A Story
Several years ago, my church in Cedar Rapids ran into a problem. We had a treasurer who jumped into the deep end and found she couldn’t swim. She went bizarre, then packed up and left the church. We had some pretty knowledgeable folks on our finance team who tried to figure out what on earth was going on with her accounting system, but we simply could not make heads or tails of it. For several months, we went to our monthly business meetings with a financial statement that was more of a best-guess than an actual statement. Every month I stood before the people and said, “Look, we have no idea how much money we really have. Our books are a mess, we are looking to figure them out as best we can.”
Guess what? There was not even the slightest hint of conflict. People were patient and supportive as we labored to sort out the mess. Why? Because we kept them informed. We told them exactly what was going on. They knew we had a problem. They knew we were doing the best we could to figure the problem out. Most of all, they KNEW we were not hiding anything from them. They were informed and they were supportive.
Another Story
I don’t know if it is the same everywhere else, but in Iowa, the salaries of all public employees are published in the local newspaper. My wife’s salary was published. If I want to know what the Sioux City Dog Catcher makes – it’s in the paper. The DA? In the paper. My daughter’s choir director. It’s there for all to see. Iowa recognizes that if you work for the people, you are accountable to the people. Since our tax dollars pay the wages, we have the right to know what the public servants make.
Now, A Question
Do you find anything that approaches that level of openness and accountability in our Baptist entities? With very few exceptions, I would say that the answer is no. Decisions are made behind closed doors and facts are kept from those of us who on the outside. Salaries are not revealed. Decisions are not explained.
An Unfortunate Example
When the GCR Task Force embarked on their endeavor, they promised us that their work would be done in the open. It perhaps the biggest strategic blunder since the Red Sox sold the Babe to New York, the Task Force recommended that all their records be sealed for 15 years and the Annual Meeting approved the request. Who knows what is sealed in those records, but the decision to seal the records has given rise to a tsunami of suspicion.
The Problem
The GCRTF did not have any moral obligation to reveal their workings to the rank and file SBC folks. They made a legitimate motion which the convention adopted. Nothing underhanded. Entity heads are ultimately accountable only to the Boards of Trustees who oversee their work. They have no obligation to reveal their salaries or the processes by which they make their decisions to the masses. Kevin Ezell has every right to avoid the questions that were raised about whether his support of the CP as a pastor qualified him for leadership of an SBC entity. If the duly elected trustees were satisfied, that is enough. He is under no obligation to explain himself to average Baptists.
But when the leaders of our convention recommend a complete restructuring of our convention’s workings, then hide the information about how they arrived at that decision, there will be consequences. Entity heads can rightly claim that they do not have to be accountable to average Baptists, but when they do that, there will be consequences. Ezell can insult us and not have to explain himself to anyone. But there are consequences for that. When they work in the darkness and keep secrets, when they seal records and ignore questions asked by “the people” they create a series of consequences that may not be what they hope. What are those consequences?
The Consequences of the Culture of Secrecy and Unaccountability
1) Secrecy breeds suspicion.
I remember back in 1986 watching Geraldo Rivera excavate “Al Capone’s Vault.” There was intense build-up to the night they opened the vault. We waited breathless until the dirt was moved and the vault was unsealed to reveal – nothing! Geraldo stood there with mud on his face and his credibility in tatters. Maybe in 15 years we will find out that there was nothing in the GCRTF vault – no more than was in Al Capone’s. Who knows?
But by sealing those records, the GCRTF created a suspicion that there is something there that the Task Force is trying to hide.
Why do our entities not reveal the salaries of their entity heads? Why should no one know what Al Mohler or Frank Page makes in salary? I would hazard two guesses about our entity heads salaries. First, I am guessing that they make more than most of the pastors who lead their churches to give sacrificially to the Cooperative Program to pay those salaries. I don’t have a problem with that. Listen, if Kevin Ezell can straighten out the dysfunctional family at NAMB, he is worth every penny he is paid. I would guess, though, that these men are paid pretty well.
Second, I would guess the salary packages of these men is small compared to other companies with similar budgets and of similar size. If you compare them to the CEOs of similarly sized companies, they are probably grossly underpaid.
But when they refuse to reveal their salaries, they help to create a culture of suspicion that there is something they are trying to hide.
2) Secrecy breeds cynicism and hostility.
I have not been impressed with the start that Kevin Ezell has gotten off to at NAMB. But I have been somewhat shocked at the cynicism and negativity that some have expressed about him and toward him. There is an assumption out there that our entity heads are trying to put something over on us. The culture of secrecy opens the door to this.
3) Secrecy demonstrates disrespect
When I was 8 years old, my parents made all my decisions for me. They did not consult me for insight on what we should do. What we ate, where we ate, where we went on vacation, what we did on those vacations – my parents decided it all. One night, when I was at the end of my sixth grade year, my dad came into the room my brother and I shared and said, “We are moving to Taiwan to be missionaries.” He didn’t ask my brother and I whether we wanted to move around the world, he just told us. He was the dad, we were the kids.
The leadership of the SBC treats us like children. We are supposed quietly acquiesce to their leadership and not raise a stink. “Do as you are told, young man!” “Why?” “Because I’m your father, that’s why.” That worked for my dad when I was a kid. It doesn’t work so well with me now.
4) The Culture of Secrecy discourages participation
Anyone who says, “the entity-heads are accountable only to the trustees of those entities” is technically correct. But I believe that the day when people will blindly follow leaders who do not inform them of what is going on is largely over.
When I first came to Iowa, we had a state executive who was decidedly “old school” – an autocrat who ruled with an iron fist. Our state administrative committee and Executive committee meeting consisted largely of him telling us what he was doing and we said, “okay.” He did not like to be questioned or challenged. He saw himself as the king of Baptist World in Iowa. When he retired, his job was taken by a man from a different planet. He asked us our opinions on things. He brought up issues for discussion instead of issuing edicts. It was an amazing change.
The difference in enthusiasm and participation was dramatic. We looked forward to heading to Des Moines for meetings because we knew we were part of the process, that our work mattered that our opinions were valued. It was an astounding change. When you demonstrate to people that you value their input, they tend to work harder for you, sacrifice more. Most of us in Iowa would walk through walls for our executive director.
Is there any correlation between the autocratic nature of our entities and the culture of secrecy that has developed and the tendency of a lot of people to participate less in denominational affairs? Are Baptists today going to simply send their money in and then do as they are told? Perhaps one of the ways to motivate people to
Remember the Garner Motion in 2007? The IMB had passed doctrinal standards for missionaries that went well beyond what the BF&M 2000 authorized. A motion was made and passed that defined the BF&M as the sole doctrinal standard for our cooperation and ministry. The entities looked at the motion and said, “We don’t have to do what you say.” The convention expressed its will and the IMB thumbed its nose at the convention’s will and refused to change its policies.
Again, they had the right to do that. According to Baptist polity, the entities are autonomous and are not directly accountable to the convention. But when the convention expresses its clear will and the entities simply ignore it, that creates ill-will, cynicism and feels disrespectful.
If the SBC wants greater participation, if it is going to call for greater sacrifice from the rank and file Baptists, then perhaps they could decide to walk out of the shadows into the light. Perhaps they could answer questions and explain their processes. Perhaps they could treat us like adults and not children. Perhaps they could end the culture of secrecy and begin a new era of openness and accountability.
My dad gave me a piece of wisdom many years ago. “An informed people is a happy people.” The SBC would do well to learn that principle and put it into effect.
Dave,
When you said, “. . . by sealing those records, the GCRTF created a suspicion that there is something there that the Task Force is trying to hide,” you are exactly right. That is the power of a secret–the “secret” itself may be trivial, but when the trivial is made secret, it acquires power. It functions that way in systems, especially in dysfunctional systems–be that system a family, a church, or an SBC entity. Unfortunantly, a culture of dysfunction has grown within the SBC. I believe the genesis of that system was in the way that the CR was pursued, but that is irrelevent. Even if it could be proven to such a degree that not only you and I, but everybody from Joe Blackmon to Aaron Weaver agreed, it would change and solve nothing. Dysfunctional systems can be changed, and one of the first steps is exactly what you are doing–exposing the dysfunction to the light of day, i.e., to the people. But that is only a first step. The rest requires a lot of time, energy, and intentionality, on the part of many, many people. It requires openness and commitment to openness–something antithetical to the typical megachurch style of management. Do you see any sign that our entity heads are hearing this message and doing anything about it?
