February 1 of 2008 I published a post concerning what was then the inevitability of Dr. Rankin’s retirement and the future search for a replacement at the IMB. It brought some heated discussion. Essentially all I wanted to do was to open the discussion for a proven stateside pastor to be given the possibility of consideration as the next president of the International Mission Board (IMB).
While strategy on the field is important and we need a man who can bring people together as a team to help missionaries with the challenges we face, I still feel the greatest need for the IMB is to reconnect with the local churches who support her. Through this reconnection, shortfalls in funds could be overcome as local church members become better acquainted with the missionary sending endeavors of the SBC. I again reissue this post with some changes to make it current and more articulate of my position.
Dr. Rankin has announced his retirement as President from the IMB. Before I go any further, I want to make a statement concerning Dr. Rankin’s leadership of the International Mission Board (IMB). I appreciate his service and from all accounts that I have heard, he has performed with integrity. I also have had areas of disagreement with some of the directions of the IMB. One particular area has been the much-discussed Camel Method that has been promoted for use among missionaries in Muslim-dominated areas. Even with this, I support Dr. Rankin and wish him many more years of continued service to God’s Kingdom as he concludes his presidency. But Dr. Rankin is not the focus of this post, nor is the Camel Method.
The Foreign Mission Board (FMB), the predecessor of the IMB, was started in 1845 with two missionaries. At that time, James Barnett Taylor was appointed to lead the newly-formed FMB, and did so for twenty-six years until 1871. The executive secretary was appointed to lead the new agency according to the dictates of the Southern Baptist churches that supported it. Below is a list of past executive secretaries/presidents for the FMB/IMB until today.
· James Barnett Taylor 1845-1871
· Henry Allen Tupper, 1872-1893
· Robert Josiah Willingham, 1893-191
· James Franklin Love, 1915-1928
· T. Bronson Ray, 1929-1932
· Charles E. Maddry, 1933-1944
· M. Theron Rankin, 1945-1953
· Baker James Cauthen, 1954-1979
· R. Keith Parks, 1980-1992
· Jerry A. Rankin, 1993-Present
One thing that is interesting about Bro. Taylor is that he was a pastor and not a missionary. It could be argued that since this organization was newly formed, there was no readily available leader with missionary experience. However, the next man, Henry Allen Tupper, was also a pastor. In fact for the first one hundred years, the man at the helm of the FMB was a pastor. All this changed with the appointment of M. Theron Rankin in 1945, who was a missionary. William R. Estep in his book, Whole Gospel Whole World: The Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1845-1995, notes this, “M. Theron Rankin was the first foreign missionary to become an executive secretary of the Foreign Mission Board” (252). Since that time, the only men who have held the top spot in Richmond have been missionaries.
So, what is the point of listing all this historical data? Since the president is to lead the IMB according to the desire of the churches of the Southern Baptist convention, I contend that it may be questionable as to whether a missionary, who has been out on the field for twenty to thirty years, may serve as the best representative of what the churches in the Convention believe and practice. Pastors are the heart beat to leading their church in missions giving. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to find a pastor who knows how to incorporate the local church in mission giving both monetarily and voluntarily to help during this time of funding shortfalls? Now, one could also argue that a pastor who has been stateside does not understand the challenges that missionaries face on the field and that he would be a poor choice for president. But, during the first one hundred years of the agency, missions flourished and grew from only two missionaries under the leadership of former pastors. Might I also add that they led for 80 years without a Cooperative Program to help fund the FMB. The conditions were, needless to say, present with many obstacles. A leader is not expected to be an expert in all matters, but he is expected to find experts and bring them together as a team to implement mission, strategy, and goals according to (for our situation) the desires of the churches of the SBC. A great leader is one who is able to surround himself with people who are better or more knowledgeable than he is and hone their areas of expertise into one strategical force. He is not necessarily one who has been on the field for a certain number of years.
One possible dilemma from having a continued string of presidents who are former missionaries (note that I said “possible”) is that rather than speaking for the convention a former missionary functioning as president could be focused on speaking for the missionaries to the SBC, rather than providing effective oversight of the IMB on behalf of the churches of the SBC. Now, a president should be able to speak for the missionaries in addressing needs on the field, but even a former pastor can visit with missionaries on the field and and work with his strategic team(which should include former missionaries) to help address issues to the SBC, so that the convention can provide the best in training and support to those doing the Lord’s work far from home. However, let it be clearly affirmed that the duty of the president is to the churches that support him as well as to the missionaries that serve on the field. A president serves the churches of the convention that sends missionaries to the IMB for service abroad.
