In June 2010, almost two years ago now, SBC messengers defeated a proposal to unseal the records of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force meetings, records which the Task Force itself, unilaterally, took the liberty of sealing for a proposed fifteen years.
The strongest argument against unsealing the records had to do with personnel considerations and centered upon the protection of individuals whose testimony about others might in fact jeopardize their jobs. They were promised confidentiality by the task force (who told them they could do that?) and the task force did not want to break their word.
How noble, especially in light of a GCR implementation resulting in the loss of over a hundred jobs at NAMB alone, as employees were let go who, presumably, were told at one time that they had safe jobs by their supervisors, who did not wish to break their words either.
Fast forward two years and what do we have? Some have suggested that the GCR is a dead bird. On this particular matter, I actually agree. Has CP giving increased? No. Is NAMB generating a groundswell of support for its new church planting initiatives? No. The New NAMB is neither popular among new work state conventions nor among established work state conventions. That’s pretty much everybody, right?
Predictably, the “Robin Hood” strategy of raiding relatively wealthy state convention missions resources doing effective work locally in spreading the gospel, and reallocating those same resources toward church planting initiatives in locations where we have not been effective and the fields do not appear nearly as ripe for harvest, has actually met resistance. I know, stunning. Who could have seen this coming?
What GCR proponents must understand is that while they, basically, still do really believe that the state conventions are “bloated bureaucracies,” many within these states see local missions projects that are actually reaching souls being defunded. In my local association, an excellent hispanic mission is taking a cut of $11,000 so NAMB can send it up to New York or somewhere in order to reach souls in a much more “geographically correct” manner. I call this “robbing from Pedro to pay Seinfeld.”
Now local associations and churches are redirecting their giving patterns to express dissatisfaction with the New NAMB in the very same way that NAMB’s current President redirecting giving previously in his weak support of CP and Annie Armstrong to express his former dissatisfaction with the Old NAMB.
To summarize, what we have here is (1) declining CP support, (2) a “dead bird” GCR, (3) lack of support from all types of state conventions, and (4) a growing concern with what is perceived as a “top down” leadership style being orchestrated, primarily, by two of our seminary presidents, Drs. Mohler and Akin, who frankly should be answering to the convention instead of giving the impression that they are dictating to the convention.
Whence this great level of mistrust? Is it possible for us to pinpoint Ground Zero in this lack of transparency in Southern Baptist leadership? Yes, I believe it is. Just as Reagan called upon Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” I believe the time has come for Southern Baptists to make the following demand: “Dr. Mohler, open this box!”
It has been two years. That’s long enough for the dust to settle. If someone loses their job over this, we must at least be open to the possibility that they deserve to lose it. Again, many have lost jobs over GCR. If there is nothing hidden in those records of great import, then we have lost nothing by opening the box except a few hours of time with what may very well prove to be boring reading.
But in our present leadership context, with the crisis of distrust GCR has engendered, one wonders why we must wait until June 2025 to open a box that might provide us with some answers. Surely, the mistrust brought about by this secrecy is doing more damage to the convention than whatever fallout might take place when we peak inside the GCR box.
In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and her friends are told to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” They ignored his request and made important discoveries about their leaders. I believe Southern Baptists should do the same by opening the box NOW rather than in June 2025.
“The strongest argument against unsealing the records had to do with personnel considerations and centered upon the protection of individuals whose testimony about others might in fact jeopardize their jobs.”
RICK,
was this argument stated openly by members of the task force, or is it hear-say that this argument was made ?
Convention floor. Mohler.
Rick, are you listening only to voices which agree with you?
NAMB’s redirecting of monies to many of the state conventions has a mix of opinions around the SBC. Not surprisingly, those who are getting cut or having money taken from their traditional staffing aren’t happy. Others like the changes. The church planting initiative is bold, new, and untested but has many who like the concept.
While I appreciate the link to my scintillating, witty, and insightful blog, your reference to the one association here in GA and to the one church that is doing some funky things with their Cooperative Program giving doesn’t establish any trend. At the moment, these are aberrations. I’m not seeing or hearing of a broad movement.
And I know news gets to Alabama slowly sometimes, but you are aware that the Annie Armstrong offering was up significantly in 2011 when other measures of SBC giving were flat or down? Does that have no meaning to you or is it ignored because it doesn’t fit your conclusions?
I love reading your stuff, partly because I think you would be a very pleasant person to be around even when there are areas of disagreement and also because you take it so well when you are proven to be wrong. 😉
William,
“At the moment, these are aberrations.” Yes, at the moment, but someone has to be first, right? It is not a broad movement…yet.
