
- Providing pathways for retired missionaries to remain in place, even renting homes and cars to them.
- Re-organizing internally to provide faster cycles of creation, evaluation, and improvement. Right now we have a 5 year cycle, but I suspect this will become a 1 year or 6 month process.
- Recognition that the Cooperative Program might never be what it once was, followed by plans that account for this.
- Viewing volunteers and international expatriates as legitimate partners in missions.
- Leveling the informational playing field by including churches in news and notes normally sent only to field personnel.
Is the VRI an attempt to clear out the underbrush of old guys who refuse to change? Are the outgoing workers seen as a barrier? This is a judgment call, I realize, but my guess is “No, it isn’t.” The VRI is plan to reduce headcount in order to save us financially. Folks who do not care for the direction of the organization can certainly avail themselves of the retirement option (should God call them to it), but that is not the same as targeting these folks through early retirement.
The blank check that continuing IMB workers are being asked to sign implies a commitment to sticking with the organization as it goes through some radical changes in function, structure, and – yes – culture. If folks are cool with that shift, then they can reject the VRI or Phase Two and strap themselves in for an exciting ride.
To churches out there I say the same: Buckle up. Keep hands and head inside the vehicle at all times. But whatever you do, please at least board the ride.
I appreciate the in-depth treatment of this.
The idea of expat business people folding into the work I have discussed with some IMB people and am not seeing the vision here.
I still don’t get the “blank check” phase two stuff. If people who were not offered VRIs are part of the phase two, are they to be notified that their position/location is being terminated so they might want to pray about that blank check? Does everyone get a letter that says X number of positions must be eliminated quickly, so how about you praying about yours?
For now the best description I have had of Phase Two is that everyone will have the chance to raise a hand and say, “God is leading me elsewhere. Bye.” I believe there was an implied notion of some sort of financial assistance as you transitioned away from the organization, but I’m not 100% certain of that.
Ethan
If phase1 and 2 do not produce the need vacancies, then what?
“Some readers object to the business-like approach Team Platt has taken in regards to finances. Cutting workers hardly sounds like faithful reliance on God’s provision. Offering people money to leave seems a bit too mammon-loving. “Strong-arming” people into leaving hardly reflects the fruits of the Spirit.”
It sounds like the old Sandburg quote, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts…” (We often posit faith as going against reason and then complain because that ends up being a secular argument against faith.) Faith and institutional government are not inherently antithetical. We must start with trust in God, reason outward from there, and develop practical strategies from that rationale. Reason and resources are gifts from God that we are called by faith to steward well. If God has not provided something, then he doesn’t intend for us to use it. “Stepping out in faith” without counting the cost is not actually faithful. We all just have to make the best decision we can with the information we have available.
“If God has not provided something, then he doesn’t intend for us to use it. “Stepping out in faith” without counting the cost is not actually faithful. We all just have to make the best decision we can with the information we have available.”
Amen.
I said something similar in another thread – but you have (as usual) said it much better.
The much, and rightly, scoffed at doctrine of – “Name it claim it, blab it grab it” sadly appears pervasive in the baptist church too – although it is often called “stepping out in faith” in our quarters.
If God has actually called you to something where the supply of resources to do it is not yet made clear, that would call for stepping out in faith. If God hasn’t actually called you, that’s stepping out in presumption.
“Name it & claim it” is a perversion of the fact that God does call some to step out into things He’s called them to, before the supply of resources necessary is made apparent. There is a real stepping out in faitch. The existence of the perversion should not blind us to the existence of the thing being perverted.
Er, “There is a real stepping out in faith”. I have no idea what a “faitch” would be.
“Faitch” is a Southern word that means to retrieve something. Example: “That youngin’ done it this time! Faitch me a switch – I’m gonna tan his hide!”
Jim
Is that a direct quote from Tarheel:-)
D.L., that’s a quote from nearly every Southern-bred parent ever.
LOL
Ben
well said
I agree with Ben as well. The perversion of “stepping out in faith” does not negate its existence – I’m simply stating that it’s not uncommon for that perversion to exist in our circles.
Tarheel
I fear you are correct.
Jim
22 years ago I would have agreed with you totally. However, in these years in Montana I have seen too many buildings, too many church plants, too many pastors able to financially stay on the field, that simply should not have happened by all logic, rationale, and “sane” thinking.
I have verifiable story after story that I could share, but I doubt that Dave will let me have several pages of space. Not saying you are wrong…just saying….
“Name it and claim it” and “blab it and grab it” is a far cry from Biblical faith.
I would make a distinction between what some call “stepping out in faith” and “calculated risk”. You can’t do anything without risk. A calculated risk is one thing. Many of the risks that I see people take are unnecessary and irresponsibly uncalculated.
In the case of the IMB, given a solid recent history of not making budget, it’s irresponsible to take the risk of continuing to spend what has not been provided and call it being “faithful”. Likewise, the missionaries that are impacted by the risk-taking of previous years must make their decisions based on what has been presented to them. What level of risk should they take and still call it “being faithful”? That requires much prayer and working through their own situation reasonably to count the cost. It’s a tough situation to be in, but it’s not faithful to not count the cost of the risk.
Jim
I can understand your argument and it is a good one. My concern is that we are asking career missionaries to bail us out of a situation that is not their doing. Some say it is previous administrations, some say it is mega churches, some say it is apathy. I am not in a position to pass judgment on that. What I DO know; it is not the “fault” of career missionaries. I put “fault” in quotes” because I could not readily think of a better word. My personal opinion there is there is no fault unless it is on the totality of the SB churches in a lack of giving.
