While I understand your point about filing a Form 990, the requirements to complete that form are a huge financial drain and timesuck for most parachurch and church organizations; the form is very complex and easy to answer incorrectly.
If you look at the original 990 form itself, you’ll see that it’s 12 pages and usually ends up doubling or even tripling in size by the time it’s completed because of the space required to answer some of the questions. It’s a highly complex document. Just to illustrate, I worked for a nonprofit for seven years that reported 2.5 MM in revenue for 2015. Their form was 48 pages long. Another NPO I know well has a 990 that was 98 pages long, although it is much, much larger than the first.
ABWE is at least providing some transparency by providing their audited financials. Many organizations like theirs wouldn’t, and frankly, wouldn’t want to bother with it. I always take it as a good sign when they do volunteer that information.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I have no problem with a church or para-church group not filing a 990 if they are not required to do so. Also, 10% toward office/management/overhead seems pretty good to me, although I do not know exactly what is required to “manage” a mission board.
This appears to be the total and no more will be incurred going forward. I wonder how much they spent in past years on this whole mess (legal/PR/counseling/attempts to “help”/Pii and other outside folks)? The financial cost is huge which is terrible stewardship of what God gave them through people’s donations.
The financial cost is nothing compared to the human cost though (understatement of the year by me).
There is mention of another related entity called ABWE Foundation - would like to see their financials as well to see what the whole picture is.
Does CMC have another funding mechanism for overhead and non-direct costs? I just don’t know enough about how mission orgs work to have a strong opinion.
Look at the last comment; this is why I am saying that there should be no discretion for matters of physical adultery and criminal activity.
ABWE agrees with you.
As long as section 3.6 exists in their policy as currently stated, no, they do not agree with me. It does not matter how often leadership says they have zero tolerance; the policy says that punishment will be at ABWE’s discretion. Hence, punishments will reflect ABWE’s culture, which for the past four decades has been to cover up the most serious allegations when we’re dealing with key people. The policy needs to address this corporate culture, and that means that in certain cases—say gross sexual abuse, adultery, or fornication among missionaries, or a few other crimes of violence—the person will be automatically dismissed from the mission. You could do it in five sentences or less.
Besides, I think that spelling this out as fairly absolute would be a good idea for any church or missionary policy, no matter what the history and corporate culture. You know the adulterer or child molester is not, sexually speaking, a one woman man—there is no “parsing it out” that needs to be done as with, say, a pastor who has gone through divorce a decade ago to say “OK, he wasn’t a one woman man then, is he now?”, or something like that. This is “right here, right now, we know that this man does not keep his sexual attentions to his wife.”
Unless, of course, we’re going to decide that a missionary is not necessarily a person meeting the standards of eldership, which is problematic in its own right.
So if you’ve got a case where dozens/hundreds of people on two continents over four decades failed to remove an adulterous pederast from his position, you go forward by removing their discretion in such cases.
And who makes those calls? And what right does that person have to adjudicate ABWE’s behavior, outside of God Himself?
I don’t like this situation either, but I loathe the idea of setting up some outside party to decide that ABWE is doing the right thing or not. Better to pull a sheet over it, like Ron Bean said, and shut it down than impose some Pope-like figure to decide whether or not things are being done correctly. After all, it was the people who were watching over ABWE that allowed this to happen.
The God of all the Earth shall judge rightly…much more rightly than any man or panel or committee ever could.
The point of clarifying something in a policy is so that no one, strictly speaking, makes the call in a given case. Sure, the leadership needs to be on board and sign off with the overall policy, but all you need to do in this case is to insert something into section 3.6 stating to the effect: “Any missionary participants in adultery or fornication will immediately be terminated. Any missionary participants in sex crimes will be immediately terminated and the relevant reports shall be made to authorities. Any ABWE employee who suppresses a report of adultery, fornication, or sex crimes against children will be immediately terminated and relevant reports shall be made to authorities.”
It’s that simple. No Popes necessary, just to take seriously Paul’s requirements for deacons and elders to be a one woman man, and to understand that ten thousand miles away from support structures, people are far more vulnerable than they are at home. It’s even more important when you consider that some missionaries consider themselves highly important revenue sources—I’m guessing DK did. You want to change a culture of covering things up? Great! Give no leeway in these cases.
I’d understand the pushback a little more if we were talking about something that’s a little less clear in Scripture, but to push back against saying “any adulterers will be immediately separated from the mission” somewhat boggles my mind. Why?
As long as section 3.6 exists in their policy as currently stated, no, they do not agree with me. It does not matter how often leadership says they have zero tolerance; the policy says that punishment will be at ABWE’s discretion.
Bert, once again, you are simply incorrect. Their policy manual states, ” Any ABWE missionary or prospective missionary who becomes involved in sexual immorality is disqualified from further service with this mission agency. Sexual immorality shall be defined as adultery/fornication, incest, sexual molestation, lesbianism and homosexuality, and habitual use of pornography.”