John
From the first few months of Dr. Ezell’s tenure, one would not have much hope that things are changing rapidly.
“From the first few months of Dr. Ezell’s tenure…”
Just to clarify, it has been less than two months since NAMB trustees voted Ezell in as NAMB head, so there hasn’t yet been a few months with which to evaluate him. What did you hope to see him accomplish in less than two months?
Well, fewer insults to those who asked him questions and more answers to those questions.
Is this about his comments on CP giving before he became NAMB president?
That, and the fact that instead of answering questions about CP, he levelled insults against those who asked the questions. Then, he told people to simply ignore those who asked them.
Frankly, I think a lot of us got the impression that he feels himself above accountability to rank and file Baptists.
I had high hopes when I first heard his name put in nomination that he would be a new kind of leader for the post-GCR SBC. But he has given me the impression that he is autocratic and unaccountable.
I hope I’m wrong.
For the record, his nomination was announced at the end of August, and that was kind of when I was starting the clock. In my mind, I thought it was more like late June. So, technically, I should have said, “In the couple of months of his tenure…”
I didn’t expect him to solve things, but I was hoping for a greater sense of openness and such.
Dave,
I REALLY agree with you on this issue, especially concerning the sealed GCRTF minutes. But I would take it a bit further.
You wrote: “The GCRTF did not have any moral obligation to reveal their workings to the rank and file SBC folks. They made a legitimate motion which the convention adopted. Nothing underhanded.”
Here’s the part I think MAY have been a bit underhanded — the rationale for sealing the records. The Task Force said they had to protect “sensitive personnel matters” that they had discussed during their meetings. But the SBC never authorized them to function as a Personnel Board and discuss such things. They were to talk about the Great Commission. If instead they engineered and orchestrated a plan for placing people in positions of influence within the SBC, then they overstepped the boundaries of their assignment. Such an action would indeed be underhanded, in my opinion.
Of course, the only way to know what Personnel matters they discussed is for some third party to access those minutes, an event I look forward to in 2025, should our Lord tarry.
Yeah, there may be nothing there, but we simply won’t know. I’m not sure that by 2025, I will care that much either.
Could a motion be introduced to undo the sealing of the records?
It’s been my experience that if you got the message out and got the masses motivated, anything voted in can, in fact, be changed by the same voting method.
I would gladly write up the motion and be the guy to present the motion at the next Convention. I would personally love to see the look on their faces when the motion is presented with the backing of a motivated crowd.
I personally believe that there are some things afoot that we’re just seeing the first ripples of this year.
Bill,
I will be happy to second your motion in Phoenix. Wow, this is so much better than last week! I agree with both DAVE and BILL!
A motion to unseal could be made. I’m not sure all that goes along with that.
But the leaders will get up and say that they records should not be unsealed and the vote will go against us.
I think a better motion might be to suggest a limit of 5 years (4 from next summer) and also to appoint an impartial observer to review the documents in advance and screen them for any legitimate “employment” issues.
All you have to do is use the right words and make sure it’s a virtual unknown with good speaking skills making the motion.
It needs to be perceived as a David vs. Goliath match up.
Words like deception, fraud, waste, corruption, and similar power phrases need to be used when presenting this motion.
You set up the perfect storm and no pontification on anyone’s part could derail it. It would take the motions crew rendering it out of order on some technical grounds to undo it and even that could be met with harsh resistance.
To get these records unsealed, it’s going to take a theatrical production not unlike what Mohler gave two years ago to get the GCRTF off the ground.
It’s going to take a motivated blogosphere. Yes, you’re going to need Wade and his traffic. Yes, we’re going to need SBC Impact. I would predict a fight coming from SBC Today and SBC Tomorrow. Actually, I would predict a fight from SBC Today and wild, baseless non-accusations from SBC Tomorrow.
It’s going to take good, solid reporting. Think more Jason Smathers and less MoKhan.
It’s going to take getting some state people involved, and with how they were treated during whole affair, that may be easier than people care to admit.
It’s going to take getting some editorials in ABP. With the way they were treated in the past two years, that may be easier than people also care to admit.
It’s going to take getting pastors and congregations motivated into going.
It’s going to take fostering a climate of distrust leading into the convention. For some reason, I would believe that this will be there regardless of this motion.
I think it could be done with the right maneuvering and with much planning behind closed doors.
What? No comments on my plan? Really?
“What? No comments on my plan? Really?”
Bill, you already know I’m on board. But I think Dave’s pragmatic analysis is unfortunately accurate. The leaders on the platform have an enormous home court advantage–eight feet of elevation, HD close ups under the lights, well dressed and well rehearsed speeches by people with name recognition who have generally been leading everyone in worship and receiving “Amens” all day long.
By comparison the person who speaks at lowly microphone number seven must identify himself, be recognized, get accustomed to the sound system, gaze up at the platform, make the appeal, write the motion down and give it to a page, and try to sound intelligent in the process. Have you noticed these people usually appear to lack confidence, poise and eloquence? There are exceptions, of course, but the power really does reside under the big lights.
When that brother went up to the platform and stood under those bright lights and caved in to the persuasion of those who never wanted the tellers to count those ballots, I knew he would get sucked into those lights like a mosquito flying into the light zapper in the back yard on a summer evening.
A better response might have been: “Brother, in the interest of Christian unity, I’ll buy your dinner tonight while the tellers we have elected to count ballots take 45 minutes to count the ballots we put together for this very purpose.”
So we need to find ourselves a ringer that doesn’t mind going down in Southern Baptist Convention history as the dude who stood up to the establishment…
I’m giddy thinking about the looks on their faces…
I’ve been watching the World Series of Poker so I was distracted.
The only way a motion to open the records would work is if some bigwig made the motion.
Actually, they made no motion. The GCRTF announced that they would seal the records for 15 years. A motion was made to force them to disclose those records, which was defeated, even after an attempt was made to allow for the claim that certain information couldn’t be disclosed due to legal concerns from talking about personnel matters.
It’s a finer point, and the assembled messengers at Orlando still voted to allow the sealing of records, but I think it matters that we understand the GCRTF made promises during their meetings to keep the records sealed for 15 years and then presented to the SBC that we had to live with it, not they asked if it was ok if they kept it sealed.
This is part of what has bred my cynicism on this issue.
You are, of course, correct.
“” If instead they engineered and orchestrated a plan for placing people in positions of influence within the SBC, then they overstepped the boundaries of their assignment. Such an action would indeed be underhanded, in my opinion.””
I don’t see any other reading of the matter that makes sense. Nobody hides “light” under a bushel. Secrecy almost always means something dark, not something light–something shady, not something good.
If what you say is true–those who benefitted from the secrecy will be dead or long retired when the truth is known.
Is it time for the BFOIA? You know, the Baptist Freedom of Information Act.
Yeah, that one will pass!
If we get someone to rap the motion it could work, right?
Dave,
When I kept raising all kinds of sand about the new “Draconian” IMB policies I was repeatedly told to “Trust our Baptist System”… That any lurch in one direction would, over time, be corrected through the appointment of new individuals to successive Trustee Boards.
You say “the Task Force recommended that all their records be sealed for 15 years and the Annual Meeting approved the request.”
Yes the GCR Leadership ask for their records to be sealed, but it was the Annual Meeting (who) “approved” this action. I understand you frustration with this action, but this being done by the convention at large cannot be undone now by the GCR Leadership even if they wanted to do so. Make a motion at next year’s convention and we will see how the convention feels at that time about this issue.
Grace Always,
I mentioned that in the article, Greg. The motion was duly approved by the SBC. I think it was foolish, but I tried to be careful to say it was appropriately enacted.