Regarding Annie being up, many factors impact that number, even how early Easter falls, which gives churches more time to raise their funds. Frankly, I would have to see more than one year’s record to establish a new trend in Annie giving.
At least by the year 2025, we may learn something that we wish we had known earlier. If so, I will have been proven right, in which case I will be especially pleasant to be around when I remind you of this fact.
🙂 This is for Dave.
Rick has failed to mention the best argument for keeping the records sealed, advocated in the debate at the Orlando convention by Dr. Greg Wills of Southern Seminary…
If the records are made immediately available, then the next committee/task force that is formed will have a hard time getting anyone to talk openly in private because they know any comments they make to the committee will be published for everybody to read and criticize.
Can you really imagine if these records were unsealed and Peter Lumpkins got to go through with a fine-toothed comb and parse every adjective, particle, and conjunction. Who in the world would want to live through that?
Let’s not refight battles that have already been fought.
A voice of reason! It is always nice to be reminded that voices of reason are still around.
Somewhere in there is a joke using the name SBC Voices.
Yes, because “reason” dictates that we keep secrets for exactly fifteen years, rather than twelve or ten or five or two.
“If the records are made immediately available, then the next committee/task force that is formed will have a hard time getting anyone to talk openly…”
Comrade Brent,
Please consider for a moment the kind of transparency you are advocating: “If we make records publicly available, then individuals will not feel free to give information TO THE LEADERS WHO WILL KEEP SECRETS FROM THE REST OF US.”
I prefer to live in a more open society in which people are free to share the truth, while at the same time being held accountable for the truth they share, and that truth is then shared openly and publicly by means of a free press with access to the decision making processes used by our leaders.
I did, however, enjoy the singing of the sailors in “The Hunt for Red October.”
While I don’t think that comparing a point or two to an unfavorable example is out of line, this article does so in overdrive mode.
1. Robin Hood
2. Ground Zero
3. Soviet Communism
4. Wizard of Oz
At least there was no Hitler reference.
Indeed, let me apologize for the unmitigated violence and vitriol suggested by my references to G-rated stories such as “Robin Hood” and “The Wizard of Oz.” Four year olds everywhere will be aghast.
For clarity, the “Ground Zero” reference was merely to point out the central focus of the transparency problem, while the Gorbachev reference was focused more on borrowing Reagan’s famous line.
I really don’t think the language was all that strong. I just think we as Southern Baptists have the right to look at the minutes of the task force that we formed. I’m sure the kind of transparency I favor was never allowed in Hitler’s Germany. (There you go, Frank.)
I do not seal anything in my home, why do we do it in the SBC? Is there provisions of this activity for the church? I do not see where God sealed anything. Sounds worldly to me.
Typically, when a search committee brings forward the name of a pastor candidate, discussions and deliberations of the search committee are “sealed.” The church does not get to go back through the other resumes to see if there was a better candidate, etc.
The church deals with the committee’s proposals and does not usually have access to the groundwork laid to get to that proposal.
Then they need to destroy the information and proclaim that their decision was God’s will. Every time a committee presents something to the church I always ask them if they have proved it to be God’s will according to Romans 12:1, 2
When the seals were opened in the Book of Revelation, all hell broke loose.
Same thing happened to David about Bathsheba.
I agree with you, Bruce. If everything is on the up and up, there is no reason to seal the records. This was not even supposed to function as a Personnel Committee at all. I think we should review not only what they said, but the speakers they invited to influence their decisions.
I don’t really think apocalyptic biblical references provide a particularly apt comparison either.
To me, it’s more like a government committee that makes a decision but won’t provide their proceedings to the press. We should be more open.
Rick,
We get caught up with Roberts Rules of Order and “assume” it is divinely inspired.
“I do not see where God sealed anything. ”
Seriously?!
Chris,
In eternity nothing is sealed. Tomorrow is sealed from our knowledge but after it has happened it is open to us. What has God sealed from us that has already happened?
I would guess quite a bit, far more than we could possibly imagine, including of yesterday’s events. God has given us the big picture, so to speak, but not all the details. I know that he has a purpose behind everything that happened yesterday, but I do not know what the immediate purpose is. He has not revealed it to us. He does not tell us all that he is doing.
But, then again, He is God.
Judging the GCR as a “dead bird” is kind of premature, isn’t it?
We voted in this rather major thing less than two years ago, and the implementation of its goals is dependent on entities enacting the recommendation.
It would just seem a little bit premature.
You may address that with my SBC Plodder friend, William Thornton, whose “dead bird” verbiage I borrowed (with attribution, Dr. Land!) entirely, the author of that “scintillating, witty, insightful” blog who finds me pleasant and good natured whenever I am wrong.
