The International Mission Board had 5108 missionaries active on December 31, 2006. The board added 844 during the year. Simultaneously, we lost 680 missionaries during the year. Of those, 70 were retirements and 367 were “completions,” meaning that missionaries who had signed up for a specific term of service fulfilled their obligation and their term of appointment ended. Interestingly, of those who completed their assignments, 93 had returned to active duty by the end of the year. The categories of retirement and completions comprise “expected losses.” In addition to those expected losses, we suffered 243 “unexpected” losses, also known as “attrition.” That means that by December 31, 2007, we had a net gain of 163 missionaries on the field for a total of 5,271 active missionaries.
Now let’s look at those 243 missionaries who attrited (how’s that for a great verb?). I should mention that of the 243 who attrited, 4 were terminated and one died, so we are actually talking about 238 who made an independent decision to leave the field. Our IMB staff do a great job of debriefing and learning the reasons units return through interviews and written record. They record every reason given when a unit attrits. The top five reasons for attrition are telling. The top reason missionaries left the field was to accept a stateside job. Laying aside my disdain for churches and conventions who recruit active missionary personnel, I understand that sometimes missionaries feel a kingdom pull to serve stateside and encourage others. Nearly one-third (30.5% or 74 units) listed this as their reason for leaving the field. 23.9% said they experienced a change of calling. 15.6% had MK (missionary kid) matters that required them to return to the states. 12.8%, or 31 missionaries, said their reasons were work related. 9.9%, or 24 missionaries, listed interpersonal conflict as a reason. Keep in mind that rarely is a single factor responsible for attrition. Usually a matrix of facts comes into play. Consequently missionaries often listed more than one factor for their return home.
But let’s continue looking at the remaining data. 24 missionaries (9.9%) attrited because of stateside family issues such as ailing parents. The remainder of the issues listed are as follows.
Personality and Personal Concerns--22 (9.1%)
Personal and Physical Health--15 (6.2%)
Singleness-- 15 (6.2%)
Emotional and Mental Health-- 12 (4.9%)
Unclear Reasons -- 11 (4.5%)
Spousal Issue -- 9 (3.7%)
Field Adjustment-- 8 (3.3%)
Lifestyle and Moral Issues-- 8 (3.3%)
Living Conditions -- 8 (3.3%)
Marital and Immediate Family Concerns --8 (3.3%)
IMB Organization-- 4 (1.6%)
Spiritual Life -- 2 (0.8%)
Financial-- 1 (0.4%)
Language and Cross-Cultural Communication-- 1 (0.4%)
SBC Issues 1 (0.4%)
Several things bear comment here. First of all, the IMB has an incredibly low attrition rate. Though I do not have access to the stats from counterpart mission agencies, I am assured by IMB staff that our rate is among the lowest of all evangelical mission agencies. The other glaring fact is that only one missionary listed SBC issues as his/her reason for leaving. Put another way, eight times as many IMB missionaries left the field for moral reasons as for SBC concerns. That hardly supports the accusation that whole teams are resigning and returning home.
After looking at the factors of attrition for last year, let’s take an overall look at the last fifteen. Here are the overall attrition rates for 1993-2007.
1993 -- 3.7%
1994 --3.8%
1995 --4.7%
1996 --4.4%
1997 --3.8%
1998 --3.6%
1999 --5.3%
2000 --5.1%
2001 -- 5.1%
2002 --5.2%
2003 --5.2%
2004 --5.0%
2005 --5.2%
2006 --4.3%
2007 --4.4%
Interestingly, the attrition rate has actually declined since the IMB passed the policies on baptism and private prayer language that some people find controversial. Another way of putting it is that the attrition rate has dropped since John Floyd became chairman of the IMB. Now, do I think Dr. Floyd can or should take credit for that? Of course not. But I think it just as foolish when some critics of his or of the board simplistically blame the board or Dr. Floyd when missionaries leave.
The truth is both more complicated and more encouraging than that. Missionaries are, as a rule of thumb, hardy souls with adventurous spirits. Just this morning a dear missionary friend, Dr. John Hatcher, left our home after spending Sunday with us. His son, David, is one of my closest and dearest friends. John Hatcher has been in Brazil since 1955. He once buried an infant son in a cardboard box in the little village of Faro on the Amazon. He has planted 70 churches. He will never retire. He will most likely die in Brazil where he has planted his life. Do I think for a moment that discouragement over his mission board’s policies could bring him home? No, and neither do I think that a missionary called by God and sent by the IMB will get so dismayed by a policy that the board sets for new missionaries that he or she will forsake that calling and return.
