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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.”… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“”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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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:… Read more »
“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… Read more »