I will stick with my view that the GCR is pretty much a dead bird…
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2012/03/great-commission-resurgence-is-it-alive.html
…the economy has put the brakes on any significant increases in giving and the state conventions that moved towards 50/50 in response to the GCR have done about all they can do I believe.
NAMB is the only GCR product that is continuing to move ahead. They can do that because trustees feel comfortable shifting spending and their funding is fairly consistent.
I’m thinking, Rick, that you are very pleasant even when you are right and I want you to know that I’m looking diligently for such an occasion to confirm it.
The best blog I have ever read in my entire life is SBC Plodder by William Thornton.
What, Rick, you looking to borrow money from William?
He’s retired now. He doesn’t make six-figures anymore.
Dave,
I would never borrow money from a Baptist Preacher! I was simply trying to give William that agreeable statement he could use to gauge my pleasantness when I am in the right.
I’m still awaiting such confirmation, by the way. Whatever will I do if William does not validate my pleasantness?
I’ll contact him by email and give him the straight scoop.
No doubt about it. Rick is a great guy when he is right or wrong.
William,
Wow, you have moved from the pastoral ministry into the Deacon/Finance committee. The economy cannot keep being blamed for everything.
This, by the way:
“I’m thinking, Rick, that you are very pleasant even when you are right and I want you to know that I’m looking diligently for such an occasion to confirm it.”
…is one of the most brilliant blog comments ever!
Rick,
As always, I enjoyed your article on … our secrets. Many or most of the the people on the GCR Committee will be retired when the documents are un-sealed.
I’ll be 71 when the time comes to open the box. Rick would you partner with me in planning a GCR Senior Adult Retreat in Pigeon Forge, TN in 2025 for a SBC Secrets Revealed Conference?
Theme verse: Revelation 20:12
“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.” (Rev. 20:12, NIV)
Ron,
Indeed, the dead will be judged according to what they had done. If Jesus tarries, I’ll be sixty. Please sign me up for the retreat. I wonder if they can just make it an e-file so we can download it to our readers? Great idea!
“Now local associations and churches are redirecting their giving patterns to express dissatisfaction with the New NAMB in the very same way that NAMB’s current President redirecting giving previously in his weak support of CP and Annie Armstrong to express his former dissatisfaction with the Old NAMB.”
I’m not sure whether this should be funny, ironic, sad, tragic, or all of these at once. He was highly criticized for his church’s giving to CP and, if I recall correctly, said it was something that would be addressed. Yet despite the criticism, the same critics turned around to do the same thing! And yet they are justified while he was vilified because theirs is the just cause? But there are no double standards? Come on now. One cannot vilify him then turn around and do the same thing while expecting to avoid the charge of hypocrisy.
I am otherwise curious what sort of things you hope to find if the records were open? For myself, I’m not particularly interested in full transparency. I do not hold the idea, “Information wants to be free!” I prefer trust. Trust is not always warranted and what you are saying is the current leadership should not be trusted. That’s fine, we disagree. But the convention has already voiced its opinion that the records should be kept sealed, so I assume the convention has decided to trust the leadership. The question is whether or not people like you will trust, or at least yield to, the decision of the convention. It’s all well and good to try and change people’s minds about the matter, but when the issue comes to the floor and the majority of messengers express their will then we cannot claim that the leadership is trying to hide something against the will of the people. The people have decided to trust the leaders and to respect the confidential statements made to the GCR. For myself, I’m 100% behind that position.
I will, of course, admit the hypocrisy if you will also admit the hypocrisy of the New NAMB trying to get supporters of the former agenda on board with their new plans by appealing to the same arguments that fell on their own deaf ears previously. “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” It is really just a conflict over agendas and spending priorities.
I would like to trust the leaders. If they open the box, they will earn quite a bit more of my trust.
Recognizing something for what it is only on a tit-for-tat basis?
And I’m curious what ways the actions of NAMB have been hypocritical? I don’t think your entry above makes that case and your brief comment here doesn’t really say much.
Also, what of my point that the messengers have already spoken on the issue of opening the records early?
Before GCR leaders were asking for more CP and followers refused. The followers became the leaders, changed spending, and now ask the followers for more CP. That’s the hypocritical part–admittedly on both sides. There are competing spending agendas.
Yes, the messengers spoke of unsealing in 2010. They spoke of name change in 2004. We can bring it up again. Fifteen years is too long!
My memory may be faulty, but as I recall those leaders confessed that their churches had not given as well as they could have and made efforts to raise their percentages. Have the new low-givers confessed that they were wrong to criticize what they now practice?