This leads to two questions: “Could a string of former missionaries appointed to the presidency of the IMB lead to an in-bred system that no longer recognizes the authority, beliefs, and practices of those churches who support those missionaries?” and “Could this string of former missionaries oppointed to the presidency of the IMB have so distanced the IMB from the local church that the organizations doesn’t know how to connect with the churches that support her resulting in lost mission offering funds?” Let me caution those who are offended by what I have just asked. The moment we cease to ask and answer the hard, but necessary questions, is the moment we begin to die.
Remember the argument against Dr. Mohler being President of the SBC back in 2008? Some say that he couldn’t serve because he was (and still is) an entity head. The belief was that it caused a conflict of interest because he would speak for the entity of which he is president rather than the churches of the convention. While the questions were hard to consider, looking back, I believe they were necessary.
Investigating the history of entity presidents serving the convention as president proved the fears of some as unfounded. An entity head as president of the SBC could not create such a system that would only speak for the entity he serves because of the shortness of his tenure and the limited powers of the SBC President. Looking at the past history of entity heads in the IMB, the influence of those leaders lasted for decades. The possibility that a system could be created that causes the focus to be more on the missionaries than the concerns of the convention is much greater for an IMB president, than it is a short two-year term from an entity head as a SBC president.
Dr. Rankin has announced his retirement. What I would hope is that the convention allows for the possibility that a pastor may serve as President of the IMB. This pastor should be one who has led his church to support Southern Baptist missions through the cooperative program as well as encouraging members to go on mission trips in cooperation with the IMB. He should be one fully affirming the BF&M and the policies of the IMB. A plus would be a pastor who may have served briefly on the international mission field himself. This president would understand that he serves the SBC in leading missionaries to win the world for Christ. Being a former pastor who has been stateside for many years and having a network of pastors in other churches, he would have an advantage as well as a natural wisdom for working with the trustees who represent the churches of the SBC. He would also understand the needs of the local church in supporting the sending and funding of missionaries.
So why not consider and possibly elect a pastor as the next president of the International Mission Board? Could he not better know the desires and needs of the churches stateside so they can be mobilized for the missionary endeavor? As for understanding the needs of the missionaries, he will have gained that from previous experiences and will gain more through intensive discussions with the field missionaries and their regional directors. A pastor’s leadership might also reveal some flaws of in-breeding that may have occurred in the IMB since 1945. With the positive possibilities of having a pastor at the helm of the IMB, I believe it would be a great benefit to the trustees to consider some qualified pastors to lead the mission-enabling organization of Southern Baptists. It would ultimately help mobilize churches in the effort to win the world for Christ in their giving and sending of missionaries.
While this post is only meant to represent possibilities, ultimately it is God’s choice the search committee and trustees must seek and choose. May we all pray for them as they seek God’s man to help Southern Baptists fulfill reaching the farthest parts of the world.
Robin,
It’s also possible (note that I said “possible”) that a pastor functioning as president could be focused on speaking for the missionaries to the SBC, rather than providing effective oversight of the IMB on behalf of the churches of the SBC. Of course, the opposite scenario is also “possible” regardless of the new president’s background.
The second “possibile” scenario is why I think one of the concerns that many would raise about a pastor as president of the IMB, even one who has supported the CP, Lottie, led mission trips, etc., concerns strategy. If the next president were to revert back to a strategy of building cinder block chapels or sending “hit and run” volunteer teams (as opposed to longer term partnerships) then I would suspect that most (certainly not all) of our personnel would be concerned or at least (based on the training they’ve been receiving since 2000 or so) a bit confused. And what if “the churches” decided that’s what they want? Would the new president lead the IMB to adopt strategies based on the felt needs of the churches who send volunteers? Or will he continue to adopt strategies based on missiological research, worldview studies, and good cultural anthropology?
Maybe a pastor who has been a missionary or a missioanry who has been a pastor would be the right person. Or maybe not. I don’t claim to know. I suppose I’m just throwing out the other side of the equation for discussion.
In any event, I’m going to be praying fervently for the search committee, as I know you will too.
For clarification, I’m not against the idea of a pastor as president. I’m just more concerned about the next president’s missiological presuppositions than his current ministry position.
Robin,
I was sort of expecting this post. ?
In addition to the objections I voiced earlier when you published your original post, I believe Stuart makes some good observations here.
I believe we live in a different day now than in the first 100 years of the SBC. The “science” or “discipline” or missiology is much more developed than it was then. We have learned many more things since that time about what it takes to effectively make disciples in a cross-cultural context. I certainly hope we would not revert back to our thinking and methods of missions of 100 years ago, given all we have learned, and that, I believe, the Lord has taught us since then.