I couldn’t agree more on this point. It’s not the fault of the missionaries. I don’t know enough about it to say if the fault was in any predecessors in the IMB leadership, but I highly suspect that they’re intentions were most honorable and they were taking calculated risks, and am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt on the matter. Nevertheless, the kind of risks they were taking with the resulting financial activities they had to do in order to make up for the shortfalls can’t continue. It would be irresponsible to continue them at this point and any action to change things is going to be difficult and unfairly burden many people. That’s a cost that I’m sure could not have been counted from the outset, but it’s an unfortunate cost that has nevertheless become clear. But to call doing what needs to be done a lack of faith is not charitable.
Honestly, though, as painful as it all is, I’m going to hold out hope that the resulting structure of the IMB is going to be a necessary adaptation to a changing world. Having to re-think how missions are done may actually benefit the Kingdom-building work of the SBC. To think that this may be God’s way of keeping us on track takes a measure of faith. That should demand sacrificial effort of all of us, ideally as much as those returning missionaries are having to put into it.
Jim
Your last paragraph is spot on. Strategic change is a must IMO. I guess my concern still is with the missionaries that will come home who perhaps would rather not. My question would be, if we are going to use career missionaries at all why not use the the ones we already have to bring in this new paradigm?
I am stuck on the idea in my head that while we all must make sacrifices we are asking our mission folks to make the greatest. That gives me a problem.
Share stories of faith and the working of God? I’ll give you space. Doesn’t cost me anything!!
Dave
Will do..two classes tomorrow, hopefully by PM. I have just seen to much in Montana. I suspect the same is true in Iowa.
Difference is whether you are trusting God as you operate on his agenda or ask God to bless yours.
most definitely
Jim/Tarheel
Normally we agree on most things. I have learned a lot from both of you. I do however, think you are wrong here. Maybe because we are both using the extreme illustrations and language.
All three of us have given our lives, even our soul’s destiny to a concept we cannot prove, it is by our faith that we have Salvation not by “reasoning out the facts” or “naming it or claiming it”. I learned from Ron Dunn the concept that we are saved by faith hence it is LOGICAL to live by faith. But you are right the question becomes what is Biblical faith. Perhaps we see that differently.
As it pertains to the IMB situation…I do have a little trouble with Platt’s “blank check” analogy in its conception. However if we use it, it does seems to me to be a legitimate question….”WHO should give God the blank check?” Why must it be the career missionaries?
I got to preach a little here, so now I am happy…simply put your tithes and offerings in the plate as it goes by:-)
I do not believe that Platt would say that only career missionaries are to give God a blank check. I believe he would say that is for all of us.
Dave
I think you are right. He would. I will still stay with the assertion that the career missionaries are ask to sacrifice a whole lot more than most of us seem to be willing to do. Some of you guys have seen your convention go to 50/50 real fast. That is accepting responsibility for the situation. My convention needs to rethink this. We could do better. I continue to believe that we must choose a priority. If the foreign field is important then states are going to have to do without some things to make it possible. The churches have been doing that for years.
I asked three questions earlier
(1) Did Platt mention a 100,000 strong mission force at the convention in June. The answer was he did.
(2) Did Platt mention the shortfall in money at the convention in June. The answer was he did.
(3) Did Platt mention that 600-800 missionaries were going to be recalled at the convention in June. If that was answered I missed it. Does anybody know?
No, Platt did not make that announcement in June. The realization that a large RIF was necessary did not come until later, after many discussions had tossed out other options for balancing the budget.
Ethan
Was the decision discussed and made in 60 days? Obviously where I am going with this is promotion and reality. I have a hard time dealing with a promotion of 100,00 people mission force the middle of June before the whole convention and then the announcement of a 800 missionary recall 60 days later. Obviously this issue wasn’t discovered and “solved” in 60 days. We knew the possibilities then. Would it not have been better to delete the 100,000 increase in the presentation and indicate the possibility of 800 missionaries coming home if nothing changes. To be honest it is hard for me to take seriously a100,000 force when we are bringing home 800.
I really do not know what choice we have but to ‘watch and pray’. The decision has been made. It will not be changed. So now we pray for those affected and watch to see if the proposed strategy gains traction at the local church level and actually does more effectively carry the gospel forward. How long we need to give it before some kind of judgment is made I do not know….BUT some timeline should be established.
Whose fault this situation is does not really matter. But what does matter is having more transparency on the church level so more accountability can be given to those who provide the money. I do wonder, though why the SBC Executive board did not step in to force action sooner. But I am not sure the outcome would have ultimately been much different.
Thanks for the info and insight.
There are many reasons for the financial situation at the IMB. I believe reduced Cooperative Program percentage giving by the churches is one of those reasons. When I was appointed by the FMB, I was told the average church gave about 8-10 percent to the Cooperative Program through their state conventions. Now it is around 4 or 5 percent.
I don’t see how we can deny that financial decisions made by IMB administrators and trustees over the last 15 years are the major cause of this situation. Financial decision were moved away from those on the field who had to live with the decisions. Many on the field questioned the financial strategy and spending decisions but were not listened too and are now paying the price for the neglect by trustees and administrators.
There are several reasons for the short-fall in missions giving. First, as Ron West says, the Cooperative Program giving by churches has declined from 12 percent 40 years ago to just under 6 percent at present. Second, the recession of 2008 hit the IMB really hard. Why? Because the IMB was in the midst of a missionary force expansion at the time. You could say it was a double whammy. Third, many churches no longer have missions education programs, nor do they promote Cooperative Program education/giving.
What happened to your most recent post???
Technical error somewhere – it is back up. Thanks for asking.