And yes, we can bring up the sealed records again (though I hope we don’t, it’s time to move on), but when you talk about what the leadership has done, it’s not just the heads of entities, committees, etc, anymore, the SBC has supported the sealing of the records. We, not they, did this.
If I had to vote in favor of a recommendation .. or even make a recommendation .. for the betterment of the SBC .. that cost someone their job, I’d not be afraid to do it openly. I’d not be afraid to be honest in an area that cast a less-than-favorable light on my boss; to disagree with him openly. The “present a united front” stuff is a bunch of hooey. It’s eventually how priests get away with pedophilia (let’s open another inflammatory analogy while we’re at it) unnoticed by us folks out here.
Secrecy paid for by the folks from whom the secrets are kept. Gee .. where have we seen that before?
“If I had to vote in favor of a recommendation .. or even make a recommendation .. for the betterment of the SBC .. that cost someone their job, I’d not be afraid to do it openly.”
I would agree with that, and I think there are jobs that need to be lost. But I don’t agree that opening the records of the GCR will contribute one iota toward the betterment of the SBC.
It seems that some of the Task Force discussions should have been done in the open public. There is, always of course, a time for private discussion, off-the-record.
Bob does have a good point.
The irony here is that it was a historian who made the argument to keep the records sealed for 15 years. Something very wrong with that picture.
An observation as bright as the Baylor Bears basketball uniform!
Personally I don’t think “Ground Zero” of the culture of distrust has anything to do with their sealing the records for 15 years. I think the culture of distrust comes from just that our American culture of distrust. Fox News and talk radio thrives on it. Every day there is some new “conspiracy” and some new cover up that the enemy (whoever you are against for that day) doesn’t want us to know about. Thankfully there are some powerful people that are still able to get some information and get it to us commoners and stick it to the man.
It appears to me that this ridiculousness and culture of distrust has infiltrated churches and the SBC. If you have ever been involved in a church discipline case or any level of massive change for the congregation you know that it would be disastrous if everything discussed in those meetings was aired for the entire congregation.
Obviously, I’ve never read the sealed information. Maybe they are just being chicken and trying to preserve people when they should be bold. Maybe their sealing the records is just flat out unnecessary. And they will listen to your advice and make it public for everyone and we’ll all have a great laugh and say, “why did you blokes want this boring stuff sealed?”
OR these leaders actually know what is in the documents and they feel that it would be to their glory to conceal a matter. Maybe there are discussions of other peoples sins and failures and it would be beneficial for them to conceal the matter. The truth is we do not know what is in there.
I’ll be honest and say that I’m pretty sure that I know how my heart would naturally respond if the guys on the GCR committee were people that I consider “outsiders” to my theological leanings. Yep, even thinking of it that way is wrong and sinful. But my natural bent would be to distrust and to think that there must be some juicy stuff in there and things that would allow me and other within my camp to nail these chaps to the wall. But because I trust the leaders of the GCR then I’m calling for it to remain silent. In this scenario the problem isn’t with the leadership it’s with me.
My comment is already too long…
“Maybe there are discussions of other peoples sins and failures and it would be beneficial for them to conceal the matter.”
I would hope that the great leaders of the SBC that were on the GCRTF did not allow their discussions to be so personal about individuals that this type of information is present. The only sins or failures that should have been open for discussion should have been in discharge of duty, and that is a different matter.
I think, though, that this is part of the suspicion about “What’s in the box?” Did these people just get together and slander others, talking about the sins of other people while they were absent? We do not know—I think that’s what’s disturbing about having to seal these records to “protect” people. What are we actually protecting?
discharge of duty is what I was talking about Doug. Thanks for clearing that up.
That does clear that up a little better–although I would wonder why we kept people in jobs they were failing to discharge. Shouldn’t we save CP money by cutting those who don’t do whatever job they already have, rather than changing other people’s jobs and then cutting them if they don’t want the new ones?
Again I have no idea what is and is not being sealed. But can’t you imagine some of the discussions? Have you never had meetings were person A says something about the job that person X is doing..but he does so from a limited perspective. Person B then defends the necessity of keeping person X around and the job that he is doing. The two and the group talk back and forth.
Can u imagine the ramifications of that? I can see headlines now Al Mohler doesn’t like Person X. Danny Akin defends person X from slander. Talk about disunity
That’s just it. We have no idea what was discussed.
And if it was personal–about “Person X” then was that really what the GCRTF was charged with? Were they supposed to be discussing Morris Chapman or Jerry Rankin?
Or were they supposed to be examining the structural realities that persist whoever is in the job?
