Containing updates and revisions to interact with Dave Miller’s recent post, “Combating the Culture of Secrecy in the SBC: Trust the People!” this post was originally published at FromLaw2Grace on July 16, 2010.
“Component Two: Making Our Values Transparent: We must also work toward the creation of a new and healthy culture within the Southern Baptist Convention. If we are to grow together and work together in faithfulness to the command of Christ, we must establish a culture of trust, transparency, and truth among all Southern Baptists. . . .” (Quoted from Penetrating The Lostness: Embracing A Vision For A Great Commission Resurgence Among Southern Baptists, Page 8, The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Report and Recommendations to the Southern Baptist Convention in Orlando, Florida June 15-16, 2010)
Five months after approving the above recommendation as part of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Report, how are we doing at “establishing a culture of trust, transparency, and truth among all Southern Baptists?” That’s what I thought. But, don’t just take my word for it. If Dave Miller’s recent post, “Combating the Culture of Secrecy in the SBC: Trust the People!” , and the subsequent comments responding to said post, don’t convince you that the GCR has led to more division and distrust among Southern Baptists, I am not sure what would persuade you.
Not that they will take any responsibility for the increased level of division and distrust within the convention, but the Task Force’s unilateral move to seal all of their records for 15 years has not been nearly as well received among grassroots Southern Baptists since it was ratified this past June. Although the Task Force called for transparency within the SBC, their subsequent words and actions to prevent the release of even a portion of their records has had the opposite effect.
After only 20 minutes of debate (I would encourage you to view the video here), messengers at the SBC’s Annual Meeting, at the strong urging of the GCRTF, voted to redefine transparency within the Southern Baptist Convention. No, a literal motion to change the definition of transparency was not acted upon by the messengers. But by affirming the Task Force’s after-the-fact decision to seal their own records, the practical definition of transparency has been radically changed — at least for now. The unilateral decision to seal ALL records of their proceedings and to oppose even the partial release of records set the table for the redefinition of transparency within the Southern Baptist Convention. For that, every Southern Baptist should be saddened.
However, not all are saddened. In fact, many rejoiced in the convention hall and many continue to defend what increasingly appears to be indefensible. Apparently many within the leadership class of the Convention are quite comfortable without providing so much as a “window of transparency” into proceedings — not deliberations (this was not a jury) — which have the very real potential to radically redefine what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist.
In order for grass-roots Southern Baptists to understand and comprehend the radical reprioritizing and redefining of our convention envisioned by certain leaders, I believe it is vital to start with the Task Force’s unilateral move to seal their records and the subsequent arguments advanced by Task Force members and others to support this decision. This, perhaps even more than the passage of the GCR itself, illustrates a continuing pattern of sickness and secrecy within the establishment of the SBC. And, for those who would argue that the Task Force was under no obligation to keep records or to release records, you simply shine light on a much heralded philosophy of governance that is used at the highest levels of government and that is emulated by leaders within our convention. More on that in part 2.
There were four main arguments advanced by the Task Force members and/or GCR supporters to defend sealing all the records. In the first part of a two-part post, I will address points 1 and 2. In part 2, I will address points 3 and 4:
- Time and Money would make it prohibitive to release even partial records of the Task Force Proceedings
- Past Precedent of SBC committees, trustee boards, or individuals where records were sealed
- Promises of Confidentiality made by GCRTF that would be broken if required to unseal records
- Future Committees would not make recordings of their proceedings if GCRTF records were unsealed
Toward the end of the debate on the main motion to unseal all the records of the Task Force, an amended motion was offered by Doug Hibbard. He moved that the
“President of the Executive Committee, in consultation with a representative of Baptist Press, Legal Counsel, and the Historical Archives, release selected portions of the committee record to provide a window of transparency while preserving the promised confidentiality.”