Yes, it is important for the IMB president to be in tune with the supporting congregations or “constituency” of the SBC, and be able to effectively communicate with them, and rally them for giving and service to the Lord on the international mission field. But, I believe it is just as important, if not moreso, that the IMB president have a broad knowledge of missiology. And, at the risk of coming across as elitist, I sincerely believe that much important knowledge and insight into missiological matters is next to impossible to come by without significant personal cross-cultural experience. It is by way of having to personally encounter and grapple with the many complex issues that one is faced with in cross-cultural settings (which really are substantially different from those in non cross-cultural settings) that one comes to a mature understanding of these issues.
I also believe that to name a new IMB president who does not have significant overseas experience would be an extreme blow to the morale of vast majority of overseas missionary personnel. Missionaries generally need to have someone as their “leader” who they feel is able to empathize with them, and understands from experience, the particular challenges they must deal with, and issues they must grapple with.
If a new president who does not have significant cross-cultural experience is named, I hope he is well-received by missionary personnel. I, for one, will never try to do anything to intentionally undermine the success and effectiveness of our duly appointed leaders. On the front end, though, from my perspective as a long-term career missionary, as someone who has grown up in the home of a pastor and key denominational leader, and as someone who has reflected and dialogued quite a bit with others on issues facing us as the SBC, at this stage, I would strongly recommend that those with significant cross-cultural experience be given primary consideration for the position. I fear that to do otherwise might ultimately prove disastrous.
David
I am not trying to be rude, but your comment seems to speak of the same elitism you had proposed before in my original argument. The president of the IMB need not be an expert in cross cultural missions. To take your argument further, can someone who has been a missionary in Western Europe truly understand the needs, strategy, and position of those who are in dangerous areas like the Middle East or in places like Indonesia? Probably not. There is definitely a different strategy used in Egypt than there is in Germany. Yet, whether he has served in Western Europe or stateside, a capable leader is able to to surround himself with former missionaries to those areas who are more knowledgeable than he is and will work together under his leadership to bring about a strategic plan to help those missionaries who are overseas.
Your argument treats the position of president as someone who dictates policy to the missionaries without any input from others. A great leader will seek ideas and opinions, working them together into plan that will benefit the missionaries on the field.
BTW, to appoint a president who has exceptional leadership skills does not mean we will revert backwards to how things were done. I again, without any disrespect intended, feel a tinge of elitism. A leader, regardless of past experiential knowledge, feeds off the wisdom of others and brings consensus from various opinions and ideas looking to the future.
Concerning morale, I believe most if not all of our missionaries look to Jesus rather than who is the president of the IMB for their motivation in reaching others for Christ. That is why they went on the field in the first place, not because Jerry Rankin was president of the IMB. I will trust in the calling of Christ to those who are missionaries with the IMB, not their level of fondness over who is their president.
Allow me to make one more point. I am not saying that we need to appoint someone without any overseas experience. The thrust of this post is to “consider” a stateside pastor, with possibly some overseas experience, who has exceptional leadership skills that is able to bring experts together in a working relationship that connects not only with the missionaries overseas, but the churches who support them.
I will be busy this morning and afternoon with other responsibilities and I am sure you will respond, so my response will be slow.
As to your comment about expecting this, I was expecting you as the first or second commentator. I guess we haven’t disappointed each other.
;-)
Robin,
Perhaps this will diffuse a bit of the apparent “elitism” in my comment. Personally, I believe my 18 years of experience in Spain (and Western Europe, in general) is insufficient for the cross-cultural experience I would hope for in a new IMB president. I recognize that the issues I have faced in Spain are a good bit different than the issues faced in the majority of the contexts in which IMB missionaries work. At least, someone with extensive experience in Western Europe, though, would have some degree of personal empathy in dealing with cross-cultural issues.
No, I do not believe that the president of the IMB should “dictate policy.” But, I do believe the president will have a crucial voice in speaking into overall strategic directions and philosophies of the IMB. Of course, all good leaders will want to surround themselves with competent counselors, and will be open to a diversity of viewpoints. But let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that the role of the president is not crucial in regard to the setting of strategy, policy, and overall vision.
Also, yes, of course the missionaries look (or ought to look) primarily and ultimately to Jesus for their motivation and leadership. But, if we were consistent with your argument here, it should not make a difference who is the president. Anyone would do, since we are not really looking to them, but rather to Jesus. When a local church names a pastor, following this line of reasoning, it should not matter if he has signficant ministerial experience or training or not, since the congregation should look to Jesus and not the pastor, anyway, right?
And yes, you can expect me to continue to be vocal in my opinions on this matter. Not because it affects me personally so much, since I am no longer a missionary nor an IMB employee. But rather, because I have a deep concern for the advance of the missionary cause, and feel that this issue will have an important bearing on the advance of the missionary cause.
In that, I believe we are united. We just have different perspectives on what is the best means to achieve the same ultimate goal. This is, no doubt, due to our different backgrounds and experiences that have influenced our perspectives. I pray God will continue to guide us, and all those who are concerned about the missionary cause, and obedience to the Great Commission, into greater understanding of His will, and greater unity one with another.