That’s just it–all we know is that people were promised secrecy and so they felt free to “talk” in a way they would not have. If the discussion focused on jobs and job performance, then there should be no fear–but if Mohler “slandered” (your phrase) someone and Akin had to defend that someone, then should we not know that about Mohler? Who is being protected in that scenario? Person X? No–Person X is defended in the record by Akin. Mohler is being protected.
The GCRTF was not approved by the SBC to evaluate individual personnel but to investigate structures and systems. If they delved into individual personnel in a manner that would expect confidentiality, then they exceeded their approval and violated the rights of the individual trustee boards or autonomous churches to deal with their own workers. The chair of the committee should have stopped such distractions and focused the committee on its purpose.
Yet we will not ever really know. All we know is that the records are sealed and we’re supposed to trust that nothing in them is important for evaluating either the current state of the SBC or the future directions coming from denominational leaders that were part of that committee.
Doug,
Please forgive me, I’m not communicating very clearly today. I think we might still disagree on this at the end of the day…but I’m just not doing a good job of representing my point. Let me try again.
I’m not talking about necessarily personal things. I’m not saying slander or anything like that. Those were the doctored headlines that could come out of opening the files. Here is a scenario that I could easily see happen (and many times over).
Let’s say that person X works on staff for the executive team for a state. Now let’s imagine that person A mentions that they don’t really see person X’s job as necessary. Perhaps they feel that person X’s job could actually be swallowed up into another position or something like that. They are restructuring and trying to make the best use of finances, right? But person B pipes up and defends the validity of person X’s job. Now none of this is personal but it could easily appear that way.
I mean let’s say that you are the guy that person A said, “I don’t see his job as all that necessary”. That guy has a family, he has friends, and followers. It’s a difficult thing. Airing that in whatever format would get really ugly. Though it’s not personal it could easily become personal.
And here’s the kicker. After consulting with person B, person A was very much convinced of the validity of person X’s job. Now all of that discussion has been aired. I just think if they believe that it is best for the unity of the body and for those involved to keep the records sealed we ought to trust them no matter how curious or suspicious we are. After all these are brothers and sisters in Christ and we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt. We should believe the best until the worst is the only option.
Mike: I disagree. The area of distrust is because the SBC has done most of its business behind closed doors and when brought out in the open, there was corruption, greed, and a excluding of qualified persons simply for disagreeing in doctrinal areas that simply did not matter or warrant exclusion. Bob Cleveland remembers this and was around during this time.
I agree with Rick on this one.
Welcome to the SBC Voices death star. It’s a lonely and friendless place, but one day maybe William Thornton will agree that we are right.
Even before Fox News, I wanted leaders to explain their decisions in an up front and transparent way. I don’t think it’s cynical to be curious about the influences leading our present agenda. I think it is rather a noble thing for one to desire to be informed.
I do not think “top down” leadership works in the SBC. If the GCR “bird” is to get off the ground and soar (which I hope it would, by the way) it has to come from the folks who sit in our pews and put dollars in the offering plates. Until they catch fire, mandates from “on high” will not be heeded. There is an attitude in this country, amongst conservative folks ( and i.e Tea Party folks) that we will not be treaded upon. Leaders answer to the people, not vice versa.
Local church pastors (the ones no one ever hears of) must be preaching and living the GCR before the millions of Southern Baptists for this to fly.
The GCR was not about changing churches, per se, but changing entities in the SBC. There are no mandates from on high to the churches but rather recommendations made by the messengers of the SBC to the trustees of the entities.
I contend that if changes are to be made in the SBC and her entities, it must come from her people — the men and women who sit in the pews every Sunday.
The Conservative Resurgence was a move amongst the people of the SBC. They loaded buses and came to the Convention and voted. Because of their voting and their zeal, entities changed. An entire convention was changed.
But hopefully the changes needed in the SBC are not of the scale of the Conservative Resurgence. We should not always seek to change things that way. Those were unique times and circumstances and that level of mobilization was necessary because it was the only way to remove trustees who were guiding entities to move in directions clearly opposed by most in the SBC and by our confession, etc.
When we have trustees who work within the guidelines of the SBC (and I realize that’s one of the issues here: are things being done according to our guidelines. I think they have, and I think the messengers to the annual meeting have affirmed this) and have the trust of the people, then let’s let them do their jobs. That’s why the trustee system is in place.