Dr. Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Task Force, forcefully and eloquently spoke against this amendment to the main motion. In response, Dr. Akin presented four problems with releasing even selected portions of the records:
- Release of even selected portions would require massive man hours to accomplish
- Release of even selected portions would cost too much because of attorney fees and other staff exenses
- Release of even selected portions would lead to an arbitrariness as to who would decide what is released and what is not
- Release of even selected portions would force the Task Force to break their word regarding confidentiality that was promised to certain individuals (I’ll include #4 in part 2 of this post when I analyze the confidentiality/broken promises argument)
First, when reviewing documents and recordings of the GCRTF, there is no question that this endeavor will take time and money, although I know of at least one attorney (and I’m sure there are others) who would be willing to offer their services free of charge to review any materials related to the GCRTF proceedings. Will a review of all the materials — written, audio, and video — take time? Yes. Will this review involve at least some financial outlay? Most assuredly, although perhaps not as much the undisclosed amount of money spent on hotels, travel, and meals for Task Force members and their spouses, but I digress. While we all seek to be good stewards of the financial resources entrusted into our care, concerns about time and money should never prevent any of us, including our convention, from doing what we know is right!
Second, as to the arbitrary nature of who decides what is released and what is not, why not start with the minutes of the Task Force’s meetings. Surely there was a recording secretary for this group. Are we now being told that no written minutes of the Task Force’s proceedings exist or in the alternative, that if written minutes do exist, that NONE of the minutes can be released before the end of fifteen years? If the names of certain “confidential witnesses” are included in the minutes, simply redact (black out) the names from the record. The federal government does this all the time with far more sensitive and highly classified material. If our dysfunctional leaders in Washington can try to be open and transparent, surely the SBC can be held to a higher standard of openness and accountability.
Third, a reliance on past precedent was used by both Dr. Mohler and by Dr. Greg Wills, a professor at Southern Seminary, to argue for the sealing of all records. As a trained attorney (sorry CB :-)), I have a passing acquaintance with the use — or misuse — of precedent. Simply put, precedents are historical cases that contain similar facts, rulings, or reasoning that can be used in a present case to argue in favor of a particular outcome. Precedents are controlling on lower courts if issued by a higher court (i.e., the Supreme Court’s precedents are controlling on all Federal Appellate or District Courts), although precedents are not binding on a court of equal stature. For instance, past Supreme Court precedents are never binding or controlling on future Supreme Courts. Drs. Mohler and Wills relied upon the following three precedents:
- The sealing of records of the SBC’s Peace Committee in the 1980s
- The sealing of the Diary of William Whittsett, former President of Southern Seminary
- The sealing of transcripts from a 1958 Trustee Meeting
I am unaware of the context of the 1958 Southern Seminary Trustee meeting transcripts that were sealed. The nature of the discussions that were recorded were obviously of a sensitive nature. However, contra to what Dr. Wills says is customary, he could only cite one example of trustee transcripts being sealed. Perhaps there are others that he failed to mention. Regardless, this is neither a persuasive much less controlling precedent.
The sealing for 100 years of the private, personal diary of William Whitsitt, who served as the third President of Southern Seminary, is so dissimilar to the sealing of records from a messenger authorized Task Force that any reasonable and objective observer would not give any weight to this precedent.
That leaves the precedent of the Peace Committee. A first reading of this precedent would indicate some similarities between the Peace Committee and the GCRTF. However, on a closer reading, these two cases have less in common than what has been argued. First , the Peace Committee was dealing with known contentious issues that affected, not the methodology of the Convention, but the theology of the Convention. Second, the Peace Committee opened up all their meetings to a reporter from Baptist Press. And lastly, according to an article in North Carolina’s Biblical Recorder, (which, to my knowledge, has never been refuted):
“SBC President Johnny Hunt originally promised that all meetings of the task force would be open to at least one representative of Southern Baptists’ press, such as a newspaper editor or someone from Baptist Press. Instead, all meetings were closed.”