I do not doubt that some missionaries disagree with certain board policies whether they be about private prayer languages, drinking alcohol, using tobacco, or the prohibition on having a swimming pool. Similarly, I receive email from many who tell me they appreciate those policies. I can’t speak for any of them, pro or con. But the point is this: whether they like or dislike certain policies, they don’t forsake their calling over it. They have a genuine sense of loyalty and love for the denomination that sent them and supports them with prayer and resources, and they serve like the true men and women of God that they are. Like any family, we do the best we know to do and love each other across our differences. We do not apologize for being genuinely and thoroughly Baptist. Lots of other organizations are broader in their doctrinal definitions and less careful in their policies. Missionaries who went to the field as Southern Baptists are not shocked by our commitment to send Baptist missionaries who plant Baptist churches.
Our policies are not perfect, to be sure, but they are a good faith effort to be true to our understanding of Scripture and to maintain faith with the Baptist churches who cooperate to support our great missionaries. The Board of Trustees exists to aid, encourage, and support those missionaries. God being my helper, I will be faithful to that task so that our attrition rates might drop even further and we might maintain the world’s greatest missionary force.
27 comments:
Hallelujah! If I were Thoth, I'd say some exultant word in my own private langauge. :-)
Dr. York,
Thank you for this. Extremely helpful. With that, I am...
Peter
When a person is obedient to the call of the Gospel then the subsequent commitment is total and all-consuming. Thank you for showing that people are still answering that call and willing to forsake all that they know for others to have the opportunity to know.
John in St. Louis
I always like the facts. Thanks for the clarity!
Dr. York,
Thank you for this report. Stand tall!
Blessings,
Tim
On the heels of seeing 92 commissioned, I'm even more encouraged about our beloved SBC IMB.
Thanks for had to have been laborious research. Your toil is not in vain, but most motivational and appreciated.
Also, I concur with the sentiment about recruiting from among missionaries on the field. We should be doing the opposite, recruiting from among the state-siders to go overseas.
Gig 'em from the Lone Star State.
Bart: You would look cute in Thoth's outfit, though!
Peter, Matt, John, Tim: You're welcome.
Gunny: Actually I did not research any of this. It comes from an executive report that was given to the trustees by VP Clyde Meador, so his office generated the report. I just think it needs to be publicized so that people know the truth.
Dear Dr. York,
Due to my present location in a high security region, I must post anonymously. However, I too want to thank you for putting up these data as an answer to those who have criticized the BOT and especially Dr. John Floyd. While I admit that the policies about prayer language and baptism have been controversial for some, I personally don't have a "dog in that race". As a long time IMB worker, there have been a few policies that I would have seen differently had I been in the role of policy maker myself. However, there has never been a policy that made me want to resign in protest.
While I understand that some would disagree with the policies most recently decided by the BOT, I am saddened greatly that Dr. Floyd has been branded by some people as the villain even though the entire Board made the decision. I would guess that most of the people making disparaging comments about Dr. Floyd are doing so based upon their 2nd-handed impressions of him even though they have never personally met him. I know Dr. Floyd to be a wonderful man of God and it saddens me to see him (or anyone) criticized in a personal way just because he has convictions some people disagree with.
I also know Dr. Rankin to be a wonderful man of God. Evidently, he and Dr. Floyd (and the majority of the current BOT) disagree over the private prayer language issue and how best to implement policies in that area. Good and godly men disagree.
I was also around when Dr. Rankin and the leadership team, along with the BOT instituted what was then called "New Directions". It created a firestorm in some circles and some people left because of it. I respected their decision to leave (or stay) but I regretted that Dr. Rankin took a lot of heat then, as he did when he asked us to sign the BF&M 2000 (which I gladly and conviction-ally did).
I, for one, am grateful that we are "arguing" over these kinds of issues rather than arguing over whether the Bible is inerrant or whether Jesus is the only way, truth, and life. If our BOT was passing policies that denied the foundational issues like those two, I too would be looking for a different place of service.