Brother David,
You say; “I certainly hope we would not revert back to our thinking and methods of missions of 100 years ago, given all we have learned, and that, I believe, the Lord has taught us since then.”
I believe you are aware that Flakkes (sp) principles are being used in House church and home group starts, aren’t you? I agree that we cannot use methods of 100 years ago, but the principles behind having a pastor lead the board is not something that would hurt us.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
No, I was not aware of Flake’s principles being used in house church and home groups starts. I would be interested to learn more about that. Do you have a link, or a reference, so I could research that further?
Of course, there are many things from 100 years ago that we can still and learn and benefit from. However, I think that missiology is particularly an area in which personal cross-cultural experience makes a big difference, as to one’s ability to have a good perspective.
I can see that some missionaries may be so removed from the local context in SBC churches that they are out of touch with issues that concern them as well. The ideal is both-and, not either-or. But, to have a good “both-and” option requires someone, who, in addition to the ability to understand and relate to Stateside SBC churches, has significant cross-cultural experience as well.
Personally, I am not advocating any one individual at this point. Certainly, there are many missionaries, and ex-missionaries (including myself) who would not be qualified. But, there are, almost certainly, at least a handful of people out there who would be qualified, both from the perspective of significant cross-cultural experience, as well as being able to relate successfully with SBC churches. I would hope it is among this handful of people that the search process would focus in.
For what it may be worth (and that may be little) I personally have come to a place where I wonder why we think about “types” or “positions” and not think more about God’s man?
The leader of the IMB has such a multi-role description that I am not sure a type scenerio leads itself to be limiting. I favor the following: Lay out the duties and need. Think long term visions. Get on the knees and beg God to show the man clearly. Then, go get him!
Pastor, Missionary, laymen, Business Man, makes no different. We need God’s man for God sized job!
First sentence of last paragraph should be “difference” – it’s Monday!!!
Brother David,
While I do not have specific house church starts you, I believe, will recognize on this link the principles that are still in use everywhere today.
I am not advocating methodology, but principles. The principles are sound and they are the same principles I heard your father preach and teach at many conferences. They are also the same principles that church plants use along with house churches.
As to someone advocating any one individual for Dr. Rankins position, I do not believe anyone has said you are doing such. Neither have I seen where Robin is advocating anyone. However, you seem to be ready to chop off the possibility of a pastor being considered. I may have missed a statement as I read through your comments. The closest I have seen you come advocating the possibility of a pastor is the cross cultural experience. However, you seem to be advocating someone that has spent considerable time in another country instead of here in the states. Would someone that was born in another country but has been a pastor here in the US for the past 20 years be one that would fit your “cross-cultural” requirement?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim G.,
Yes, I agree (as I hope and think we all do) that the key thing is that the person for the job be, first and foremost, God’s man. And, God does indeed surprise us at times. However, I think God also gives us minds to think with, and expects us to use them as we seek His will on matters like this.
Tim R.,
You are correct. Neither I nor Robin are advocating any individual, as of yet. I do think someone with significant personal cross-cultural experience would be better qualified than someone, with equal credentials otherwise, but less cross-cultural experience. I imagine that someone who was born overseas, and then has been in the States the past 20 years, would be better qualified (isolating this one factor) than someone with no cross-cultural experience. Even better, in my opinion, would be someone who has been a missionary, and experienced first-hand those unique things that missionaries typically experience.
But, as Tim G. correctly observes, the key thing, above and beyond all others, is that he be God’s man for the job.
Tim G.
I believe the heart of what you said could also be summed up in my last paragraph, “While this post is only meant to represent possibilities, ultimately it is God’s choice the search committee and trustees must seek and choose. May we all pray for them as they seek God’s man to help Southern Baptists fulfill reaching the farthest parts of the world.”
Thanks
David,
True! I have been studying the whole idea of how we in Christian Ministry do our searches for staff and such. It is interesting. Over the years we have grown to a place of a more secular approach than maybe we realize. That is what has got me to thinking. I do agree that we can use the intelligence given but I also think that the process in its origin needs to leave the intel out and seek God first before we start thinking.
I have seen this work in my own ministry and have discovered that the people God led me to in a few scenerios I would have ruled out and could have justified it. I look back and wonder how many times my “starting approach” may have limited me?
Gentlemen,
I plan not to get to deep into this comment thread although it is of great interest. Yet, I believe comments 8 and 13 hold extreme merit above the others. Above as in “Head and Shoulders” above or as in “Jesse, do you have another son out there anywhere” kind of merit.
Gentlemen, we really do need God’s man in the big chair at this point and time.
Therefore, be he pastor or be he missionary, may he certainly be God’s man.
cb
CB
Good point.
CB,
:)