If true, then several questions need to be asked and answered. Did Dr. Hunt change his mind about the transparency of the Task Force proceedings? If yes, when did this occur? If not, was he overruled by the Chairman of the Task Force or by the entire Task Force? If so, when did this occur? Was it early in the process or at the end of the process? Was the Task Force unanimous in their decision to seal the records? Why did the Task Force wait until the week before the Orlando Convention to disclose they were moving to seal all records? I am unaware of any of these questions being answered by Dr. Hunt or anyone on the Task Force.
Finally, even if one could argue that the Peace Committee precedent was persuasive, it can in no way be considered controlling. And for the Task Force to use the Peace Committee — some of whom were well-known “moderates” — to now argue in favor of the sealing of the GCRTF records is a bit strange. Sort of like a conservative lawyer using the opinions of liberal Supreme Court Justices William Brennan or Harry Blackmun to support their case. You might have to resort to it, but it might turn your stomach.
The first two points that have been addressed are the weakest and least offensive of the arguments that were used to keep the records of the GCRTF sealed for the next fifteen years. Points 3 and 4, dealing with confidentiality and how future committees will operate, are much more egregious. Taken together, points 3 and 4 illustrate a philosophy of leadership that calls for transparency, but does the opposite. In part two, I will discuss how each of these arguments, if allowed to stand long-term, will lead to a more radical redefinition, not just of transparency, but a radical redefinition of what it means to be a cooperating Southern Baptist.
The Task Force, whether they realized it or not, has helped foster a climate of division and distrust within the convention. It did not have to be this way, but when you operate out of a philosophy of secrecy while publicly trumpeting transparency, most Southern Baptists are wise enough to catch the massive disconnect. I do not claim to be perfect in my analysis of the debate surrounding the sealing of the Task Force’s records. I am but one voice in this ongoing debate. You may strongly disagree with my conclusions and I encourage you to voice your opinion here at SBCVoices. Some may argue that this is all moot, that the convention has spoken and that it is time to move on. I will simply say that we cannot establish a culture of trust, transparency, and truth when we take actions that appear to run counter to what we say we believe.
Folks, I would make a suggestion here. Often I think people ignore the articles and jump right into the discussion based on the title. What Howell has written here is worth reading through.
Its that lawyer thing, I think!
You may not agree (you won’t all agree). But he makes a good argument, worth hearing!
A redefinition of transparancy is right. I’ve said it before–I shall say it yet again. There is only one reason you hide something…because you don’t want someone to know it. Now, that may not be a bad thing. I don’t want my kids to know what I’m getting them for Christmas. Therefore, I hide it. But someone is not wrong or accusing anyone of anything to wonder why stuff had to be hidden.
I agree in principle, Joe. But there are things that are rightly kept confidential. I say things to my wife that I don’t want you to know about and are none of your business. Its not wrong for me to keep some things secret.
Don’t ask – its none of your business.
There is such a thing as genuine confidentiality. The problem comes in determining the fine line between legitimate confidentiality and secrecy.
I do not find it easy to always draw that line, but I feel strongly that the SBC leadership has crossed it.
Exactamundo. There are things that someone can, and should, rightly be told “nunya”. I agree with you that the GCRTF deliberations would NOT fall under that catagory.
Howell, A few thoughts: 1. Much of this is due to Wade Burleson’s breach of confidentiality while serving as IMB trustee and blogging. He made private information public. He was asked to stop, he didn’t, do thankfully he resigned. 2. Would you want your confidential deacon’s meetings or other team meetings made public? Sometimes you discuss things that are very sensitive in nature. 3. Trust Your Leaders! If we can’t trust our leaders to make decisions, then get other leaders. The same goes for churches and pastors. Trust them until they give you reason not to. Dr. Johnny Hunt has… Read more »
Michael well said. I understand the thirst for knowledge but at times it is not helpful. Sensitive issues are important to handle with trustworthy folks. Looking at the Task force. Solid folks for sure with a heart for the lost and SBC causes.
This is an issue that concerns the hearts of many in the Southern Baptist. I understand the logic of the sealing but do see the point of those who wish to view some of the material. Just my 2 cents worth.