I may or may not always agree with every policy decision of our IMB BOT and/or President; but I am thankful to God that we are presently being led by true men of God like Drs. John Floyd and Jerry Rankin who lead from their convictions and not from some pretense of unity that has never existed.
EA IMB M
Dear EA IMB M:
You, my dear brother, are the reason I am willing to add to an already overcrowded calendar. If you can give what you are giving, then I can give what I am giving. I am here to bless, encourage, support, and pray for you. Your comment shows the spirit and the heart of the vast majority of our M's. You are right in your assessment. I love both John Floyd and Dr. Rankin, and in the year I have served on the board I can say that I never saw Dr. Rankin and Dr. Floyd have a cross word. Furthermore, I can state unequivocally that NO ONE has ever suggested to me that they desire to get rid of Dr. Rankin. If that has happened in the past, I haven't seen it nor do I have any knowledge of it. To the contrary, without exception every trustee with whom I have spoken has expressed love and respect for Dr. Rankin.
It isn't our job to agree with him on everthing, otherwise we would serve no purpose. We are there for a reason. When disagreements arise, we work through them. I have had candid conversations with Dr. Rankin about some potential areas of missiological disagreement. His response has been more than gracious. I have seen him implement some fairly major changes that address my concerns. I cannot say that he did so as a direct result, so I claim no credit for it, but either he was already attempting to strengthen those weaknesses or else he considered my concerns and responded. Either way, I appreciate him greatly. I can even appreciate his explanation of his understanding of PPL. He doesn't claim that it is what 1 Corinthians is talking about. He merely describes it as his experience. Dr. Rankin is a man of great integrity and in the year I have worked with him I have grown to deeply appreciate him and look forward to working with him as long as Southern Baptists leave me on the board.
And you have Dr. Floyd's character right as well. He is a wonderful man who, like Dr. Rankin, only wants the will of God. At times they have perhaps disagreed about what that is, but Baptists can do that. They have certainly worked well together through the last year. In fact, I think people would be shocked at how much they were in agreement on some key issues.
I really do believer our brightest days are ahead. God is up to some amazing things through the IMB. I am honored to be a part of it and pastoring a church that is so committed to missions. I am also thrilled to be a trainer of missionaries at Southern. So thank you for letting me hear from you. Please introduce yourself if ever we are together.
You've never seen my legs. Otherwise, "cute" would not come to mind.
Dr. York,
Thanks for this. Facts are a terrible thing... they destroy so many good stories.
Hershael,
This post is a breeze of fresh air on the IMB.
Morris
Interesting post. An interesting thing to pursue would be which problems start with board related things. How many people wake up and decide to have an affair? They don't....life is stressful....other stuff stems from work related issues. I'm here on the field and I'm definitely grateful for the support and administrative power they provide but I also think there's a significant disconnect between the BOT and alot of the work on the field. I don't think we can see things are all rosy...
cmlcros:
Thanks for posting. I have three basic responses to what you say. First, I wish every one of our M's could understand just how much our trustees truly love and support you. We spend at least 18 days per year in meetings, not including travel time and trips we take to the field. Obviously, it's impossible to get personal time with 5300 M's, so that feeling of disconnect is truly unfortunate. Trust me when I say, you are deeply and genuinely loved and prayed for. Second, I disagree with the premise of your first suggestion. I am sure you don't mean to, but you seem to suggest that board pressures could contribute to an M having an affair. Bad board decisions can certainly add to an M's stress level and make it harder for him or her to do the job, but no one or nothing can make you sin against God. That one's completely on you, I'm afraid. If anyone had reason to succumb to temptation, Joseph did. He remained faithful. Finally, I was very specific in my comments. I never intended to suggest that we don't have problems. I have been around small mission boards all my life, and I have never seen an absence of problems. They're like what Jesus said of the poor: you'll always have them with you.
Again, thanks for weighing in. I certainly would love to meet you sometime.
Dr. York,
Thanks for your response. Let me take a moment a clarify what I was attempting to clarify earlier. I agree with you that we probably don't lose too many people for the sole reason of BOT policies or actions. What concerns me is two things:
First, I would like to know how many people that said they left the field to take a job in the US wouldn't have considered it if they had a different experience with local and/or higher leadership. For example, we recently lost a family before the end of the term. They left to take a pastorate in the US but the only reason they considered it was because they had a horrible experience with their leadership. Technically they left for a job but the reason they were open to this was perceived poor leadership.