I was not quarreling with the legitimacy of the action, but the wisdom of it.
I’d argue that it wasn’t exactly legitimately enacted. The GCRTF came to Orlando having announced the records would be sealed for 15 years because they had promised the people they talked to that the sealing would be done.
A motion was made to compel them to open up, which failed.
The end result being that the SBC approved the secrecy, but it was not a matter of giving permission beforehand, rather one of being told we had to accept what had been done. One of the GCRTF members stated that if they were compelled to open up, it would cause any other Baptist committee huge problems for their work.
On the issue of the GCRTF specifically, there was a lot of confusion about the lines of authority. Yes, agency heads are accountable to trustees for the work they do as agency heads, but committees are accountable to the body for the work they do as a committee. The Convention had every right to direct the GCRTF in its work for the Convention.
In the end, the Convention handled the messenger’s motion as it was entitled to do, by essentially ratifying the promises made by the Task Force to others. But I was surprised by the vociferous argument that the Committee did not have to turn over its documents, even if the Convention asked them to do so.
I think we forget that the Convention system is supposed to help make better decisions — unfortunately, we’ve bashed business meetings for so long, hardly anyone believes it anymore.
Any Baptist who has ever had the privilege of moderating a meeting or serving on a committee knows that there are minutes, and then there are minutes. I expect that if the TF members would have anticipated the reaction to “sealing” the transcripts for 15 years, they would have simply taken not-terribly-detailed minutes and made them available through whatever channels other entity minutes are usually made available.
But it appears, rather, that they thought their work was important enough to keep detailed transcripts and recordings so that future Baptist historians could one day “unseal” the notes from the conversations that revolutionized Southern Baptist-dom as we know it.
If the chairman was going to declare that detailed minutes and transcripts had been made, I don’t think they had any choice but to seal them for some significant length of time. So t hen once a motion was made from the floor not to seal them, I don’t think the other members had any choice but to take the position they took, against the motion not to seal.
So I’m not sure that I had the same takeaway from this issue as some of the rest of you. I don’t see secrecy and distrust of rank-and-file Baptist. But I don’t know how to explain what I took away from it without it sounding uncharitable or judgmental towards the chairman.
It is a mistake to continue to focus on a done deal, the GCRTF records being sealed. It’s done. No convention will overturn it.
Rather, the focus should be on transparency of all of our agency and executive employees. There is no good reason why any executive staff employees should have their compensation secret from the folks who pay the bills.
Kevin Ezell, for example, should release his contract, pay, and all provisions for separation. The new NAMB should be an open and transparent NAMB.
William, you have been a reasoned and consistent voice for openness. I appreciate that.
William: It is a mistake to continue to focus on a done deal … Ezell … should release his contract, pay, and all provisions for separation.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): If it is a mistake to focus on something already accomplished, then what justification do you have for suggesting that Ezell release information about his position, which is also a ‘done’ deal requiring no disclosure on his behalf or by his person?
I’ve admittedly had my nose in SBC matters for a short time .. 4-5 years .. but I have to wonder how anybody could view any of this as surprising.
If we can learn anything from the past, it’d be that it will take another CR-style “takeover” to change it.
🙂
I don’t think that will happen, Bob. People will vote with their feet before voting some other way, or such is my belief. That may happen in either of two ways: one, by people leaving SBC churches to unite with other churches; and two, by a significant dampening of enthusiasm for anything outside their own local church, or at most, their association or whatever hands-on work they are involved in. The later will happen, if it hapens, by churches decreasing the percentage of their CP funding, even if it goes to other missions work under the rubric of “GC Giving.” Based on anecdotal evidence, I think that is already happening, though I cannot cite any studies or statistics.
John
(Now in Maryland, but from Talladega)
“People will vote with their feet”
I’m afraid that is already happening.
I think you’re right. The worst part is this: We’re living in an age where we can access nearly anywhere with the Gospel, and we’re losing momentum in the effort. It’s beyond tragic.
So will someone care to explain to me why Southern Baptist entities aren’t answerable to the Southern Baptist Convention?
I would love a good explanation into this set up and and literally fill me in on how it works, where trustees fit in, everything. I’ll respond from there.
Thanks.
Bart Barber explained this to me. I hope I have it now. We elect the trustees and the trustees run the entities. Our “authority” is limited to the election of trustees and the adoption of the budget. But the SBC in annual session cannot dictate internal policy.
Even GCR items were “recommendations” not dictates.
Is it one set of trustees for all entities or does each entity get a different set of trustees?
Are these trustees paid? Expenses covered?
I’m not Dave, but I understand each entity has its own set of trustees, the number of which vary from one to another. Some are pretty large–I think the IMB has a hundred or so. They are nominated by the Committee on Nominations, which is nominated by the Committee on Committees (I’m not making this up), who are appointed by ther president of the SBC. Their expenses, as I understand it, are paid. For the IMB, that must be substantial (by my standards anyway) as those meetings are in different corners of the country, maybe one out-of-country, and trustees get to make at least one out-of-country trip to missionaries overseas each year. I have no idea whether they are paid any sort of salary, but I doubt it.
John
Trustees do not receive any salary for being trustees, only have their expenses incurred for being trustees covered. Same thing is true of SBC Pres and 1st/2nd VP.
And the structure is just as described: the entities report to the trustees. In theory, a motion could be made at an SBC to remove a trustee or to even replace an entire board, but that would take a lot. Also, acting ‘on behalf’ of the SBC, the Executive Committee could suspend payments to an entity from CP money, but if the SBC didn’t ratify that suspension at the next meeting, the pre-voted money would have to be paid. It allows the entity to have some stability: they see only about 1/3 of their trustees change (less, really, given 2-termers) per year, so the groups can set and monitor targets for the entities.
That’s why 2 years ago when folks were making motions about Lifeway selling certain authors, the motions were out-of-order. You can go to the Lifeway Trustees and ask them to vote that, and you can introduce a resolution that shows that the “Messengers assembled at this time and place ask that,” but from the floor, you cannot vote to force them to do it.
Until the changes to list the SBC as “Sole Member” of the entities (get a lawyer to clear that one up), it was theoretically possible for Lifeway, for example, to just tell the SBC to stick it, since they weren’t taking our money anyway.
And the whole Committee on Committees thing seems odd, but it at least provides for 2 stages of SBC approval: first for the Nominating Committee to be approved, and then the Nominating Committee report to be approved. It slows down the impact of a specific person becoming President, and keeps the SBC President from directly controlling any entity of the SBC. Especially when you consider that the first nominations that he influenced are being voted on at the last SBC he presides over. (Sorry: he or she presides over.)
“Our “authority” is limited to the election of trustees and the adoption of the budget.”
If by “our” you mean the average SBC messenger, this isn’t even correct. Our authority is limited to the election of the president who in turn appoints the trustees. This is why the conservative resurgence took so much time and effort – repeated cycles of voting in presidents who would appoint the trustees that would change the direction of the entities. The conservative resurgence demonstrates just how difficult it is to actually change things in the SBC at the grassroots level.
Actually, by “our” authority, I meant the SBC Annual meeting and the motions that we pass.
And though the president does appoint the committee on committees, the messengers vote to approve or disapprove. In the early days of the CR there were efforts to substitute nominations.
And, then when the committee on committees brings its recommendations, we get to vote again.
The messengers vote for the President, then for the committee on committees and then for the nominations of the C on C.
This is something I hadn’t realized, though it doesn’t give us much more control than I had assumed. It has surprised me just how little control or influence any given individual or group has over the SBC. I think my original point still holds that any real change in the SBC takes a bit of time and effort.
Your example of the Garner motion points to one of my frustrations. The messengers can vote all they want, but entities can basically do what they want and messengers have (as I see it) little say over who leads those entities. So even with something like the GCR recommendations, it remains to be seen to what degree the entities will implement the proposals.
I wish there were a way to change this, to make voices from the SBC carry more weight, but what would be an alternative system that wouldn’t just bog everything down even more?
