Just what role did the trustees play in the International Mission Board's fiscal failure?

What role does the trustee board possess in overseeing an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention? Is the board primarily a support group for the agency's president and his administration? Do trustees of our convention agencies and/or entities function similarly to trustees of a local Southern Baptist church? A group possessing proxy empowerment to represent the church in real estate, banking, and other legal matters where the church's signature is required? Or, does the trustee body have more of an authoritarian role which includes writing, establishing, and maintaining agency policies; approving direction, visionary plans, salaries, and appointments of all top-tier personnel? What constitutes the day-to-day operation sphere which most people understand is an administrative matter in which trustees should never involve themselves?

Alabama pastor, Rick Patrick, posted a piece which raises afresh the questions above concerning the recent announcement from our International Mission Board that since 2010, it has spent beyond its projected income close to a quarter billion dollars besides selling off tens of millions of dollars of Southern Baptist assets to keep going. The IMB further has depleted its six months' cash reserves. As a solution, IMB announced it was offering voluntary retirement to some 600 veteran missionaries only to replace them with some 600 freshman missionaries. Besides the unintelligible swap of hundreds of effective field personnel with hundreds of untested new personnel, I encourage others more intelligent than I to do the math on how exactly that's supposed to save significant amounts of money. My math is just not adding up here. 

Here's the kicker.

According to Patrick, while the trustees were informed about the plan to fiscally save the IMB, they were not given the option to vote for the plan to fiscally save the IMB.

"The recent directive by IMB executives to offer Voluntary Retirement Incentives to reduce our missionary staff by up to 800 people is a complex mixture of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. While IMB Trustees were informed of the plan, there was no “up or down” vote taken on the matter. At best, the Trustees can be said to have offered their tacit approval through mutual consent. No Trustee served on the team that brainstormed in developing the plan. This was a staff-driven decision."

For my part, it now becomes undeniably necessary for Southern Baptists to pursue a serious conversation on the future viability of the trustee system to manage agencies and entities owned by the Southern Baptist Convention.

It's well worth your time to read Dr. Patrick's entire piece.

 

Read "They Never Even Voted" at SBC Today

      

Comments

[Scott Shaver]

Is anybody really surprised that a vote of the board was not taken on this "restructuring"?

What brave soul on the board would want to admit not only the short-fall...which of them wants the fallout that's probably coming to rest right now on the head of David Platt?

Almost makes one feel as if they needed the poor guy for a Patsy.

[Mary]

Scott, I don't feel sorry for Platt at all. What better Patsy than the poster boy for the young hip dudes who thought they could do missions just fine without the IMB and so didn't see the importance of the CP. Platt and others like him are part of the culture that leads to budget shortfalls.

The math isn't adding up. IMB is forcing people out by giving them some type of "package" to then turn around and over the next two years bring new people at 300 per year? It doesn't seem like they're actually cutting costs or at least not costs significantly enough. You have the cost of the early retirement package plus the costs of adding new people. Most restructuring plans push people out while freezing hiring.

[peter lumpkins]

It would be interesting to know exactly how much it costs to "prep" a newly appointed missionary before he or she actually arrives on site. Surely it would equal or exceed any reasonable incentive the board could offer an established missionary who volunteered to retire.

[Scott Shaver]

Preaching to the choir Mary :)

I was trying to be a little nicer than my reputation belies.

Here's another interesting speculation. IMB career missionaries 55+ would have been schooled and trained within the SBC system prior to the moderate purge and "Calvinization" of the seminaries under Mohler et al.

Looks like they'll be skimming the very cream of the "Baptist" missionary force off the top of the bucket first.

We're looking at a full-circle paradigm shift in the "kind" of missionaries being sent out by the IMB.

Unless somebody can convince me otherwise.

[Scott Shaver]

Also makes one wonder if the 20-25 million dollar operating budget of the CBF represents money that could have been kept in the coffer at some point in history past :)

Ropes of sand are curious things.

[Lydia]

"Here's another interesting speculation. IMB career missionaries 55+ would have been schooled and trained within the SBC system prior to the moderate purge and "Calvinization" of the seminaries under Mohler et al."

Bingo. Based upon patterns of behavior all over the SBC YRR movement for the last 10 years, it is WISE to be suspicious. There is a HUGE trust problem in the SBC. And the more they scream unity and accuse those asking the hard questions of being mean and divisive or speculating the more I see right through them. But I am sure they will trots someone out soon to give us a good "rest of the story".

And Mary is right, the "plan" is not adding up without a hiring freeze. ( one can play around with those, too)

As for the Trustees not voting-- it kind of reminds me of Congress shying away from a debate and vote on legalizing gay marriage. It is much better for them if UNELECTED SCOTUS legislate the controversial vote problem laws. Cowards. My point is, perhaps they did not want to have the debate and vote.