I’m not a fan of people losing their jobs, especially those hired to assist those making significant salaries or those who have moved their families because they were hired for a job (just because they call it ministry doesn’t mandate that it is.) If it’s a job for an association, state convention, national mission agency or office support doesn’t remove the reality that the gospel banner we carry must be removed from the winter barracks and once again moved to the front lines. In times of war you move your resources to front line to advance against the enemy. You don’t keep the comfortable comfortable. I realize people in the market place who hold similar kinds of jobs make significant salaries and have some sort of job security. Is that good justification for the Lord’s people. I admit, I may not understand the reason behind the sealing of the documents. I don’t like how my speculating mind treats the issue and how it tempts me to think about the whole matter. I’m in an ‘out of the belt-way’ location, leading a band of warriors who won’t wait for a shipment of ‘supplies’ before we advance. Rather, we’re praying for a reformation and see a glorious victory on the horizon. It’s a great day to be the church!
While I think the ship has sailed on this, and those records are going to be sealed until at least 2025, and then we’ll see if we see anything, I have wondered this on the “job loss” question:
If a person spoke honestly to the GCRTF, then the trustee boards of the institution they work for should be trustworthy enough to protect the jobs of those who spoke the truth. There should have been no need to shield those who spoke the truth.
If a person spoke with a lack of truth, then why did we want to keep that individual in ministry role within the SBC?
That logic made no sense. The logic that the next task force would not be able to get people to talk only makes sense after the GCRTF promised secrecy in the first place, breaking the perceived promise of openness that had been given to the SBC at-large. It also assumed that we’d need a new committee to do something similar soon.
However, the point was attempted and that’s gone. Had the SBC voted that year that the promise was not going to be kept because should not have been made, then we’d have something. But it’s two years down the road and we need to move on.
I hope you mean “at most” 2025. Surely, they will not seek to extend the secrecy time frame. (And no, I’m not calling you “Shirley.”)
By the way, I like your reasoning concerning the SBC employee providing testimony much more than I like what appears to be a tone of resignation.
Come on, Doug! You wanted it opened in 2010! You made a reasonable amendment to do so. So now, it’s 2012 and you’re willing to just forget about it until 2025? The logic hasn’t changed, only your willingness to accept it.
I wanted it opened in 2010. I thought the logic was faulty then just as I do now. I thought it wrong to push forward a denominational reorganization plan without opening the discussions about how it was done.
At that SBC, the SBC as assembled voted to leave it shut. Any effort to revote that will be opposed from the platform, which will make it nigh difficult to get it passed, and then what will happen?
The keeper of the keys to archive will have to determine whether or not the vote of the convention is binding on him, just as various and sundry determined whether the resolution of the SBC regarding NIV2011 was binding. When Dr. Mohler’s conscience will not permit him to unlock the door to that room, how are we going to force him?
In turn, we fight and fight this battle. And this one? You think there is not someone who would then head this one into the courts of Caesar regarding the promises that were made and then unmade? Especially someone who has a job or livelihood at stake?
I just do not see the return on the effort. It would likely take more than just one year, and in the meantime, what do we learn when it’s opened?
That there is a conspiracy to remake us with a College of Cardinals in Louisville made up of seminary presidents? That the name-change plan was in the works all the while? That the Calvinists know they’ll win because no one has a choice or that they the Arminians have the “will” to hold on?
All the while, we spend a lot of time and effort finding out what people said 2 or 3 years ago and people go to hell around us. We fall short on trying to make disciples. We spin our wheels about that issue.
In my mind, those who want to lead from behind a veil of secrecy are lowered in my esteem. The end result? Stuff that has come in the mail in the light of the GCRTF has been shelved to be considered later. I wouldn’t advise a seminary student to tend towards SBTS or SEBTS, or a Northwest Arkansas resident to tend towards a specific batch of multi-campus churches. The trust that I had for 2 of the 3 people involved with those situations evaporated in 2010 and I don’t see forcing the box open bringing that trust back.
Opening the box won’t restore the trust. Either there are things there that are foolish and embarrassing, whereby we all say “I cannot believe we fell for the GCR Report when this was their meeting!” or it’s completely benign and we all say “I cannot believe they wanted this kept secret!”
Either way, how does it restore trust? It doesn’t.
I still think that sealing those conversations and discussions was deplorable. The same ones who made that decision would have a dying duck fit if churches they pastored or small groups of their trustees held “secret meetings” and would not disclose the information to them.
I just do not see the value of re-igniting this one. If the effort was made, either outcome seems more destructive than where we are.
And if you want to be conspiracy-minded, keep this mind: the best way to accomplish your secret future plans is to keep everyone else fighting about your past actions. I would hate for us to sleep through something else because we’re rehashing this one.
From a paranoid perspective, I do not expect the full details and primary sources of the GCRTF to be made available in 2025. I expect that a few approved individuals will be given access in 2025 from which reports and dissertations will be written and released.