FROM THE PEW
If you want a glimpse of how co.op program funds are used, look at the auditors statement in your state convention annual. Be sure you look at his statement, not his audit. In Alabama you will find state convention employees have a defined benefit plan (an amount equal to 10% of salary contributed each year), an annunity plan ( you can contribute up to 5% of your salary and be matched $ for $) and there is a supplementary retirement plan for selected employees. The same type retirement plans are also stated in the SBC annual except the supplementary retirement plan is for selected executives.. In 2004 in Alabama, $500,000.00 was put in the supplementary retirement plan for selected employees. I have not checked later years. This was about 1.5% of the total co-op program funds for the state that year.
Also, the executive directors, the state Baptist Paper editors, and the SBC leadership go to resort areas ( how about the Canadian Rockies no less) and have a conference and the subject of the conference is the churches and the people in the pew do not give enough to the co-op program. (Google will lead you to some of this information. Also, check the Christian Index). And we wonder why giving is down,why we are declining in both effective churches and most other measrrments. We must walk the talk at all levels, have real audits (GAAP) of co-op program funds at all levels etc to become credible.
Pastors in our churches must insist that we all be held accountable at all levels. Deacons must also step up and be counted.
So basically, what I’m hearing is that we need to completely restructure the Southern Baptist Convention.
President
1st/2nd VPs
Officers
Executive Committee which consists of officers, 1 representative from each entity, one representative from each state
The representative from each entity is the person in charge of said entity.
Trustees are volunteers with no expenses covered and no salary.
All entities are required to handle their meetings via the internet to lessen the need for travel. Local churches will be recruited to provide food for one annual meeting of the trustees per entity. Local churches will also be recruited to provide housing for trustees coming in from out of town.
I just saved the Southern Baptist Convention hundreds of thousands of dollars. You’re all welcome.
Joe,
I’ll ask our state execs about that conference next week at our annual meeting. I’ll have the chance to check the other numbers, as they are interesting.
I am totally NOT with you on this.
(1) The Task force was under no obligation to record their proceedings. They chose to do so for historical purposes. They should be commended for such an action, not criticized.
(2) Closed door meetings are necessary in order for people to feel free to speak with candor and forthrightness. Some issues need to be deliberated in private.
(3) I have not heard a compelling reason why such records should be opened other than a general distrust of secrecy. If you question the integrity of members of the task force, say so directly. If not, then grant them the benefit of the doubt.
Two examples — (1) In our executive board meetings for our State, we have had closed meetings (Executive Session) when dealing with specific people and salaries and brainstorming possibilities for how to deal with certain issues. We would not have been able to deal directly or speak candidly about particular issues if we were worried about how our words or motives behind them would be interpreted by those who were directly affected by our decisions. We late had open sessions which shared the conclusions and rationale but not all the specifics of deliberation. In my opinion, our practice was necessary and appropriate. The same applies for any agency, board, or task force.
(2) I have never recorded the Deacons meetings of my church nor been asked to disclose our deliberations about issues. I have never been asked for a transcript of my staff meetings. Such requests, imo, would be inappropriate. Some conversations are appropriately private, even if the conclusions drawn from them are public.
You make some good points, Todd. Let me give some random responses.
1) Do the people in your church who pay the pastor’s salary have the right to know what he makes? We do not put individual salaries in the monthly statements, but we do announce them when we are voting the budget and any member of the church is permitted to ask in the church office and find out what the pastoral staff makes.
It is not unreasonable for the people to desire to know how the money they are giving is being spent.
2) While I agree that there is a need, at times, for confidentiality, I think executive sessions and secrecy should be the exception, not the rule. It is unhealthy when people think that someone is keeping something from them. And right now, in the SBC, there is a sense among a lot of people that things are being kept from us.
In other words, openness should be the rule and secrecy the exception. That does not seem to me to be the case right now.
3) I do not argue that the GCRTF was obligated to reveal all their inner workings. But I think they would have been wise to reveal most of their workings. They created an aura of suspicion around their work.
They were radically altering the work of our convention and I think that at that point there should have been more of a spirit of openness.
Todd, I’m not arguing that there should NEVER be confidentiality. I just think that we have taken secrecy WAY too far. if you have a culture of openness and then go into executive session when it is absolutely necessary, no one will likely be upset.
A few random thoughts of my own:
It is enough to me to know how much of the budget is spent on salaries. I don’t care what our Agency heads or any other employees make — I trust our trustees to determine individual salaries. The trustees represent me and they DO know what the agency heads make. Also, I believe it is the agency trustees and not the agency heads themselves that have chosen to keep the salaries under wraps.
I don’t think that “secrecy” is an accurate description of what is normatively taking place — even when sessions are closed.
Even if executive sessions are the exception, I think that the issues the GCR Task force were considering (i.e., All options on the table, and ones that would directly affect individuals and people that we care about) and the desire to get clear counsel from various leaders warranted the closed nature of their meetings. I think in the overall scheme of things, the GCR Task Force was quite transparent, even if they made some mistakes in the process.
I think our general collective distrust of our leaders says more about OUR character than theirs. If we are going to call for transparency, we must also call for trust. While I do think we should hold our leaders accountable, I think our default position as brothers should be one of mutual encouragement and trust not one of anger, skepticism, cynicism, and distrust. Maybe I’m Pollyannish about things but I’d rather err on that side of the spectrum. 🙂
Todd, you said, “I think in the overall scheme of things, the GCR Task Force was quite transparent, even if they made some mistakes in the process.” We must be talking about two different GCR Task Forces. The one I am familiar with would not even allow a prepresentative of Baptist Press, much less any of the state Baptist papers, sit in on their hearings and deliberations–and this after initially saying they would allow it.
John
Since when does “transparent” mean that we have to allow reporters to listen in on every meeting?
When I say they are transparent, the kept us apprised of what they were thinking all along the way — gave us a preliminary report — modified the report — had multiple forums for questions and input, etc.
Maybe I’m a little bit pollyannish myself, Todd. There is no question that the powers that be are not obligated to open things up more, but I think they would reduce the attitude of suspicion that so clearly exists if they would just open things up some more.
Two observations:
1) It is amazing how different our perspectives are on some of these things.
2) It has been refreshing that we could have a good discussion without rancor. I always appreciate that.
I agree. Though I find this issue difficult because the rampant attitude of cynicism and distrust in our Convention is particularly troubling to me.
Well, considering what happens in the Southern Baptist Convention when the doors are closed…
I’m not surprised at all.
Our Deacon meetings are open to anyone who wishes to attend.
I saw the difference in Cedar Rapids between the cultures of two churches.
At our church, we practiced openness in most things. Very seldom did we close meetings or keep secrets. Our building committee worked hard to plan the new building we built in 2002. Meetings were open to the membership. When we had an idea, we discussed it with people. We talked about what we were planning and kept people informed about what we were doing. They loved it.
Another church I knew always emphasized “confidentiality.” Committees were sworn to secrecy (but there were always “rumors” being leaked.) There was so much suspicion, so much chit-chat going on, because there was an unhealthy culture of secrecy.
Certainly, in a pastor-search committee, when you are dealing with resumes, confidentiality is important. But in that church, there was a culture of secrecy. It was unhealthy. The church was unhealthy.
What I do not know is if the culture of secrecy grew out of the general dysfunction of that church, or if the general dysfunction grew out of the culture of secrecy.
It just seems to me that the extreme secrecy of that church was a signal of dysfunction within the church. And that is the culture I see at the convention level right now at the SBC.
Todd — Wouldn’t you agree that the GCRTF Task force is only entitled to the confidentiality the convention gives it? The Committee is entitled to ask the Convention not to ask — but if it asks, you’d better cough it up.
I’m a bit mystified by this idea that the Convention’s Committees acquire the right to stiff arm the Convention in favor of historians.
I would also say that the right to confidentiality is somewhat abrogated by the degree of change which is being advocated. The fact that the GCRTF was advocating a pretty radical degree of change would indicate to me that they might have more of an obligation to reveal the reasons and the process that lead to that decision.
There was so much negativity against the GCR – most of which I disagreed with. But when they sealed the records, they opened the door to the sense that there was something they were trying to hide.
