I’ve been to IMB headquarters in Richmond just once, some years ago for a couple of days. I came away with the view that all of the people there were highly committed and very fine servants of SBC churches but also that the organization had a distinct subculture, somewhat mysterious with more than a modicum of inscrutibility. Individual IMB workers have always been congenial and helpful but over the decades I had the impression that the organization was not much for openness and transparency although not so in any deliberate, recalcitrant, or nefarious manner.
It stands to reason that the IMB, with a budget larger than all six seminaries plus NAMB combined, would invite more scrutiny, have more challenges, and field more criticism than any other SBC entity. Fair enough. They work for us. We pay all their bills and should have answers to all reasonable and proper questions.
In that light, peruse the IMB website Frequently Asked Questions pages wherein one may find numbers and such but also quite a few other things of interest.
There are definitions. An IMB missionary is a disciple of Jesus set apart by the Holy Spirit, sent out from the church and affirmed by the IMB to cross geographical, cultural and/or linguistic barriers as part of a missionary team focused on making disciples and multiplying churches among unreached peoples and places.
There’s not a small bit about finances. The LMCO was lower this year than last. What’s that mean? In regard to the 2017 fiscal year budget, we are trending below our LMCO projections. As of April, our expenses also are trending below our budget for the year. Our current projections do not anticipate an overall deficit for the fiscal year. OK, how about projections, contingencies, and overseas property sales? Answers given. How about money that comes to IMB without being labeled “Lottie Moon Offering”? Answer given.
What about personnel? Answers give projections for losses and anticipated new appointments.
What about future strategy and structure? Is IMB moving toward a societal giving platform in allowing churches to send however they want? How can going to “limitless” pathways not undermine cooperative giving? That’s the question posed by IMB itself…and answer given. You can look it up.
What do trustees do? List of eleven trustee roles given.
Does the IMB promote any particular theological positions or persuasions? That’s their question. The answer is a secret…unless you are not too lazy to look it up on the link given.
Divorce…baptism…tongues…education…Southern Baptist identity? David Platt’s new church position? All asked and answered.
It’s expecting too much I think to presume all the questions Southern Baptists might have are answered but at the least one should read the FAQs. Who knows, maybe your question has already been answered.
Show me another SBC entity, institution, state convention, state college who offers this much detail.
And who cares about the Super Bowl?
If William was the only writer for SBC Voices then it would still be a valuable resource for me. Thank you.
Thanks…you can buy my lunch.
Man Louis, you need to get out more!
I enjoy his articles more than the others. There is no need to be jealous. He sticks to the SBC format more than most and he does not go long like some do.
I will never speak to you again!
I also enjoy short and to the point. Calling our attention to IMB FAQ was extraordinarily educational and exhortative. I need both.
William, thanks for bringing this resource to our attention. But note that the IMB doesn’t actually answer this particular question–
—from IMB FAQ—
“Q: Does the IMB promote any particular theological positions or persuasions?
A: The IMB, including every member of its executive leadership, is completely committed to the most current Baptist Faith & Message as the foundation for our work around the world. In May 2015, IMB staff and field leaders joined with trustees to strengthen IMB policies concerning this commitment to the Baptist Faith and Message.”
—end of quote from IMB FAQ—
This is a direct question and there is no “yes” or “no” and/or longer direct answer. Also, an organization could easily be completely committed to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as the foundation of their work while at the same time promoting “any particular theological positions or persuasions” that fit within the bounds of (which are intentionally broad in some areas) and upon the foundation of the Baptist Faith and Message.
For example, from just the first point of the BFM 2000 “Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” From this foundation one could promote the theological position of presuppositionalism or evidentialism. Or “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” From this foundation one could promote the theological position of dispensational premillennialism or replacement theology–or other positions. These are just a couple of possible examples from the first point.
So now we have two questions to be answered.
1) Does the IMB promote any particular theological positions or persuasions?
2) Why did the IMB think this was an important enough concern to bring up as a question but then reply in such a way that did not give an answer?
Most any SBCer who has paid attention would know why the IMB asked and answered this question.
You’re going to have to identify yourself with more than a first name and an email that looks KJV only friendly if you want much engagement on this.
William,
I know why the IMB asked this question but my point was they didn’t answer it.
I only use my first name after getting advice on this – actually from some Calvinists. I do the same thing at SBC today. This is how I have always commented on your blog.
If my email address looks King James only friendly that was by no means my intention. I just needed a little extra I could memorize since the first part alone was already taken. I personally like that version but I don’t always use it. Recently, I actually tried to convince some friends of a friend against the King James only position’s subtle influences. But that you see it this way makes me consider not using this email address personally with anyone; maybe I’ll even stop using it all together. I’ll have to see if other people share your opinion.
Looks like an answer to me but I recognize that there are some who presuppose all manner of obfuscation by some SBC entities and institutions. I don’t think it necessary to parse the Q&A.
If one does much browsing over there one might be steeped in conspiracy. What is always lacking is any evidence that IMB promotes any theological subgroups. No evidence means there’s nothing to discuss. My old Trad friends, and I’m not a Cal, never have evidence only dark suspicions.
“1611” is almost always code for the KJV only crowd. I appreciate your explanation. Suppose 1611 could also have been CB Scott’s birth year. A real first name is fine. This isn’t my site and other contributors may feel differently bit I don’t see any need to discuss SBC stuff with non-SBCers. You looked like an, ugh, IFB type at first.
I think the IMB is on the right track, doing a good job, with great people.
William, thanks for your input on 1611. I asked three people about it being in an email address and two said they would consider it very possibly to be King James only and one didn’t. The majority agrees with you! This is good to know.
I agree that “there are some who presuppose all manner of obfuscation by some SBC entities and institutions.”I also believe there are some who would blindly follow whatever the current SBC leadership says. I don’t think you or I fall into the above categories. We are both trying to understand what’s going on here. But it is clear we have different opinions. Anyway, thanks for sharing the link.
There will be things to discuss between now and June. The anticals have signaled a few things that they will surely attack.
I’m probably the person on this site with the longest record as a critic of some SBC entities. My observation is that for the SBC’s militant fringe dwellers, to support some SBC entities is to “blindly support” them.
As a long-time Company man, I can say I have never seen the organization promote a specific point of view on theological matters. I’ve kicked around Calvinism with a co-worker, but it was a friendly discussion which centered on our own personal approaches.
I’ve heard rumors that Platt is a closet Calvinist, but I’ve never seen the slightest hint of it; neither in his emails, public talks, and organization guidance.
As for the specific questions raised by Paul above (presuppositionalism or evidentialism, etc), I would imagine the BFM is broad enough to define the basics, and that there is room in our tent for significant flexibility.
Thanks for first hand info.
I’d point out that “Company man” as Ethan uses it is generic for a worker with the Board. The same phrase is often used as a cheap shot perjorative by anti-Cals to refer to a missions minded IMB/SBC supporter. I’m unashamedly a Company supporter and don’t apologize for it.
I have been associated with the IMB since 1975, when we were appointed as missionaries. I have never known the IMB to promote a theological position other than the Baptist Statement of Faith and Message. All IMB appointees have to affirm in writing their agreement with the Statement and pledge to preach and teach in accordance with it. I’ve never heard an IMB leader on any level say or write something contrary to the Statement. If a missionary does so, that person is questioned and then affirmed, corrected, or terminated.