In this, the “secrecy” will be over but the “confidential personnel issues” will be kept confidential. After all, only 15 years? Some of the people who talked to the committee will still be employed and not retired, we won’t want them to be at risk, would we? Who knows, one of them could be an agency/board president by then, and that person could not be expected to answer for what they said in 2010, could they?
So, yes, I expect the secrecy to not all go away in 2025. Whether or not that’s relevant to any of us by then is another discussion, and one I would rather wait until I’m having a more optimistic day to have.
And, for the record:
I don’t watch Fox News and the only “Talk Radio” I listen to is sports talk.
I’m just naturally this crazy.
Jesus had a dying duck fit in the temple. Paul had one when Peter ignored the Gentiles. Moses had one at the foot of the mountain.
Perhaps we should not have one in this case, but at least they ARE biblical!
I have to bow out. It just took several efforts to type “dying duck fit” and not get myself in big trouble 🙂
I don’t have the passion for the fight about SBC issues anymore. I’m more concerned with whether or not to guide the church I pastor toward another missions partnership. Certainly I do not think that anyone in SBC leadership really cares what churches that run under 100 people or their pastors think. If the great ones don’t want us little fish, why should we keep forcing ourselves on them?
Maybe I’m just tired today. I have two 80+ year-olds getting ready to head to heaven, a family that just lost a baby in a miscarriage, and kids to reach that throw rocks at the church windows. With all of that in front of me, it’s hard to worry whether or not we’re headed toward being the Mohlerite Baptist Hierarchy or not. Either way doesn’t ease family heartaches or draw three kids headed toward a terrible end to change, does it?
I am the Director of Missions for the Consolation Baptist Association. We are the association that passed the resolution encouraging churches and association to consider providing a portion of their cooperative program contributions to state missions. For those who may ask why?
1. Because our economy is such that churches don’t have any extra finances to contribute to state missions.
2. Our state conventions are in dire distress with the passing of the Great Commission Giving.
3. Since a few of our churches have already voted to decrease their CP contributions and some will visit this item during next year’s budget and because of their dissatisfaction and feeling of disenfranchised with the SBC. It was felt that it would be best that we ask each church to take the portion that would have already been lost to the CP and dedicate it to state missions.
4. The SBC organization do little if any ministries within small town and rural churches, especially in the south, who are struggling to make ends meet and need assistance that normally is only provided by the local association and state conventions. NAMB seems to only work in the metro Atlanta area in Georgia, the rest of Georgia, especially the rural and small town areas, seem to not exist, or are not on their radar. Soul and discipleship training is just as important in small towns and rural churches as those in the North and foreign lands.
5. When those who champion the big churches and follow the mega-church pastors and two presidents of our seminaries leadership in designating money to SBC institutions, thereby, bypassing the cooperative program through the Great Commission Giving criticize our association for our recommendation, we find them hypocritical. Why is it ok to designate finances from the cooperative program to NAMB, IMB, or the seminary the pastor graduated from under the label of Great Commission Giving, but when some church designates to state mission they claim that we are destroying the cooperative program, or that the designated finances to only go toward SBC causes.
6. This is our Great Commission Giving. If you feel we are wrong then be bold enough to charge the two seminary presidents who are responsible and Johnny Hunt with the same charge. They are the main people responsible for the GCG. If what we do destroys the cooperative program, remember they are responsible for it. If it is wrong for one group it is equally wrong for all.
7. Our state convention provides needed ministries that help our churches. The SBC remains to be seen.
8. Before anyone passes judgment they should go to the SBC Plodder and read both the article and resolution. Just a thought
By the way Good work Rick
Thanks, Joe. I appreciate your courage in standing up for grassroots Southern Baptists who deserve a place at the table when decisions are being made. I believe some of the GCR folks have grossly underestimated the loyalty of our churches and associations toward our beloved state conventions and their worthy ministries.
“We are the association that passed the resolution encouraging churches and association to consider providing a portion of their cooperative program contributions to state missions.”
I’m curious about this – isn’t this the way it usually works anyway? I know in my church we have a percentage designated for the local association, a few small amounts for various ministries, and a percentage designated for CP. Each year we also set goals for the missions offerings.
As I understand it, the amount we designate for CP goes through the state convention anyway, which means out CP dollars start their journey at the state level and only go on to the national level from there based on the budget set by the state. Is this not the case with most churches?