For me, it was the expenditure of money.
There were multiple meetings held at resort locations where their spouses were also in attendance. My belief is that these meetings should have been held in the churches or via the internet with no travel required. The Convention spent hundreds of thousands of dollars so these men and women could have a bunch of “working” vacations.
And yes, I do have a problem with CP money going to these frivolous meetings when there are other methods available which save money, limit travel, and expedite the process.
Jon,
I would be all for open meetings if that requirement had been made on the front end. What kind of integrity do we have as a Convention if we ask individuals to speak freely under one set of rules, then after the fact change the rules so that what they thought the said in confidence is now open for all to hear?
Those who wanted deliberations to be open should have made the motion at the 2009 Convention, BEFORE any meetings were held, not after the fact.
I don’t think there was any desire for secrecy among the task force members. What I DO think is that they had some tough questions to ask and tough decisions to consider and wanted to be able to invite people to speak freely without fear of reprisal.
Again, if the Convention wants open meetings, fine — Just set the rule at the front end.
Todd:
You wrote: “What I DO think is that they had some tough questions to ask and tough decisions to consider and wanted to be able to invite people to speak freely without fear of reprisal.”
Why would people have a “fear of reprisal”? Doesn’t that seem to indicate the GCRTF acknowledges there is a reason to mistrust some of our current leaders?
TRB
No, it means that not every idea or proposal will be popular or well received — if you really want every option on the table, you need a safe forum to present those options. Once an proposal is agreed upon, then present the idea and rationale to the Convention.
Just a hypothetical example — one idea may be to eliminate local associations in favor of state Conventions [I’m not suggesting that, btw]. Do you think a state executive director or an Agency head could give an opinion on such matters without consequence? Even if the idea is immediately scrapped, the headline in the state paper and the blogosphere will be “Denominational Executive Wants to Eliminate Local Associations” which now undermines his ministry and relationships. If such meetings are open, you will never get the honest opinion of that leader because it’s too risky. There is nothing evil or sinister in his opinion or idea, but expressing such an idea publicly would come at great cost.
In another example, consider a entity that needs to cut 20% from their budget because of decreased revenue. The board holds a meeting to brainstorm ideas for cutting the budget. Every idea will personally affect someone in a dramatic way. DO you really think the trustees/board members of that entity can have a productive meeting with open and candid discussion if they know that every word is for public consumption. Maybe a particular position needs to be cut. Will there be open and honest discussion about the merits of eliminating that position if the person who HOLDS that position is privy to the details of the conversation? I submit that there would not.
These are just two examples where I would recommend closed sessions. I think that the nature of the task force deliberations fits into this mold and therefore we should honor their commitment to those who offered their honest input that the conversations would be closed for 15 years.
Privacy is often wise leadership not a sinister evil plot.
Todd, I believe that if you go back and review the motion and the discussion around it at the 2009 meeting, you will find that we were promised an OPEN process by the president as the talked about the committee. No one promised them a closed meeting or confidentiality.
You said the rules should have been laid down before hand. If I am right in what I said above, then the rules were laid out as OPEN.
The committee itself decided or were told, that its meetings would be secret. The members of the GCRTF were also told or decided that these would be secret until the final report come out and then they could talk (per one GCRTF member). Then when the final report came out they were basically sworn to secrecy for 15 years. Even if they were discussing different scenarios about the way things look or possible changes, they had no authority to make any decisions that were binding. They had no authority to discuss personal, personnel matters; after all they were not the trustees of the organizations.
When you have one of the GCRTF members state in an interview with Baptist 21, pre-annual meeting, when asked about the recommendations going far enough, says that this is, “only a first step”. I would like to know what they are thinking of as step two, three….
One other thing just to throw it into the mix, they had better know the open meeting laws of individual states as related to NPO’s, if someone really wanted to challenge them.
“That the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 23-24, 2009 in Louisville, Kentucky, authorize the President of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint a Great Commission Task Force charged to bring a report and any recommendations to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 1516, 2010, concerning how Southern Baptists can work more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission.”
Nothing in there about being OPEN. Even if there were, an open process does not mean “every meeting is open to the public and transcripts of all meetings will be made available to all.” It means that they will be open about what they are doing — which they were and are. If you followed the Pray4Gcr web page, the task force kept us apprised of what was happening throughout the process. Seems pretty open to me.
I think much of this is a matter of perspective. From your perspective, the committee is stiff arming the Convention. From my perspective, these men are trying to act with integrity while people are unfairly calling their integrity into question.
“I think much of this is a matter of perspective.” ON that we agree, Todd.
I do not think that it is so much a matter of integrity as philosophy. My point is not that these men violated any ethical standards. I just think they are making very unwise choices in their leadership style – choices that have consequences.
I want to make this clear.
I cannot see any positive outcome to unsealing the records. Those who distrust the leadership and are cynical about the process will continue to be so. If we’re talking about “perspectives,” the whole thing seems to me an attempt to derail the entire GCR because we didn’t like how the vote turned out rather than move forward in our partnership in the gospel.
I could see many positives to unsealing all the records.
1. How our money was spent?
2. How were our commission members compensated?
3. Who were all interviewed?
4. What was asked?
5. Were boundaries crossed?
6. Deals cut?
7. Monetary waste?
8. Budget discussions?
9. Where were all the meetings held?
10. Were personnel matters discussed?
I can see many things that need to see the light of day. It’s called accountability and it’s high time that we had some built into this Convention.
I didn’t say there weren’t questions that could be answered. I want to know what benefit is derived from our having the answers to these questions. IMO, all it will accomplish is to create new questions and further the cynicism and distrust. Further, I do not feel any compelling need to personally know the answer to any of those questions. In fact, some of the questions by their very nature seem adversarial and assume that wrong-doing is taking place.
Now, if you wanted to propose that we set up some sort of system of further accountability for such groups, I’d certainly be willing to entertain it — but, IMO, for me to have every detail and every answer to every question is neither necessary nor profitable and merely feeds my own sense of self-importance. I don’t need to know. I go to the Convention and elect presidents and trustees — and I trust them with the stewardship I’ve given them and trust God’s ability to work through our less-than-perfect people and systems.
The questions answered are the benefit.
If our leaders know that they’re being held accountable for their actions, then the leaders will operate very differently.
Todd,
The Great Commission Resurgence Taskforce was formed at the leisure of the Southern Baptist Convention, therefore it is answerable to the Southern Baptist Convention and its workings, regardless of the approved tasks at hand, ought to be available for the Southern Baptist Convention to peruse.
If I hire you to conduct a survey of my church or business, then your work, all of your work, is subject to my reviews at my leisure. You would be out of a job if you were keeping information from me as you were doing the work that I hired you to do.
They had no right to keep their work from the people that hired them to the commission that the Convention created via votes during their business meeting. If they wandered out of their approved scope of activities, then that is on them and the appropriate level of action would be warranted and actionable.
We keep getting confused on who works for who in this convention. We don’t have fiefdoms. The Convention as a whole approved this commission and the convention as a whole is privy to the documents, minutes, and work of the committe that was created by the Convention.
I’m sorry, but the leadership of the Convention works for me, the member of a Southern Baptist Church. I don’t have to be, nor is it right, for elected and paid officials of an organization tread on me or my fellow laity.
I agree that we don’t work for them. It is equally true that in their role on the task force, they do not work for us either. They represent us. As our representatives, they offered individuals confidentiality (for 15 years). That promise should be kept as a matter of integrity.
I’ll repeat what I suggested to Jon: If we expect open deliberations with transcripts available for individual messengers to peruse, the expectation should be made on the front end, not after the fact.
Bill asks some good questions. I hope CB will not come down too hard on me for mentioning that I used to be an attorney :-), but when I practiced law, I had to abide by certain ethical guidelines (I know that sounds like an oxymoron). One of those was to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I would hope (and I do believe) that pastors and spiritual leaders should be held to an even higher standand (i.e., “above reproach”).
