Questions for NAMB, IMB, and seminary leaders

One feature of the annual meeting of our beloved Southern Baptist Convention is a time for reports from entity heads. These leaders usually leave a short time for questions from the floor. While I'm not planning to be in muggy St. Louis next month, if I were and could stake out one of the floor mics here's a question or two that I'd like to ask:

For David Platt, International Mission Board leader:

The locations of our overseas personnel has shifted over the past years to a greater proportion being in World A locations. I presume that these are more difficult and stressful places and would like to know some things about attrition rates:

1. What is the attrition rate for our career personnel after 5 years, 10 years?
2. Is there a difference in rates in World A countries and other locations?
3. What is the IMB doing to reduce these rates?
4. Has the IMB found that certain measures or methods of support from the home churches of personnel have reduced attrition rates.

What is the average cost of a career missions couple (single) from initial contact with IMB through appointment and the end of the first full term?

For Kevin Ezell, North American Mission Board leader:

NAMB uses "Strategic Cooperative Agreements" and "Strategic Cooperative Budgets" with state conventions to spell out joint work and funding for such work. Given that all of NAMB's funding comes from the churches and individuals, what is the reasoning behind the policy that these agreements not public information to Southern Baptists?

NAMB has been criticized for being heavy-handed in it's relationship with some of the non-southern states where NAMB provides much or most funding for many personnel. Why would it not be preferable to distribute funds to these state conventions as grants not tied to specific positions or goals and let local staff utilize them as they think best?

For Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:

SBC presidential candidate Steve Gaines is quoted as saying, "Calvinism does not need to be taught as the exclusive, optimal theological viewpoint in our seminaries. Non-Calvinist students should not be subjected to Calvinistic professors who proactively seek to convert them to Calvinism. None of our seminaries should have a faculty of professors who are exclusively Calvinistic. Non-Calvinistic professors should be an integral part of each one of our seminary faculties because most Southern Baptists are not Calvinists, and they are the ones that fund our seminaries and pay the salaries of our professors."

Although Gaines did not name SBTS and SEBTS, others have made accusations about your two seminaries doing that to which Gaines objects. Are non-Calvinist students subjected to proactive conversion efforts by professors in your seminaries and does your faculty include non-Calvinistic professors?

___________________________

On the questions for Platt, I don't know the answers and don't know that I've ever seen material published by IMB or by missiologists in our seminaries who have been given IMB data on which they have done research. This is perhaps the most critical personnel issue for IMB and I'd like to see these rates.

On the questions for Ezell, he has an article that generally explains the agreements and the reason they are not public. While I have an idea about the second question, being the troublemaker that I am, I'd just like to see how much explanation he would give.

On the questions for Al Mohler and Danny Akin, Gaines has laid down a marker by raising the questions and making specific demands. I don't disagree with him at all. He didn't name names but others have and have named SBTS and SEBTS. I'd like to seen Mohler and Akin have a chance to respond. Akin has responded specifically to such things in the past.

Of course, no one will ask these questions and there's not enough time to fully treat the subjects anyway. But, when Southern Baptists have questions, it's always good for our leaders to give answers. If this convention is like any of the couple of dozen I've attended, a lot of floor time will be expended on subjects much more trivial than these.

I trust that my SBC convention-going colleagues will have a grand time in St. Louis.

Are students borrowing to attend SBC seminaries?

The business of student debt is troublesome to many, including Albert Mohler president of our flagship school, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

As college debt soars, grads realizing their future is at stake is Baptist Press' story of yesterday on the matter.

"Go to war on student debt."

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, voiced the exhortation during the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee in mid-September.

What is not said in the BP article is exactly how Southern Seminary looks at their own students borrowing. I like it that Mohler is concerned. The article would have done better to have examined some SBTS students and let them tell their story, or lack thereof, of debt.

Do many SBC seminary students arrive with undergraduate debt?

Do our seminaries assist students in obtaining loans to pay for their seminary, grad or undergrad, education?

Do they discourage it but accept it anyway?

Do our two mission boards have policies against appointment of church planters and other workers who have a certain level of student loans?

Do seminary grads hit the pastoral or other ministry fields with considerable student debt?

I do not know the answers to these questions but am curious. I have been told that Danny Akin at Southeastern highly discourages students from borrowing to pay for SEBTS expenses.

Most seminary graduates will leave with their degree not having enhanced their earning potential by much if at all and, regardless of ambition, most who enter the pastoral ministry will pastor single staff churches for their entire career. Add to that the reality that many SBC churches are already marginal or sub-marginal for full time staff and the trends do not look good for any improvement.


One wonders where this is going...anyone know?

Agressive, arrogant Calvinists and the possibility of an SBC counter-reformation

One by-product of the interesting, though misguided, resolution of the Consolation Baptist Association suggesting that churches steeply cut their Cooperative Program is Calvinism, Calvinist pastors, and the young, reformed, ministerial products of two of our SBC seminaries.

This association is in another part of the state from me, one which I pass through occasionally but for which I don't have a lot of familiarity with churches, Associational Missionaries, or pastors. It is in Vidalia Onion country, as good a reason to appreciate that part of Georgia as anything. The famous 'Jesus Loves You Double Cheeseburger' sign is somewhere in that area.