Discussion
NewHow many mission agencies take the 1st 10%
http://www.abwe.org/work/support
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewA 990 would be a start to transparency
http://www.abwe.org/donor-faqs
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewContrast Samaritan's Purse
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewThe problem, Jim
While I understand your point about filing a Form 990, the requirements to complete that form are a huge financial drain and timesuck for most parachurch and church organizations; the form is very complex and easy to answer incorrectly.
If you look at the original 990 form itself, you’ll see that it’s 12 pages and usually ends up doubling or even tripling in size by the time it’s completed because of the space required to answer some of the questions. It’s a highly complex document. Just to illustrate, I worked for a nonprofit for seven years that reported 2.5 MM in revenue for 2015. Their form was 48 pages long. Another NPO I know well has a 990 that was 98 pages long, although it is much, much larger than the first.
ABWE is at least providing some transparency by providing their audited financials. Many organizations like theirs wouldn’t, and frankly, wouldn’t want to bother with it. I always take it as a good sign when they do volunteer that information.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
NewIf Central Seminary can do a 990 ...
If Central Seminary can do a 990 … [and we do!]… ABWE can!!!
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewTo whom is ABWE accountable?
To whom is ABWE accountable?
[this is the problem with mission boards - although I see the value of them]
Did ABWE involve the churches in the D/K mess? Nope!!!
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
New990 and overhead
I have no problem with a church or para-church group not filing a 990 if they are not required to do so. Also, 10% toward office/management/overhead seems pretty good to me, although I do not know exactly what is required to “manage” a mission board.
Tim
NewCentral Missionary Clearinghouse
takes ZERO
cmcmissions.org
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewHave you ever been to the ABWE home office?
Plush
back to 990’s … have to report the pay of the top 5 officers
No 990. … no idea
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewEach missionary is a revenue generator forABWE
Think about that and the potential conflicts of dismissing a missionary
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewABWE Financials show a $3.2mm Settlement Cost in '16
This appears to be the total and no more will be incurred going forward. I wonder how much they spent in past years on this whole mess (legal/PR/counseling/attempts to “help”/Pii and other outside folks)? The financial cost is huge which is terrible stewardship of what God gave them through people’s donations.
The financial cost is nothing compared to the human cost though (understatement of the year by me).
There is mention of another related entity called ABWE Foundation - would like to see their financials as well to see what the whole picture is.
Tim
NewDoes CMC have another funding
Does CMC have another funding mechanism for overhead and non-direct costs? I just don’t know enough about how mission orgs work to have a strong opinion.
Tim
NewNonsense
As long as section 3.6 exists in their policy as currently stated, no, they do not agree with me. It does not matter how often leadership says they have zero tolerance; the policy says that punishment will be at ABWE’s discretion. Hence, punishments will reflect ABWE’s culture, which for the past four decades has been to cover up the most serious allegations when we’re dealing with key people. The policy needs to address this corporate culture, and that means that in certain cases—say gross sexual abuse, adultery, or fornication among missionaries, or a few other crimes of violence—the person will be automatically dismissed from the mission. You could do it in five sentences or less.
Besides, I think that spelling this out as fairly absolute would be a good idea for any church or missionary policy, no matter what the history and corporate culture. You know the adulterer or child molester is not, sexually speaking, a one woman man—there is no “parsing it out” that needs to be done as with, say, a pastor who has gone through divorce a decade ago to say “OK, he wasn’t a one woman man then, is he now?”, or something like that. This is “right here, right now, we know that this man does not keep his sexual attentions to his wife.”
Unless, of course, we’re going to decide that a missionary is not necessarily a person meeting the standards of eldership, which is problematic in its own right.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewNo Popes necessary
The point of clarifying something in a policy is so that no one, strictly speaking, makes the call in a given case. Sure, the leadership needs to be on board and sign off with the overall policy, but all you need to do in this case is to insert something into section 3.6 stating to the effect: “Any missionary participants in adultery or fornication will immediately be terminated. Any missionary participants in sex crimes will be immediately terminated and the relevant reports shall be made to authorities. Any ABWE employee who suppresses a report of adultery, fornication, or sex crimes against children will be immediately terminated and relevant reports shall be made to authorities.”
It’s that simple. No Popes necessary, just to take seriously Paul’s requirements for deacons and elders to be a one woman man, and to understand that ten thousand miles away from support structures, people are far more vulnerable than they are at home. It’s even more important when you consider that some missionaries consider themselves highly important revenue sources—I’m guessing DK did. You want to change a culture of covering things up? Great! Give no leeway in these cases.
I’d understand the pushback a little more if we were talking about something that’s a little less clear in Scripture, but to push back against saying “any adulterers will be immediately separated from the mission” somewhat boggles my mind. Why?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewAs long as section 3.6 exists
Bert, once again, you are simply incorrect. Their policy manual states, ” Any ABWE missionary or prospective missionary who becomes involved in sexual immorality is disqualified from further service with this mission agency. Sexual immorality shall be defined as adultery/fornication, incest, sexual molestation, lesbianism and homosexuality, and habitual use of pornography.”