In relation to the secrecy behind the GCRTF’s meetings, if the new IMB President was either a member of the GCRTF or closely associated with a member (i.e., Kevin Ezell at NAMB), then I think that, for integrity’s sake and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, that we need to know if the GCRTF discussed specific individuals for specific positions within the SBC.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Task Force could offer confidentiality agreements which they do not now want to violate because of integrity issues, then surely there are written confidentiality agreements with those involved or at the least contemporaneous records which indicate the terms of the confidentiality agreement and who was granted confidientiality. Dr. Mohler, in arguing confidentiality, never said what the terms were. In any event, confidentiality agreements cannot cover the entirety of the GCRTF’s proceedings. And, this confidentiality, as described by the GCRTF, protects the witness’ confidentiality, not the Task Forces’. Therefore, the witness could step forward, in an effort to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and authorize the release of their confidential testimony.
Lastly, the GCRTF was not in an “employer-employee” relationship with anyone. What personnel matters were they authorized to discuss that they cannot now divulge? The answer is none. And, supervisors talked about current employees/staff with the GCRTF, were they themselves violating the employee’s rights? Just some of the many questions that remain unanswered. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Good post.
So , What are they doing now ?
Just give this time, It will blow over.
Doing nothing is perfect. Great job !
As I have stated on other occasions, my ministry from 1986 until 2004 was to dysfunctional churches. At one of those, there was significant bickering about the Deacons and equally significant stress–and arguing–within the Deacon Body. Consequently, to address both issues, (1) I (the pastor) was named Moderator for Deacon’s Meetings, (2) we posted our agenda for each meeting so everyone could see what they were doing, and (3) any church member was allowed to attend any deacon’s meeting (though not to speak at it) except for those portions where confidential prayer needs were discussed. While it did not solve all the church’s problems, it went a long way toward addressing them, and did so by making the process transparent. The perceived “secrets” of the deacons were exposed to the light of day, and lost their power to cause problems. Could the same thing work for the SBC? I don’t know, but trasparency does solve some problems.
John
Dave: Perhaps they could treat us like adults and not children.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Of course, this is not going to happen at the denominational level to the extent that most adults will find satisfaction, given that such practice is deeply embedded in SBC life at the local, state, and institutional level. And as such, it predates the current control of conservative leaders/pastors. Whereas it is in more abundance with said SBC leaders/pastors than in the past, for many in SBC it, nonetheless, has been intolerable for decades. When CBF leadership behaved as it did toward John Killinger a few years back, said practice was evidenced in its movement, too. Watch most baptist pastors’ behaviors’ when a controversial issues arises in their church; their first instinct will be protection and control not illumination and participation. The question: why this instinct and not another?
Dave,
I’m a little late to the party, but family emergencies last week have gotten me behind. This is a great piece and hits at the underlying issues which are affecting the whole of the convention. Whether or not one agrees with the recommendations of the GCRTF, I find it perplexling that some do not see the heavy-handed approach that was taken from beginning to end. These same people who ignore the power politics in this are the same ones who would be vehemently against what President Obama and the Democrats did with the health care bill. You might think you have the power, but as was revealed last Tuesday, the ultimate power rests with the people.
We have a trustee system, but the trustees are supposed to represent the churches of the SBC, not the entity heads. To the extent that they have forgotten this, then the grassroots Southern Baptists need to remind Nashville Alpharetta, and Richmond of this fact.
As to the unilateral sealing of the records for 15 years, this was perhaps the most troubling part of the whole GCR process. I have a detailed rebuttal of the four main arguments used by the Task Force for the sealing of the records at http://www.fromlaw2grace.com/2010/07/16/radically-rede…the-sbc-part-1/ and www.http://fromlaw2grace.com/2010/07/19/radically-rede…the-sbc-part-2/
The records can be unsealed, but it will take a new motion and it will almost assuredly have to be made by a major player in SBC life that everyone knows and respects. The one person who comes to mind is Bobby Welch, who has been very quiet concerning all of this. Have a great day and God bless,
Howell
“”I find it perplexling that some do not see the heavy-handed approach that was taken from beginning to end.””
Another great insight.
Howell,
I like the way you word your responses and would like to read your two articles but the link did not work. Any suggestions?
Thanks
WJ,
Sorry about the broken links. I think that these will work this time. If for some reason they do not, just click on my name in my the above comment and that should take you directly to my blog. The new links are
http://www.fromlaw2grace.com/2010/07/16/radically-redefining-transparency-in-the-sbc-part-1/ and http://www.fromlaw2grace.com/2010/07/19/radically-redefining-transparency-in-the-sbc-part-2/
Thanks and God bless,
Howell
WJ,
Here are Howell’s links: Part one and part two.
And I messed up the part one link – part one.
The arguement will be that the “laity” average person contributing at church won’t understand the salary levels. YES, they will. They won’t understand six trips to Europe plus expenses for an army of people the amount of which dwarfs the salaries. They won’t understand millions givens in foreign countries by missionaries on salary while they themselves are out of work and having contributed to the cause. There’s no money left over for nice to do items because they are being too nice to themselves with incomes and health and retirement benefits. The hope I believe is for the economy to improve, make some adjustments and then coast along while more retire at the higher levels and all this would cause any good man to have nervous breakdown. For the sake of the Denomination , churchs, and All concerned we need to open things up and make sure qualified people are running the store. It’s not nuclear science by any matter.
We can’t even pray that the economy measureably improves improves as that would give some credence to the current administration and President Obama. Stupid isn’t it how we get ourselves into these barrells with “good solid logic” So we agree to grin and bear it. O’Bama doesn’t like firearms so I have to suck it up. I’m old enough not to let my “wants” hurt me. I want the economy to improve for my benefit as well as the SBC and others who retirements are locked into it. We can’t go around hating half the Country expecting just your side of the street to get the sun. Wake up folks. Take charge. Make somthing happen. Don’t spend all your time crying on your knees. Your State Associations are in place . Move them !
Well as one who was a former Treasurer I must admit you people have found the answer to many long ongoing problems in the SBC, though not completely limited to SBC, it is everywhere in many churches, a lesson taught by our Federal Government. To many traditions and not enough common sense and biblical practice….
Just like the Tea Party in the most recent election, you are seeing the same mentality in the form of a Christian Church Tea Party is no longer acceptable of the status quo.. and are moving in a direction of more independence and less acceptance from (some) Professional Christian Leaders…
I have had these issues for years, but it was doctrine issues, and not teaching all the Bible that ultimately forced me from the brick and mortar church. This was an individual decision and I am in no way making judgment on those who remain in the brick mortar church, because there is a lot of good work going on, but there are a lot of problems that no one wants to address..
Just compare the way the church functions in business decisions with the way the federal government functions and you can easily see why there is a disconnect. Citizens and church members are just no longer going to accept the status quo….
What was Jesus’ salary, did he have an expense account, If he were here to day, how would he run his ministry? Was his ministry a 501(c)(3) non profit?
And yes, I was a treasurer with and accounting degree…
Another problem in the church is due to secrecy, church members are not educated in the function of the church, and that is the way (most) professional christian leaders want it… Just preach to them one or two verses on Sunday, tell a good story, preach it to them on a level no higher than a fourth grade education, don’t teach the controversial parts, don’t teach the three earth ages, just do what they taught you in seminary, that is what is hurting churches….. today… being treated like just dumb sheep… from know it all professional christian leaders…. No I am no one’s judge, just making an assessment here, only God is judge, and judgment begins with the pulpit….. You cannot make a decision for someone else for salvation, and you can not stand before God on judgment day blaming it on your pastor/teacher, everyone is on their own on judgment day….
There is onlly one reason people keep secrets. They don’t want someone to know something. People who have nothing to hide don’t keep secrets. Shame on them for asking for the records to be sealed but shame on the folks who voted to allow them to be sealed.
I’m sorry. I just spit out Diet Coke when I realized that I’m agreeing with Joe Blackmon here.
Guess I’ll just have to insult you tomorrow then…
I am not at all ashamed and will vote the same way if the issue resurfaces in Phoenix.
