If you have followed our discussions here at SBC Voices, it will come as no surprise that I have a significantly different view of recent SBC events than my friends and fellow-contributors, Howell Scott and Rick Patrick. I thought the GCR, while certainly not perfect, was an important and necessary step in refocusing our convention on our real purpose – to bring the gospel to the world. Howell and Rick are (let’s just say) less enthusiastic about the GCR. Howell has consistently expressed concern about what he styles as a “radical redefinition” of the fabric of the SBC. Rick has been critical of the authority of a small group of powerful leaders. My point has consistently been that the things we are seeing now are not that much different than the way they have always been, in the CR and in the days since. So we’ve ended up arguing the finer points of SBC polity and convention politics here and elsewhere.
But this post is not about my disagreements with Howell and Rick. I comfort myself in the fact that when the end comes, they will see the error of their ways and agree fully with me! (See my “Humor” post from yesterday). But even among our disagreements, I found some very important points that they made, points on which we all agree. I would like to delineate a few of them.
1) Howell and the Trustee System.
In his post, The Proliferation of ‘Yes Men’ in the SBC , Howell said this:
There was a time in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention when the Trustees of the various entities ignored the will of the majority of churches. Instead of representing the majority constituency, these Trustees, particularly at our seminaries, acted on behalf of an elite minority of the churches. When this abuse of power continued unabated, the Conservative Resurgence was born and accountability was eventually restored via the grassroots churches of the Convention.
Howell makes a very important point.
Trustees are put in place to oversee the operation of SBC entities. They are elected by us at the Annual Meeting and they are to represent the interests of the SBC. They do not serve the leaders of the entity. They are given a trust (hence, Trustees) to oversee the entity on our behalf.
A family member of mine was an influential member of one of our Boards during the transition time of the CR. He was elected as a conservative but was working with the existing moderate leadership. It was a difficult time. Once, he told me that a great deal of the problem was the perception of the role of the Trustees. The president of the entity saw the board as “yes men” to his purposes. The Board of Trustees said no, we are here to set policy and determine the general direction of the entity, not just to assent to the president’s leadership. It was a sea change in mentality.
Howell is absolutely right that Trustees should never become yes men to the desires of the entity heads and staff. They should not be contentious and difficult, but their job is to oversee that entity on our behalf. They serve the convention, not the entity heads.
2) Rick is (mostly) right about transparency.
Rick wrote an article this week called, “Restoring Southern Baptist Polity” which delineated what he feels is current divergence from our established modus operandi as Baptists.
If I had a nickel for every time the sealing of the GCR records has been mentioned on this blog (by many, not just by Rick), I’d have a lot of nickels. It has been presented as conclusive evidence of a trend toward secrecy in the modern SBC.
Let me clarify my position here. First, I voted against the sealing of the records. I thought it was a mistake. But I would point out that the sealing was affirmed by the SBC. Say what you want, but the SBC Annual Meeting voted to uphold the sealing of the records. I voted in the negative, but my side lost At some point, we have to accept the will of the majority, even that majority that we don’t agree with.
Also, there is an argument to be made in favor of not (as Rick described it) “showing your work.” Some have argued that committees will deliberate best if those deliberations are kept confidential. They should be free to talk, share ideas, even argue, without fear that everything they say in the committee will be publicly released. The knowledge that all minutes and records will be made public may inhibit the free discussion of ideas. There is some value in this argument.
But I agree with Rick for the most part here. When we do things in secret, there is a natural tendency for people to think that the wool is being pulled over our eyes and important things are being hid. For good reason or not, there exists among many an atmosphere of suspicion and the best way to fuel that suspicion is to do a lot of things in secret.
There may be some need for secrecy (which some do not see). But we must only resort to hidden records and private meetings when they are necessary as a last resort.
3) Rick’s Five Principles of SBC leadership are well taken!
In that same article, Rick defined five principles for SBC leadership. I agree with these principles in the whole, while I differ from some of Rick’s application of the principles to current situations. I think as we face the future, the SBC would do well to take Rick’s principles seriously.
Basically, Rick is calling for greater openness, inclusiveness and honesty in all we do. I wholeheartedly agree.
Conclusion
We will probably never agree on the autopsy results of the GCR Task Force and their report. We might never find common ground on whether the current leadership is “radically redefining” the SBC or whether they are doing what has always been done.
But there are a wide range of things on which opponents and supporters of the GCR, on which Bryant Wright fans and detractors, on which name-change supporters and opponents can all agree.
- We can endorse the importance of the Trustee system and the accountability of Trustees to the SBC more than to the entity heads.
- We can endorse the importance of the Cooperative Program even if we don’t always see every aspect of the GCR’s recommendations the same way.
- We can endorse transparency and openness among our leaders, except in rare situations in which such would hinder efficiency and effectiveness.
- We can agree that the SBC leaders would do well to stop simply appointing those from megachurches to leadership positions. Smaller churches may add some balance and perspective to the megachurch mindset on our boards and committees.
I think there is a lot of common ground. So, Howell and Rick, what do you say?
I hope Rick and Howell are not too upset that I actually agreed with them about something!
Dave, Apart from the obvious problems you have created for Rick and me among our fellow wackadoodle conspiracy theorist buddies 😉 I think your post is spot on! I believe that there is far more that we can and do agree on within the SBC. Of course, there are always going to be issues which we will have to “agree to disagree.” I would definitely agree with your four conclusions, particularly your last one regarding mega-churches and the appointment of leaders within the SBC. Perhaps this area for me, even more so than the Calvinist issue, is one which needs… Read more »
I’m not sure what else you do. I voted to unseal the record but the majority disagreed. What can I do?