I think there are several points worth raising in response to some of your items, but I’ll exercise a rare fit of restraint. 🙂
Chris, you are right in that your church sends its CP contributions to the State Convention. However, they State Convnetion has a legal responsibility to send the agreed upon percentage to SBC Excutive Committee and they keep the balance. At this point both the State Convnetion and the SBC “has to” divide their portion among their ministries and institutions. Any money that is sent straight to state missions not only stays in the state but is divided up as needed. There are two additional items concenring CP giving that most people do not understand or have no knowledge. 1) A church may desiginate around up to two State or SBC institution and their contribution is still considered CP giving. They just send their request with the CP giving form on a letterhead with the request and the date the church voted on the action and signed by the clerk. The State will honor the requestr until notified differently. 2) A church may fill out the bottom of the CP form that they want all of the contribution to be consiedred as State cooperative program (you name the state). The contributuions wil be divided among the state ministries and institutions only. You accomplish this through the same precedure. This is considered CP giving. I have been informed that only 5-6 churches in Georgia contributes this type of CP. giving. I do know of several churches and expect more in my associaiton to desiginate around two of the Southern Baptist seminaries.
Just thought you should know and add more to the discussion.
“However, they State Convnetion has a legal responsibility to send the agreed upon percentage to SBC Excutive Committee and they keep the balance.”
Isn’t that percentage set by the state? I know here in Florida we recently raised the amount that gets passed on. A state might well reduce some – or a lot! – how much it passes on. Instead of calling on churches to change their giving so it only goes to the state, why not work on the state convention level to reduce how much gets passed on? I think even that would be a mistake, but it would seem a better approach.
Okay, so I’ll re-open another can of worms. Rick’s point is appropriate in light of the fact that since the GCR and the “sealing” of information, rather than being open with the messengers of the convention, we have also seen the president use his “powers” to “create a task-force” to “study a name-change” behind closed doors, only to emerge with a “nickname” when it seems that it was known all along a name-change would not fly with the messengers due to money, etc. We will see how transparent that “presidential powers” act will be reported and received.
Right! Furthermore, was a name change discussed in task force meetings? Was a name change strategy discussed? If it was, how would we know? That’s right, as it stands now, we can only know by waiting until the end of the first quarter of the 21st century.
I would proceed on the assumption that it was discussed–else why would it follow so quickly behind the GCR?
That’s part of the penalty that the big three of the GCRTF chose to take: let every thing brought up be under suspicion as a pre-planned idea.
Here’s what I think:
Drs. Mohler, Akin, Floyd ought to see the situation at stake here and go back and contact those they promised such secrecy to, let them know why that has to change, and then come forward themselves and open up the records.
Anything else, be it continued secrecy or a convention-forced box open, and there is nothing gained by this.
If they do it, then it is a step forward to state “we really had nothing to hide.” Shoot, they could even take the time to redact a few names if needed for the personnel reasons.
That would restore trust in my mind.
Here is the link to what I blogged shortly after the Orlando SBC. It still summarizes my feelings on this issue:
http://www.doughibbard.com/2010/06/promises-that-shouldn-have-been-made.html
I agree with you. That would be a Baptist statesman-like way of handling things.
For what it’s worth, I agree it was ridiculous for those records to be sealed. Likewise, I still think they should be opened. But there is one issue no one has addressed: the power of a secret!
Consider the following possibility; whether it addresses the situation, I will leave to others who are smarter and better informed than I, but I propose this as a working hypothesis. When there is a SECRET, especially in a family/situation that is less than emotionally healthy, the simple fact of the secret acquires great power. It may well turn out that the contents of the SECRET are less than mind-boggling, and in fact may be somewhere between mundane and outright boring. But it is not the content that gives a secret its power, but simply the fact that there is a secret. Apply this to the time and attention that has already gone into the GCR deliberations, especially over the sealing of the records. To the detriment of the GCR, much time and energy has been focused on the SECRET, and since we all have limited time and energy, there is that much less that can then be focused on the GRC. To the advantage of the framers of the GCR–or at least of the architechs of the records sealing–it has enhanced their power; power is as addictive as any drug, and like any drug, those who are addictived to it will resist anything that reduced their next “fix”.
What do you think?
John
John,
I have some very important information pertaining to my view of your secrecy theory. Unfortunately, it is confidential to those possessing FIVE STAR clearance, while, of course, you are merely a FOUR STAR. (Don’t feel too bad about it, though. Dave Miller is only a THREE!)
Yes, I would definitely say there is power in a secret. (But don’t tell anyone I said so.)
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well said, bro. Frankly though I don’t think I have a 4 star secrecy clearance, probably not even a 3 star. Of course it depends on who you ask and what day, my bride of 34 years excepted of course.
John
Liberal.