I agree with Joe and Bill. It is shameful to hide and have secrets, in general. But, to be secretive and make public cries for trust is even more shameful.
A motion to unseal has about as much chance of survival as a snowball in Hades. It seems that “we can’t handle the truth!”
I find it unfortunate that you call such actions “shameful”. I’m ashamed that we are questioning the integrity of such a diverse group of godly leaders with absolutely ZERO evidence of wrong-doing. It seems like sour grapes to me.
Todd,
I don’t think of it as “questioning integrity” so much as “trying to get all the information to make the right decisions.” In a football game, they may take a closer look at an official’s call through instant replay so they can get it right. They’re not saying he’s bad or lacks integrity. They’re just saying that they need more information to make sure rules are followed.
In this case, the rules that MAY not have been followed pertain to the limited scope of the GCRTF mandate in fulfilling the Great Commission. They were not, for example, given a mandate to promote specific candidates for SBC vacancies.
IF, after looking under the hood, we discover the “personnel” matters mentioned had to do with some low level agency employee talking freely about a supervisor’s approach that was less than Great Commission oriented, then fine, the play as called on the field “stands” or “is confirmed.”
HOWEVER, IF after looking under the hood, we discover that the “personnel” matters being hidden do indeed have to do with an intentional effort to become a secret “SBC Personnel Committee” then the call on the field should be “reversed.” (Howell Scott will not be charged with a time out.)
Admittedly, the evidence suggesting that this may be the case is circumstantial: two of the three major vacancies in SBC life have been filled by individuals with “very close” GCRTF ties–one a member himself and another the pastor of the member who proposed the task force to begin with. If the IMB President also has close ties to the GCRTF, then Southern Baptists are justified in wondering if what we created as an “Evangelism Committee” did not somehow morph into a “Personnel Committee” without our authorization.
I agree with you that at this point there is ZERO evidence, but the very evidence needed to prove this matter one way or the other is precisely what we are trying to access. Let’s lift up the cloth, look at it from every angle, make the right decision, and move on. In football, this takes two minutes. In the SBC, it shouldn’t take fifteen years.
To use your metaphors —
1. You don’t look under the hood unless there is evidence that there is something wrong with the car. Otherwise, we’d look under the hood every time we drive.
2. You don’t review a play unless there is a reasonable expectation that the call on the field was wrong. Otherwise, we’d have officials reviewing every play.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing here just rampant speculation.
___
Try this metaphor: You used several illustrations in your sermons that I’ve heard before. You MAY have downloaded your sermons off the internet. Please email me all your sermon preparation notes for the past few months, and a copy of your internet cache so I can assess whether any wrongdoing has taken place :0)
Rick,
”I don’t think of it as “questioning integrity””
Come on Rick, of course you are questioning the integrity of the GCRTF… What you guys are saying is that we know you GCRTF guys did something underhanded, or shady, in some smoke filled back room and if we could just have your records we would show you the door.
Todd Benkert is absolutely correct… It is nothing but “Sour Grapes”.
”In this case, the rules that MAY not have been followed pertain to the limited scope of the GCRTF mandate in fulfilling the Great Commission. They were not, for example, given a mandate to promote specific candidates for SBC vacancies.”
What in the world are you talking about here??? The GCRTF made absolutely NO recommendations that anyone should fill any of the the SBC vacancies.
“HOWEVER, IF after looking under the hood, we discover that the “personnel” matters being hidden do indeed have to do with an intentional effort to become a secret “SBC Personnel Committee””
You cannot be serious here… disgusting! You know full well that each entity of the SBC is governed by its own Board of Trustees. Are you trying to suggest that these Trustees are all guilty of conspiring with the GCRTF?
Rick you are guilty of slandering these Godly men who severed on the GCRTF with, as you admit, “ZERO evidence” I challenge you to either put forth the evidence that they did so, or withdraw these false accusation.
Todd perhapst iis more of the system than the individual leaders, but put them all together and it makes a mess. Just seem to function like some of the folks in Washington DC to me..
Bapticus Humungous, 70, The reason pastors don’t want to raise the flag is that they can be fired too easy. A vote because of how they think, who they socialise with, who they eat din bin with, virtually anything can start a roar that a man with a family doesn’t need. Same situation the coal companies fostered is present in a more subtle way in many churchs with a few families and relatives who want to run the choir, basketball who leads the closing prayer and who reads announcements. They have grown use to this control even to the point of explaining the Bible with someone who pumps gas during the day and has his own theology but knows silent noght and the Lord’s Prayer. Intelligent people won’t stand for that and leave these “Clubs” to there own demise and there a lot of them. We have good pastors that can preach to the educated that don’t find it necessary to argue whether Jesus could be God and Man at the same time anymore than argue how he could come back from the dead. Our Faith is an important part of our Religion. To a 4th Grader this is his biggest subject ever and he’ll argue forever.
Joe Blackmon 78, Keep taking the same med. It works.
With the history of the North American Mission Board, I can’t blame people for being mistrusting.
The actions of the leadership have done zero to alleviate it.
In an airplane there are at least 3 formal checks to make sure the proper fuel has been put on. And most people have a couple of their own back-ups or gouges that is a safeguard. Mistakes are made. Mistakes happen. Nobody is stealing the stuff. Somthing got crossed up. When you get use to checking things you don’t stop. It’s normal and checks and balances should be in place in the SBC. We are one of those and we don’t charge much.
If the SBC needs to make consequential decisions because it might affect someones job or jobs in secret, then the wrong guys are are in the seats who can’t take the “heat”. This is another thing wrong with nespotism.
I served for a time as an elected official of a small city. I was astounded at the state laws we had to follow on this topic of secrecy. We were not allowed to meet in a closed meeting for anything except the direct disciplining of a city employee. (Even then, we had to publicly announce the date, time and reason for the closed meeting! Then we had to make available the outcome publicly!)
Not even performance reviews were closed! I know because I had to consult with our attorney about this for senior employees who reported directly to the commissioners.
I was not allowed to meet and discuss city business with more than 2 other elected officials on the commission outside of open meetings.
I am not saying that all elected officials follow these laws of open government but the laws are there for the most part. And any citizens who are informed could certainly make trouble for those who break them.
Does anyone find it strange that Christians would ‘choose’ to NOT be open and transparent? Much less seal records for 15 years? Makes me think of this:
21 Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Is it not to be set on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
How can we be salt and light in closed meetings with records sealed for 15 years?
Lydia 95, The SBC has put no such Laws in place on purpose. I’ve seen meetings conducted by telephone ahead of time, like, ” I’ll vote for this if you and whoever vote with me ” and on and on. It’s been documented that at least one person embezzelled 1 million dollars and no punishment. I’ve asked the question before; Where does the money go if bank accounts are liquidated or property sold ? Can it be used for bonuses or retirements. When things start getting tight because the churches can’t or aren’t sending money , people will burn furniture for firewood. Drastic but not new.
Todd,
“You don’t look under the hood unless there is evidence that there is something wrong with the car.”
Nope. I look under it on a routine basis…every 5,000 miles or six months. Oil change, tire rotation, etc. You never know if something is wrong unless you look.
“You don’t review a play unless there is reasonable expectation that the call on the field was wrong.”
Nope again. In the last two minutes they review everything…just to be sure they get it right. Sometimes you really cannot know whether the ref made the right call or the wrong call until you look.
“Please email me your sermon preparation notes, etc.”
Glad to do it, if you are a deacon or a member of the Pastor Advisory Team at our church. If so, I am accountable to you and you are entitled to see a record of my work. On the other hand, if I do not consider myself accountable to you, then I won’t give you anything, or perhaps I will tell you to wait fifteen years.
We’re not going to agree here, so we might as well end it here.
You think we need to know every detail of the committees deliberations, I don’t.
You question whether or not the task force and the trustees acted with integrity in the process, I don’t.
No we don’t need to know every detail, just need people with integrity. As a Treasurer, I did not always explain every detail, but told them if anyone had a question about anything, meet me in the office and they could see anything except tithing records, an if they had question about pay, I gave them a copy of the budget, if they needed more information, I sent them to the particular employee and said ask them… But no, did not keep secrets, but did not publish everything in the newspaper either, but did not ever seal records other than tithe records….