I can say I think I was right. Fine.
I can reintroduce the motion later. Okay.
But ultimately, the requirement of Baptist polity is that the minority yields to the will of the majority.
What else are you going to do?
I guess what I am saying is that I cannot say, “Majority rules as long as I am in the majority.”
Did not the early Church use ‘consensus’ as the model for decision-making in the Councils ?
‘Consensus’ is not ‘majority rule’, not at all . . . essentially it’s a win-win by contrast.
I think it would have been a disaster to unseal the records when promises had been made to numerous people that they were free to speak openly because the records would be sealed.
If you want openness and transparency, fine, but make that call on the front end — it’s not right to change the rules after the fact.
‘If you want openness and transparency, fine, but make that call on the front end — it’s not right to change the rules after the fact’ That is strange. Change the rules? They did not have the right to make the promise on the front end. what gave them the idea they could make that promise? I am a bit shocked that those who wanted anonymity (interesting how that is condemned in bloggers, though) to speak out, did not realize that. And I am even more concerned they feared for their jobs for speaking. Shows the fact we have a… Read more »
Lydia, can you demonstrate where previous committees or study groups have released the records of their deliberations? I think that you are wrong in asserting the idea that the norm has been to have open records. I believe the opposite has probably been true. I believe the norm has been for committees to present their finding, but not to “show their work.” For instance, in a church pulpit committee, the committee presents its findings to the church. But it does not give a catalog of every person contacted. It is expected that their committee records are private, other than the… Read more »
Dave, I’m getting ready to turn in for the night (turn into what I don’t know 🙂 ) before heading for Dallas in the morning. I will be on the road all day and not able to comment, but I did want to at least respond to you and Todd regarding the GCR records. I will not rehash the arguments that I have made in the past regarding the unilateral sealing of the records by the Task Force, but I think the comments tonight have been instructive of the differences that we have on key issues of transparency and openness… Read more »
Dave, Wow! It is certainly worth restating that you, me, Howell, Todd, C.B., and the whole SBC Voices Community, not to mention a certain prolific blogger in Georgia, agree upon many more things than we disagree upon. Hey, we agree on Jesus, the Bible, the pro-life movement, the Great Commission, the definition of marriage and probably a thousand other things that unite us in Christ. We just always tend to focus like a laser beam on those areas where we don’t see eye to eye. I regret my part in that. Having said that, are you sure you’re feeling okay?… Read more »
Consider this : First whoever elects the Trustees is to whom they are responsible – responsible to report . Once they are elected they have been chosen to use their own judgements on all issues that come before them. Even the group that has elected them cannot hold a separate meeting on a subject – arrive at a conclusion – and demand that the Trustee cast their vote in a certain way. Actually , if a Trustee were to be elected by a vote of people of all churches , it would be almost , that’s almost impossible to get… Read more »
Amend above to also read in addition to ” big barreled chested men ” – men with big , huge , humongous waist sizes and form fitting britches .
The purpose of the trustee system is not to “reflect the majority will of the grassroots of the SBC”. The SBC president should be appointing wise, and godly men who set policy and direction for the instituion and who keep the president accountable to fullfill the mission.
They are trustees for the SBC, not the entity head.
Somebody has to make up their mind . Dave says in his 2nd Paragraph that Trustees are ” elected “. He didn’t say by whom. Carter in post #8 says that the SBC president ” appoints ” godly men and then adds , ” who set policy “.
This is precisely why a bellicose person with a leather covered book which says in gold, ” Robert’s Rules ” , a few ” Whereas’ ” and a ” Therefore be it whatever ” along with an appointed parliamentarian and a little planning can wreak havoc on a democratic system . The SBC belongs to you , people – take care of it if you can.
The President of the SBC does not select the trustees. Actually a Committee on Nominations, which is elected by the messengers to the convention brings nominations to the next annual meeting with names for trustees and that is then voted on by the messengers at that time. Trustees should be charged to represent the over-all consensus of the messengers of the convention, which represents the churches at large. Here is the process of selecting trustees from SBC.net Generally, the process described in the SBC Bylaws is as follows: 1) The president of the Southern Baptist Convention appoints the Committee on… Read more »
“Lydia, can you demonstrate where previous committees or study groups have released the records of their deliberations? ” Can you demonstrate where they went ahead and sealed them on such an important topic 10 days before a convention then had a vote to whether to unseal them or not? This could very easily have happened in the past. I do not know. Once again, I focus on ‘process’ and why it is so important as to who we are and how we do things. I know that many want to pretend there are good reasons for the sealing of the… Read more »
Bob – ” Trustees should be charged to represent the over-all consenus of the messengers of the Convention, which represents the churches at large “. Where did that come from ? You can “charge” someone to ” be above board in ther dealing” etc but it’s impossible for these Trustees to determine what all the messengers around the country think on any given issue . That’s a fact and why you can’t tell them how to vote particularly when they are going to do their job after everyone goes home. They can solicit and get advice , but they make… Read more »
C’mon folks ! – Your ALL Christians – It’s O.K. to Question Authority respectfully and forcefully until YOU understand . And then explain it to someone else .
I think the most difficult thing to deal with on this Blog is that there is a lot of agreement on things that ” are in question” , ” need to be fixed” , ” aren’t going to work” etc. but no agreement on the order or methods to fix them . And no one with any authority or “know” would touch this blog with a ten foot pole for lots of reasons. It’s a stalemate . True unbiased assessments of the problems are the only avenue to success in solving the problems . Dave’s blog here makes good reading… Read more »