[Mary]

No IT.IS.NOT. "transparency" to announce a decision that was made without a vote or imput of the trustees, than after a few days of this percolating through blogdom, realizing that this isn't playing so well in Peoria so somebody ought to put out some type of PR saving "letter" assuring everyone that "David Platt" is just a really nice guy and no those people like the Akin's blaming churches were wrong to blame churches for the decline at the IMB. Will the Akin's now repent and apoligize? Don't hold your breath. And oh we wish there were a better way than forcing out the people who just happen by coincidence to be of a different sotieriological flavor than PLatt so that those who agree with Platt can be brought in. Elders rule except when they have the wrong doctrine. We know Platt is oh so sincere so he must have some biblical backup for throwing out those who are the most experienced to replace with those with zero experience in anything.

So now "Voices" who pushed a thread to over 200 posts mainly going off on the guy who dared to announce that "you know word is the trustees didn't actually vote on this." Those people who thought that was just the most awful thing anybody could accuse Platt of have now decided "oh so what the Trustees didn't vote, no biggie." If it was "no biggie" why all the vitriol and hate hurled against the guy who first told you?

Now the excuses for why the Trustees didn't vote - per Platt - he didn't have to get a vote - which just shows that he's one of those leaders who thinks he is so important that a monumental decision such as this doesn't need to be vetted. But hey some people are claiming that to vote on such a monumental change would really just be "micromanaging."

[Lydia]

Mary,

A senior citizen, former middle school principal, who was trying to deal with the YRR movement taking over his church lamented that it was like trying to deal with 13 year old boys. (He had a lot of experience)

"Why are you so mean when I am being nice"? is a typical tactic. If they were "nice" they did not think their behavior patterns should be brought up. If they said "sorry" there should be no consequences for patterns of behavior.

I think we are dealing with a movement of ingrained arrested development as the new normal. Not enough "trench time" to grow in wisdom. But then, that explains their leading role model, too.

Wise grown ups do an analysis of how the huge problem came into existence in the first place and then look at solutions for prevention. And wise grown ups don't count on other "grown ups" who caused the problem or tried to play it down --to fix it.

[Alex Guggenheim]

David Platt is another case of a spiritual adolescent (granted he was and is eager and sincere), being unduly promoted to a position of prominence and influence which ultimately leads to direct and collateral damages (see Tullian Tchividjian). Of course, it will and is argued that his theology and preaching have much good ( and it does but I happily would debate many of the points he makes which only takes a person who isn't sycophantically invested in "Neo-Reformed, Neo-Calvinism" to listen to and refute on a good number of occasions).

He has what I view as a typical Neo-Reformed, Neo-Calvinist "shut-down" approach to forwarding his ideas whether theological or by way of polity. That is, he overstates or overreaches and over simplifies with his many absolutes through a form of certitude which simply dismisses, as a default position, any rebuttals or criticisms as unenlightened or "less godly than should be" (if not even implying heresy) encroachments . That, along with his use of a preaching/teaching method which possesses a self-righteous incredulity that anyone would dare come to any other conclusion than he and his allies have, which is further enlarged by an exaggerated use of a very Piperesque saccharin saturated personality/spirituality in the pulpit and in his writings, leaves his followers, supporters and sympathizers and anyone else under the umbrella of his efforts, with no place to go but fall in line lest they be cited for spiritual/theological corruption in making any notable objections.

Again, this is still recognizing Platt is doubtless sincere and eager and sometimes correct but both his personality and theology hence, his leadership, practice and polity are rather immature and no where near a place of pristine cultivation needed for such ecclesiastical command.

Someone mentioned a lack of thorough vetting for this decision and I am not surprised the value of vetting was largely by-passed. Platt hasn't endured any serious ecclesiastical vetting himself (does anyone, any more?) which is why he was permitted to vault as high as he was with the help of many people who seem immodestly eager to create ecclesiastical rock stars. Thus, I would not be surprised if he doesn't understand the worth of vetting mechanisms because he has endured little of it

[Lydia]

"I was trying to be a little nicer than my reputation belies."

Scott, Lets talk about "nice". See, I don't think it is "nice" when there are deceptive practices by Christians with other people's money. I don't think it is "nice" when Christians protect and promote child predators or charlatans.

So when you are chided for being "mean" just remember that, ok?

[Scott Shaver]

Thanks Lydia, does kinda put a different perspective on it huh?

[Scott Shaver]

Miller's about to bust a vein over at his Voices. How come everyone else is mean and unchristian while he gets a pass on the vitriol? ;)

[Scott Shaver]

I recommend checking out the latest post by Wade Burleson at Istoria.

"Jesus will return before our bankruptcy catches up with us so it won't matter" as a fiscal management philosophy.

Mundo Bizzaro

[Mary]

Scott, those people in Enid have a tendency to stretch the truth. Burleson is not always the most reliable neutral a source.