Michael, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You may be right to a certain extent regarding how Wade Burleson influence the IMB Trustees in relation to confidentiality, but I think that there is a bigger philisophical difference in relation to “secrecy” and “confidentiality.” There are obviously SOME issues in Deacons’ Meetings or Trustee Meetings that you would not want discussed in an open forum. I certainly understand the sensitive nature of both legal and church related matters and the need for confidentiality in certain circumstances. At least for me, this is not a matter of failing to trust leaders so therefore… Read more »
Many times we elect or appoint trustworthy people who change when they become part of the leadership. Our Congress has been full of such people. I have witnessed it in many large churches. Groupthink is quite powerful.
So what on earth do Baptists have to be secret about when we strip away all the process and organizational structure consensus? Could it be they do not want us matching people’s words with their actions?
If the 4 reasons for revealing the records are valid now, why will they not be valid in 15 years? Will it cost less time and money in 15 years? Will whatever may be embarrassing now be less so in 15 years? I think we have a little “touch not the Lord’s anointed” thing going on here.
that should say “if the 4 reasons for NOT revealing the records”
BTW: Great article, Howell.
Howell,
Cowboy Wisdom: “When the horse is dead, dismount!”
Good greif… Get over it and move on!
Grace Always,
Greg,
Thanks for interacting with the article. Thanks also for not only showing that you did not take the time to read the article (or at least the very last paragraph), but for also beautifully illustrating one of my points. What more can I ask for? God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I read a lot more of your article than I needed to… and that included the last paragraph… Now, get over it and move on!
Grace Always,
Those who meet in secrecy and seal the records when they initially promoted transparency, appreciate your attitude, Greg. :o)
Why Lydia…. what ever do you mean?
Over 2k words and it’s just part one? Egad. Respectfully, this is a waste of time, although I agree that it was not wise to seal the records. With 2/3rds of the TF megachurch people, did anyone really expect complete openness? Of course not. The justification was merely perfunctory. Make a motion next June and see where you get. Why not you and Dave Miller puting your energy into current matters? We now have a new CEO who is a former megachurch pastor. What does he have in terms of an employment contract and severance? Former CEOs at NAMB cost… Read more »
William, First, if you don’t have the time to read the article, then don’t read it. If you feel that it is a waste of time, so be it. It is on the long side because of the issues involved. Most people will not take the time to view the 20 minute video of the debate and come to their own conclusions. They will have taken the Task Force’s arguments at face value. I did not. You don’t have to agree with my conclusions, but it would be nice if you took the time to interact with the arguments presented… Read more »
Howell, I appreciate the time you’ve put into this article. I can’t imagine how this will all turn out. As I read these articles it strikes me the parallels between what is happening in the US political system and the SBC. The Obama administration campaigns on transperency and then just today I saw where the Deputy Chief of Staff is having meetings at some hotel all so they don’t have to disclose who or what the meeting is about. It would seem some leaders in the SBC get to decide what transparency means and exactly where and when they get… Read more »
It would seem some leaders in the SBC get to decide what transparency means and exactly where and when they get to be transparent which is not really transperent at all is it?
Bess,
I couldn’t have said it any better! You hit the nail on the head, but I think far too many people will never see the connection that you made between the Obama Administration and the SBC. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell, you tried to use italics there, but you used the square brackets [ ] instead of the arrow thingies < > so it didn’t work. I corrected them for you – hope that’s okay.
Howell— This is the heart of who we are and what we are at every level of society = a democracy must be transparent / a dictatorship operates with tight control over the public. George Bush is quoted to have said: “It would be so much easier to run this country if it were a Dictatorship—as long a I were the Dictator!” (Worse than Watergate by Howard Dean) One of the motivators of Baptists to join together was the stipulation that each church and member is an AUTONOMOUS being who cannot ever be manipulated nor controlled. We joined together to… Read more »
Please correct the author of “Worse Than Watergate” to John Dean.