All else was fair game.. Ran a honest operation, demanded check and balances, but to be honest, most folks don’t understand the running of a church, and there were a few pastors who thought they had no accountability at all. I said well you better take it to the church and get me out of this position, as an accountant I am bound by accounting standards and the bible. Never had any problems after that…..
I don’t follow this logic: there is nothing to hide so we want to keep it a secret?
It seems that “blind trust” is the path some are willing to take — not me.
Greg,
“What you guys are saying is that we know you GCRTF guys did something underhanded…”
Nope. We don’t KNOW that they did. We just think they MIGHT have overstepped their authority. The OPPORTUNITY was there without any checks and balances. The only way we can KNOW is to access their records.
“You are guilty of slandering these Godly men…”
Nope. I have not accused them of anything. I just want to access the information that will tell me whether or not the committee did more than what Southern Baptists authorized them to do. If the information shows that they did, then yes, I will then, at that time, accuse them of overstepping their authority.
Here’s a real life example: I’m part of an organization in which a trusted Treasurer was so respected no one dared question his integrity. He had no one looking at the record of his work and holding him accountable. He embezzled a large amount of money. Today, years after the fact, we have all the evidence we need, but the damage has been done. If only someone had been authorized to inspect the paperwork and make sure everything was fine at the time, much of this could have been prevented. While we never questioned his INTEGRITY what we should have questioned was his OPPORTUNITY.
There are “checks and balances” even in the US government. It is not considered slander for the legislative, executive and judicial branches to hold each other accountable. It is designed to work that way. For what it’s worth, I don’t even need the documents publicly unsealed. I would be satisfied if only some sort of audit team (a couple of journalists, a good Baptist lawyer, a few denominational workers, a pastor and some laypeople) could sit down and look at it and give assurances that the TF operated within their assignment.
I can wait fifteen years to look at it. I just don’t want EVERYONE to have to wait fifteen years. Some non-GCRTF people should be allowed to review those records.
Let’s get the facts straight on this. When the GCRTF was authorized by the messengers to the Louisville convention in 2009, they were given a specific mandate. When Johnny Hunt appointed the Task Force members, he was reported as saying that the Task Force meetings would be open to the public or to at least represetatives from Baptist Press or other Baptist state newspapers. By the way, this promise of transparency was never refuted.
As the Task Force met, the meetings were never open to the public or to the press (other than the public reporting sessions). Only ten days or so prior to the annual meeting in Orlando, the Task force unilaterally sealed ALL their records, including any and all written, audio, or video records. If you will remember, the records were orginially to be sealed for ten years and then Ronnie Floyd announced that the records would be sealed for 15 years.
When was the decision to seal the records made? Did Johnny Hunt sign off on this or was he opposed? No one has ever answered these basic questions, which in and of itself leads to more questions. In debate on the motion to unseal the records, the Task Force gave four reasons why NO records should be unsealed prior to 15 years. I have given my own analysis at http://www.fromlaw2grace.com of each of these reasons and personally found each to be lacking. Questioning whether or not records of a duly authorized committee of the SBC should be made public is not questioning anyone’s integrity. If you follow that logic, then I suppose that all of the pro-GCR folks out there are perfectly happy with the way that President Obama and the Democrats handled the health care debate and that no one should ever even question the process.
In the end, the way that the GCRTF chose to operate speaks to the philosophy of goverance that they believe in, which is that we need only tell the people what we think they need to know and do most of our work behind closed doors. The opposing philosophy, whether in government, business, or church, is that the best way of governing (leading) is to do as much in the open (“sunshine”) as possible, with only limited secrecy when absolutely necessary.
But for pro-GCR folks to not even acknowledge the disconnect between the Task Force’s recommendations for creating a culture of “transparency and openness in SBC life” and their subsequent arguments forcefully (as the Task Force did) opposing the release of ANY records strains credulity! And Rick, whether or not I’m charged with a timeout or not is moot at this point. I’ll just keep playing until the final whistle blows! 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
That is just the point here, there ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES, so nothing is accountable…. Yea I’ve seen and heard enough here to demand an independent audit of those records. Never heard of sealing records, what would the purpose be except to hide something..
Anyone of integrity should be willing to show the records in this setting, at a minimum, make a statement why the records were sealed.
Hmm, put this up, but it didn’t post. Let’s try this again.
People can cry “You’re questioning their integrity” til they trun blue in the face. The fact is the only reason you keep something secret from someone is that you don’t want them to know it. Now, that doesn’t prove what they’re keeping hidden is nefarious. I mean, someone setting up a surprise birthday party wants to keep the guest of honor in the dark about it. However, the fact is they wanted those records sealed because there were things in there that they didn’t want people to know. That is rarely if ever a good thing.
Further, the fact that certain people are so aghast and offended that some people are asking the question would make doggone sure that I kept asking. Eventually, if enough people raise a stink about it, something could be done.
I agree with Joe and his Green, Red and Yellow Super Hero Guy. Who is that, anyway? Is he a Baptist? I bet HE could take a look at those minutes!
Well, actually it’s an alternate version of Robin the boy wonder as an adult. I’m something of a comic book geek.
Wow! In that case, I’m not sure the junior caped crusader could break into stately Southern Seminary and get past the guard at the Historical Commission archives. Maybe we could get Batman, but not Michael Keaton or Adam West. Definitely Christian Bale!
Just going to have to humble myself here and agree with you guys on this. Yes, there is something someone doesn’t want you to see, and Yes, they thought no one would question it… Should have watched all the Tea Parties this year, knowing folks are fed up and not just at DC…..
There is one exception to that, Joe. Sometimes the fact of a secret is accompanied by power–the power to keep people guessing. It’s somewhat like a “magician,” who are really not magicians, but are illusionists. They get your attention focused on one hand, while it is the other that is really doing “whatever.” In other words, sometimes the “secret” itself is trivial (and the sealed proceeding of the GCRTF may all be trivia), but the fact that it is a secret gives power, inevitably to the keepers of the secret. You see this happen all the time in dysfunctional families: there are secrets that “have” to be kept. It may be that “mom” takes an occasional drink, or that “pop” like to give an eye to the ladies’ underwear section of the Sears ‘n Roebuck catalog, that one of them has seen a shrink, or it may be more serious–but once it is established as a “family secret,” a lot of energy will be expended to keeping it secret, and it makes the family all the more dysfunctional for the effort.
John
“You think we need to know every detail of the committees deliberations, I don’t.
You question whether or not the task force and the trustees acted with integrity in the process, I don’t.”
Todd, Are you familiar with “group think”? It is more pervasive than one thinks. Especially with ad hoc groups that are secretive.
Yes, I’m familiar with it, but I don’t think it applies here.
Yes, the group reached consensus, but I do not think they did so by avoiding conflict, refusing to raise objections, or not testing ideas and their consequences. (Nor do I think the Convention made their choice without serious reflection and consideration of all at stake. See, Dave’s analysis on that point here: https://sbcvoices.com/a-bizarre-but-blessed-day-in-baptist-world/)
I also know this: most local churches would not allow decision like is done in the SBC. While the budget committee will not report word-for-word everything they discuss, when the church votes in December on the budget, the whole assembled body will see every line item in the proposed budget. They will be allowed to question every line item in the budget, and question the committee, “Why?”
And if the answer is “We’ll tell you later” it won’t pass.
And when I try to justify continued support and involvement with the SBC, and people ask about what’s going on, and they hear about ‘sealed records’ and 4-hour executive sessions, they start listing other groups of people that do missions work, endorse chaplains, and run seminaries.
That’s the catch, here. It’s not just a few bloggers that want information or a reduction in secrecy. It’s that the people in the pews who put the money in the plate that then goes to the CP want answers from their pastors about where the money goes and why. They, rightly, want an accounting of every penny, and that includes the quarter and nickel going to CP. Secrecy strains their trust of the SBC, and their trust of me encouraging them to stick with the SBC.