Second,
We shouldn't solely measure the effects of a policy by the attrition rate. Few of us here are going to leave solely because of a new policy. The more important number to me would be the external effects. How many potential candidates did we not get because of these policies? How many strong, solid believers saw the policies as beyond scripture and even beyond the BFM and choose to go with another agency? How many SB churches guided people to another agency because of the public infighting they see and hear about? Those are the true effects of these policies.
Let me close with saying most of the trustees that I've met are solid. I've been impressed with their knowledge of the work and their desire to know more. I don't think the system is beyond repair but we still have some work to do.
Blessings!
Dr york,
I will not dispute those facts for their truthfulness because I don't know more about them, however I do think that you need to reexamine your bias to be objective as possible. Perhaps you should examine your reasons for saying that when a M leaves the IMB they are "forsaking their calling" we cannot know that for certain.
I will think about my biases if you will think about yours.
Michael:
1) I will always examine my own biases whether you do or not. I don't need to negotiate that.
2) I would challenge you to read the piece more carefully. I never said that when and M leaves the IMB they are forsaking their calling. I certainly raised the specter that he/she might be doing that if they leave in dismay over policies (as opposed to violation of conscience), but nowhere did I make a blanket statement that if an M leaves the IMB that is equivalent to forsaking his/her calling. But I do think calling is the issue. I just don't think a M should ever leave the field--whether or not he/she leaves the IMB--until God releases him/her from that calling. I hardly like everything that the BofT of Southern do and I often have disagreement with the President, but I don't leave the seminary over it for one reason: God called me to be there. When He releases me from that calling, I will leave. For me it really is that simple.
Wow. Pastor Hilliard, I am trying not to be unkind here, but I find the way you framed your comment astonishingly bad logic. It would have been proper for you to suggest that the stats at the end of 2008 will be different than in past years because you know of a mass resignation that will occur and make the attrition rate for this year significantly higher, but to claim that anything current changes the past is just silly. My article and the statistics I presented make no claims for the future. You may have a better insight into that than I do. Again, you may not, seeing as your research is pretty much limited to a conversation with someone on "the" mission field (as though there is one missionary on one field that is somehow representative of 5300 missionaries worldwide). But even if you are correct, your assertion that it contradicts my conclusions is nonsense for several reasons. First of all, these aren't my conclusions. These are the hard data presented by Dr. Rankin's senior staff to the board. I merely presented to the public what I learned in a plenary session of the board. Second, the data that I presented are all about the past, concluding with the last calendar year. If we had a 50% attrition rate this year (which I certainly do not anticipate), it would in no way contradict the data I presented. It would merely be another set of data.
Reading the responses to this data on various blogs has often left me almost depressed at an apparent inability to understand data. One person accused me of manipulating the data to say what I want it to say. I, of course, manipulated or changed nothing as anyone can discern by obtaining a copy of the Executive Summary from Dr. Clyde Meador, Dr. Rankin's VP. I can only conclude that some people are apparently disappointed that the attrition rates are down.
Now you talk to a disgruntled missionary about some plans for the future and assert that it somehow changes data for things that are past. Go figure.
But now to the main assertion of your comment. Might some missionaries leave the field because of IMB policies? Well, why would now be any different? Missionaries have always done that for as long as the board has existed. But, frankly, I don't see the issues that are currently on the table as more significant than when missionaries who were already serving were required to sign the BF&M2K. That was a much more significant policy change, and attrition rates rose to around 5% as a result. I cannot know the future with any certainty, but I think I know people.
Let me explain it like this. You are a pastor (if I might assume from your blogging identity) and surely you have had some disgruntled person in your church come to you claiming that everyone feels like he/she does. Dire warnings, grim predictions, and veiled threats follow. Now, indeed you have a problem. You can't ignore this person or the people he/she has talked with, but you also know that fewer people feel this way than the griper would like to believe. You have to learn to distinguish between a vocal minority and a truly significant number of people.
The missionary with whom you spoke may indeed speak for many missionaries, or there may be a spirit of discontent in that person's team. But 5300 missionaries serving worldwide are a lot of missionaries to speak for and, frankly, I don't know how any one person in any part of the world could do that.
Thank you for your comment. I fear I may have responded out of the frustration I have felt at so many misunderstanding hard facts. If so, please forgive me.