I have some observations about Calvinists and churches derived from personal, anecdotal experiences. A strain of my reformed Baptists colleagues has been absolutely lethal in churches, although I haven't heard a lot lately about such things around here.

Calvinism and Calvinistic seminary graduates are seen by some as problems in that part of Georgia. The resolution tosses in the issue and mentions two unnamed seminaries (Southern and Southeastern) and their presidents (Al Mohler and Danny Akin) as sources of problem graduates who are seen as "arrogant" and difficult. The specter of "agressive Calvinism" is raised in the resolution's supporting document.

I don't  buy all this, nor do I see what some of my colleagues seem to be seeing in South Georgia; however, if a perception like that is as widespread as it seems our two seminaries and presidents ought to pay attention. I know what it is like to be looked upon with suspicion because of the place I took my MDiv degree.

... and is the nomination of Eric Hankins as SBC first vice president the beginning of an SBC counter-reformation?

Will state conventions be helped by undermining the Cooperative Program?

The Consolation Baptist Association here in Georgia has passed a resolution suggesting that churches cut their Cooperative Program giving by 25-35 percent and designate this to "state missions" or, as explained to me, to their state convention.


I learned of the resolution from a comment left on SBC Voices, asked for and received a copy of it, and have had a couple of cordial conversations with Joe McGee, Associational Missionary for the association. A previous blog on the matter may be found here.


I judge this to be a well-intentioned effort by some very dedicated Christian colleagues to help the Georgia Baptist Convention in a time of great budgetary stress; however, any move to do so by encouraging churches to make steep cuts to their Cooperative Program giving is harmful to both the state convention and SBC entities. 

The idea that state conventions should be helped by encouraging churches to decrease their giving to the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, the six SBC seminaries, and other SBC entities is far off the mark.


Joe told me that I really needed to read an explanatory article, linked here, that explained the resolution. I read it and found it to be a mixture of misapplied data and opinion. Couple of points...

The title: "THE GEORGIA BAPTIST CONVENTION AND THE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM: GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION" implies that the GBC is suffering because of negative opinions of churches to SBC entities and actions beyond our state. 


I don't think this is the case. A number of state conventions have actually moved to increase the percentage of CP receipts that they send to SBC agencies and institutions, hardly an action they would take if they perceive that their constituent churches disapprove. 

Great Commission Giving: Data is cited that say "cooperative program giving was down by 5.86 percent" while contributions to "Southern Baptists institutions" were "up to [sic] 5-6% over last year's contributions during the same span." 

This is both inaccurate and a mixed up use of data. The source cited for the statement above compared GBC contributions for an entire year (2011) and an Executive Committee report for four months (Oct 2011-Jan 2012), manifestly not the "same span." Monthly receipts by the SBC Executive Committee are variable. You cannot draw a valid conclusion from the comparison used.

But, flawed data aside, might not Great Commission Giving be the culprit behind state convention budgetary woes? 


No. The data do not show this.


The Executive Committee reports direct gifts from churches that bypass their state convention. These gifts are actually down this year from the same period last year. They also report that designated gifts to the mission boards are down from last year. I don't know about direct gifts to the seminaries. If churches are diverting funds from state conventions at a substantially higher rate such doesn't show up in the data reported.

Direct giving by churches to SBC entities is a very small fraction of CP giving. The numbers aren't sufficient to blame state convention woes on churches pouring funds straight into IMB, NAMB, or the seminaries.


The case made for encouraging churches to substantially cut their CP giving in order to help state conventions not only uses flawed data but is  unreasonable. Do the people in the churches of this association really believe that cutting funds to our overseas missionaries so that we can have more state convention employees here in heavily churches Georgia is right and proper? Surely not.

Another issue raised in the article is Calvinism. There are already churches in the GBC that have defunded Southern and Southeastern seminaries over the issue. Fair enough. Let individual churches that their CP giving and defund from it whatever they feel is necessary for their collective conscience. If a church concludes that Southern and Southeastern cannot in good conscience be supported then let them cut 3.5% of their CP giving and apply it elsewhere. That is the approximate amount that the two schools receive of a CP dollar. 


Joe McGee conveys a frustration and dissatisfaction that I hear often on the blogs - the SBC is a megachurch run, top-down organization that ignores the vast majority of churches and pastors. He is concerned that Al Mohler and Danny Akin call the shots in the SBC on major issues. There is some truth in both of these though not to the extent that I would take the action he is taking.

But here my old-school idea for helping our state convention: Ask churches to increase CP giving. The GBC already keeps about 60% of every CP dollar. They will be blessed and appreciative. Suggesting churches defund all of our SBC work to help the GBC is an unwise, unproductive, and uncooperative approach.

So far as I am aware, this resolution is the first by any association or state convention that encourages churches to cut Cooperative Program giving. It is unfortunate but I give allowance for good intentions.

Brethren, let's rethink this thing. Thanks.
_______________

Addendum: Joe McGee has sent me a brief email stating that although we disagree on some thing, he thought my treatment to be fair. He does add that the resolution is partly aimed at a method by which churches who are already cutting CP giving may be kept partly in the SBC giving fold. I don't find that to be a compelling reason for the actions suggested but, again, I give credit for good intentions.