We are less than one hundred days out from the SBC Annual Meeting in Orlando and from a contested presidential election between Al Mohler and Randy Adams. Mohler is ubiquitous in SBC life from his position as president of our oldest seminary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Adams is CEO of the Northwest Baptist Convention which covers Oregon, Washington, and northern Idaho and was listed as having 417 churches in 2018.
Adams has been active in writing and tweeting about SBC matters and his personal positions. I’d say that I haven’t seen a candidate as actively campaigning for SBC president as Adams. I don’t criticize it; just making an observation.
Al Mohler said something to the effect that he has more words out than any living Southern Baptist, so SBCers can arrive in Orlando and have more than enough information from him to make their choice. I think Al gets up in the morning and before his feet hit the floor he’s already put out a couple of daily briefings. Pick an issue. He has positions outlined on it…
…except, I haven’t seen Al Mohler’s view of the use of non-disclosure agreements in convention life. Does Southern Seminary use these? What does Al think about them?
Randy Adams says
The SBC and its entities should end the use of, and recall, all remaining Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). We must not hide corruption and we will not protect predators at the cost of harming victims.
I’ve been told over the years that the SBC is like schools, hospitals, and other secular organizations in their routine employment of NDAs. Just legal protections and stuff, blah, blah, blah (and sorry for all the technical language).
NDAs have become a big issue in regard to sex abuse. Victims are paid off and have to clam up. Predators can move right on with their lives and not worry about their past behavior.
In SBC life, I’d guess that the use of NDAs perpetuates and enables corruption and sinful behavior. It’s been a long time since I thought trusting entity trustees was a solution to much of anything.
Were I to go to Orlando, I’d almost certainly vote for Al Mohler but it doesn’t prevent me from saying this is one thing I like about Randy Adams. I don’t see his position against NDAs does much except to put the matter forward for discussion. He can’t direct trustees of entities to eschew them. But he’s exactly correct, “we must not hide corruption.” There are rascals in SBC life that ought to be exposed and not protected.
I have no idea of the extent of the use of NDAs in Southern Baptist life. I’d guess the practice is widespread, although I only know of a few examples. Guess that’s the point, secrecy.
…so, let the lawyers start pontificating here.
I agree with both of you regarding NDA’s. I saw them used in the school system I worked in years ago. I witnessed a pedophile who had abused two middle school boys leave our district and take a teaching job in a neighboring district without a word said. That was years ago and I doubt it happens today. It shouldn’t happen in churches either.
My question is, does the SBC use them? I understand the local church has autonomy in the matter but who has the authority to approve of an NDA at the national level?
Somebody has to be the signer, right?
D.E.,
I know of a few people that have signed NDAs as part of their employment with SBC entities. As to how many or how widely used they are, I do not know. Not sure who signs off on each of them.
Matt,
Do you know the reasons for the NDAs? I’m not sure what sensitive information the SBC would need to protect to make them necessary. I guess currently it might be private conversations or payroll issues.
Seems reasonable to assume the Trustees are the source of authority for the entities. They may even require them in certain circumstances. In any event one shouldn’t assume that a NDA exists only for the purpose of concealing illegitimate acts or that in the case of The Southern Baptist Seminary, they only exist because Dr. Mohler wants them to. We need to be a little more sensitive here and not assume that the existence of NDAs is always a negative thing.
For example, if a wealthy donor has a reasonable expectation of, or a corporate requirement for privacy, he or she could require a NDA as a condition of the donation. That circumstance could well require everyone on staff and every Trustee to sign a NDA.
An employment related NDA is a very different t thing from an NDA required as the result of the settlement of a lawsuit or sexual abuse claim. People in the course of their employment will have access to information that should not be their right to distribute as they see fit. Using an NDA to silence a victim is a different matter. From the context this seems to be what Adams is referring to.
If the entities and churches in the SBC would terminate for cause there would be much less need to fear subsequent lawsuits or Disclosures. “Pastor X was terminated for an inappropriate sexual relationship with a child”. Now it’s in the public domain or as Jesus would say in the light.
In our past we swept these matters under the run and lacked the courage to name the reason for termination.
There seems to be all kind of NDA’s. For sure there should be no need for an NDA that deals with pay and total compensation of SBC employees at all levels. Yes, some “legal: NDA’s as required by lawyers are needed in a big organization but a lot of the NDA’s protect the non transparent Archille’s Heel of the SBC. Lack of transparency is going to unravel the SBC someday.
Would you have a bookkeeper decide when and where to release compensation data?
If the convention decides to release compensation data it can do so. Having an entity employee go rogue and do so without permission would ,in my view, be a problem. It ought to be in yours.
Demanding that employees keep confidential things confidential should not in any rational word be the cause of some dark threat about a great unraveling.