Dr York,
I want to briefly analyze your numbers. The first thing you learn in any decent stats class is that you can make the same numbers support either side of a cause. Without seeing the questionnaire that was completed by resigning missionaries, we are already at a disadvantage (ie we cannot see the wording and potential bias built into the survey by the structure of the questionnaire). Additionally, we do not know how many of the missionaries were willing to be fully and completely honest in reporting their reasons for resigning - for example, it could be that they had no interest in communicating their reasons but had to pick a box to be done with the paperwork. Finally, we do not know from this report how many of the short term personnel who are listed as having successfully completed their terms were formerly planning on either extending their terms or returning to service with the IMB but did not based on leadership, BoT, etc.
With all of these limitations, we can still analyze the data provided by Dr Meador, and put online in your blog. You mention that only 1 person/unit resigned due to SBC issues. However, I would say that all of the following categories could potentially include IMB issues as a factor leading to resignation:
Stateside jobs (74) - why look for a job or respond to a job offer if you are content with your call and the leadership of the IMB?
Change of calling (58) - how many people are more eager to seek a change of calling, or at least use this as a reason, due to leadership/strategy/personnel problems on the field?
Work related (31) - if all is well with IMB leadership and structure, what are the conditions that are causing these work related resignations?
Interpersonal conflict (24) - this conflict could be with co-workers, leadership, or trustee interaction, given the wording here.
Personality & personnel concerns (22) - ditto the previous reasons.
Emotional & mental health (12) - how many people have emotional difficulties relating to poor leadership and direction?
Unclear reasons (11) - obviously these are unclear so they could potentially be included.
IMB Organization (4) - directly related to the IMB, leadership, and trustees.
SBC Issues (1) - speaks for itself.
In total, you list 374 issues that were provided by 243 units resigning. This averages out to 1.54 reasons per unit. The reasons I have listed as being potentially related to IMB problems total 237. If you take the average of 1.54 reasons per unit, and divide the reasons given above, you'll come to a potential that 154 units resigned due to issues potentially related to IMB policy, leadership, structure, BoT, etc. That is quite significant!
I am sure that not all of these resignations were in fact related to IMB/leadership/BoT/policy issues, but I would venture a guess that more than one was. I do not want to accuse that you have attempted to mislead people in your reporting of these numbers. Rather, I want to provide another possible interpretation of the same data. My hope is that you have enough humility to allow for the possibility that BoT behaviour and policy leads to more attrition than you are giving credit in your blog entry. If indeed this is the case, you might be more willing to investigate potential problems that do exist within the IMB. In doing so, I pray that changes can be effectuated to further support the ongoing IMB mission around the world.
I can only speak from firsthand experience in Europe. In 2007, Western Europe welcomed 29 units to the field, and only 20 of them were still on the field in January 2008. Last week, the RL of Central & Eastern Europe resigned due to the BoT policies. One of the city strategists in WE resigned, at least unofficially due to continued IMB policy issues - subsequently their entire team will return to the US by this summer (some resigning before the end of their terms, others finishing their terms, and others cutting extensions short). This data makes a curious observer at least ask if potentially there is a common problem leading to these resignations.
I ask that you would carefully reconsider the possibility that IMB policy and issues are having a bigger impact on missionary resignation than you admit in your initial post.
Dr. York, it would do me no good to comment on Wade Burleson's blog because the question I have is for you. How did you know about the letter he posted on his blog? Is there really some kind of conspiracy going on behind the scenes or is there a perfectly logical explanation? I am not being sarcastic, just scratching my head. Thanks for your labors.
Oh there's a conspiracy--to get Wade to take responsibility for the slander he routinely allows on his blog. How could my knowledge of a letter defending John Floyd's character be a conspiracy? And who is the victim of this conspiracy? John Floyd whose name was dragged through the mud? Or are you more concerned for the owner of the blog who allowed that slander to be disseminated? I think your values are a bit out of balance. I can show you scripturally how it was wrong to allow that to be said of Dr. Floyd, but I really don't find that my knowledge of the letter or of my simple question to Wade was a violation of the will of my God.
And just so you know, this is my last comment on this. I wanted Wade to publish the letter so people could hear Dr. Rankin set the record straight. That was done. I am satisfied.
As long as we're setting the record straight, it should be mentioned that there is no Dr. John Hatcher currently serving with the IMB in Brazil.
M in Brazil
No, and no one ever said he did. That is precisely why I referred to "his mission board's policies" in reference to him. Dr. John Hatcher serves with Baptist Faith Missions, a small mission board that has been in Brazil since the 1940s and does a tremendous job. My own father served with BFM on the field and now serves as a director. I never meant to give the impression that Dr. Hatcher served with the IMB. I know and fellowship with many other missionaries than only IMB missionaries. As much as I believe in the IMB I do believe the kingdom is larger than us.
But your comment certainly serves as an illustration of the way people read and assume things and jump to conclusions.
Just posted at Wade’s https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19615457&postID=1941165441779573628&page=1
Oh, my!
I made a big mistake and JUST found out about it. Since it involves people we talk about I HAD to get over here & straighten things up on the spot! Not because of lawyers and old political guys and process & procedure but just because I can not STAND to be wrong about something, and to be wrong in PUBLIC is just theworst.
So anyway, I got our esteemed Chairmen of the IMB Board of Trustees mixed up. I assumed something and got it wrong. It was Tom Hatley who went to a church in Arkansas in 1993 and put a wonderful lady and her church through an awful experience, NOT Dr. John Floyd. As far as anything to do with females and John Floyd, I got nothin’! No big mess here in a church and no mess in Europe explaining his departure there as was insinuated on another blog which I, of course, picked up and ran with.
As a matter of fact, knowing how people think, with my mistake out on the public venue, there has been NO follow-up from other reporters here in Blogtown, no Amens, no echoes - so that is about as clean a vindication of him as we can get without checking all the snitched FBI files at the Clinton library.
As far as the extra-Biblical adding of rules and general over-bearing attitude toward missionaries and making people like Mr. Hammer feel put upon, John Floyd is still as culpable before Christ as he ever was. He’s reported by some to be a much nicer guy than, uh-hum, at least one other recent IMB Chairman. I will let others decide whether a “my way or the highway” attitude is what we need at the leadership level in the IMB, but hopefully things, as Wade keeps saying, will improve.
So, anyway, with the women thing, I was wrong, it was another guy, not Floyd, or no one at all - but Dr. Floyd STILL gets to explain to Jesus why the ideas he has supported at least SEEM to be hurting our missions efforts and, of course, I would LOVE to hear that interview, because I reckon He takes very short presentations up there on His throne of Glory.
Steve Austin
Hoptown, Ky.
Units?!?!
Chuck:
Welcome to the lingo of mission agencies. It took me aback, too, when I first came on the board, but it is the way that individuals are referred to.
I understand your desire to set the record straight on the attrition issue. Could you set the record straight on another issue and possibly lead the board to be more transparent about it? Let me explain. I am a Southern Baptist and have been one since birth. I felt led into missions as a teenager and followed the Lord's leading to Bible College. My wife have the same desire to serve the Lord on a foreign field. Upon completing Bible College, I contacted the IMB and was told to get some seminary experience (although I already had more Bible training in Bible College than I received at seminary), but I thought I would complete the requirements the board has set. Upon completing the seminary requirements and having talked and met with a Candidate Consultant several times. He started sending us job openings from certain regions of the world and my wife and I began to pray about where God wanted us. Towards the end of the process we were contacted and told that we couldn't serve with the IMB because my wife's BMI (Body mass index) was too high and to contact them when it was within limits. At the time she was pregnant and they said to call them back when she was done breastfeeding, not pregnant and was within limits.
So you can imagine how upset we were when told this news that my wife was too fat to serve as a missionary, according to the IMB. We were pretty much dropped like a bad habit. It was briefly explained that they have had budget cuts and that the insurance requirements were tightened. The weight my wife would have to be at would never happen.
My problem is not only with the BMI requirement, but when we were informed of such requirements. I wasted time and money going to seminary to meet the requirements for the IMB and was told at the end about the weight requirements.
Could you please let me know why these requirements are not posted anywhere and why people aren't informed about a weight requirement early on? I know it is probably a taboo subject because the Bible doesn't place these restrictions on anyone.
However, we do have a call aren't going to let the IMB hinder us. We have since joined another organization. It is independent and started by an IMB missionary.
I would appreciate some clarity in this area and ask you to look into these matters.
Post a Comment