William, first of all, I didn’t tell Howell what to write. But interestingly, much of what you have written has motivated me on this whole “culture of secrecy” issue.
I think this is a key issue. I have no hope that the records are going to be unsealed anytime soon. But I do think it may encourage our leaders to watch how they work in the future.
In other words, dealing with the past is one way of affecting the future.
Dave,
“this whole “culture of secrecy” issue.”
Really? What ever happen to “Trusting our SBC system of Trustee Boards”, comprised of dozens of Southern Baptist Pastors?
What I see here at SBC Voices lately is a “culture of conspiracy theory blogging”.
“Really? What ever happen to “Trusting our SBC system of Trustee Boards”, comprised of dozens of Southern Baptist Pastors?”
Well, Bob Reccord comes to mind and the 41 leaders/pastors, etc that signed a letter supporting him AFTER the facts were made public.
Tell me, how do Trustees know what is really going on except for what they are told or shown? And how many pastors are trained in HR, Accounting, Organizational Development, etc?
You of course are welcome to your opinion, Greg. I know we are walking a fine line. I want to be a supporter and a positive influence on the SBC (whatever influence I might have). But there is a trend I see in the SBC that bothers me. In the SBC, Greg, we are not called on to simply follow our leaders. We are not a hierarchical denomination. So, if I see what I don’t like, I’m going to say something about it. I’m trying to keep a balance with devotional and positive posts. I have seen SBC bloggers who… Read more »
Dave, SBC Voices may be walking a fine line… However, in “my opinion” Howell has crossed way over the fine line that separates “Constructive Criticism” that is intended to help bring about positive change, and a “Destructive Diatribe” that is intended to tear down one’s enemies. Here is my full response to Howells attack on the leadership of the SBC and the GCRTF in particular… You probably missed it, as with so many Baptist Pastors who only occasionally have the time to write a blog article, my opinions (unlike Howell’s) are regulated to the “B” list and get very little… Read more »
Greg, I’m sorry that you think what I have written is a “Destructive Diatribe.” I tried to present opposing arguments to those specifically given by the GCRTF as to why their records should remain sealed for 15 years. Obviously you or anyone else does not have to agree with my arguments, but labeling something as a diatribe is not construtively engaging in the dialogue. Just for the record, I do not have any “enemies” in the SBC that I am trying to “tear down.” Are there people that I strongly disagree with on issues of theology, methodology, and leadership? Yes.… Read more »
Howell, you are a true gentleman. Something is that is becoming more and more rare.
Howell,
I found the language you chose to use in your article both “divisive” and “inflammatory”… I also consider the whole crusade to get the GCRTF records unsealed a “reckless disregard” for our SBC employees whose lives might be adversely impacted by such a betrayal of the trust they placed in the GCRTF.
As I said to Dave… on everything else you are saying about transparency I am in full agreement!
Grace Always,
Could you perhaps specify exactly what language you consider inflammatory and divisive.
Dave, The use of the word “Radical” in the Title to describe the sealing of the GCRTF records is inflammatory. Any use of the word “Radical” to describe something in a negative light is inflammatory language… We use the word “Radical” to describe Muslim Extremist… We use the word “Radical” to describe Environmental Extremist… etc. Accusing the members of the GCR of causing “division and distrust among Southern Baptists,” and then saying ”Not that they will take any responsibility for the increased level of division and distrust within the convention, is inflammatory. Saying that the decision to seal the GCRTF… Read more »
Greg, He used “Radically” not “Radical” in a context to suggest making major changes in policy, not blowing themselves up next year in Phoenix. Your attempting to shift word meaning here is inflammatory. Second, he is fleshing out the entire premise of his piece. It would seem to me that considering an earlier post where you said, “Here is my full response to Howells attack on the leadership of the SBC and the GCRTF in particular… You probably missed it, as with so many Baptist Pastors who only occasionally have the time to write a blog article, my opinions (unlike… Read more »
Bill, 1) Your denial that the words “Radically” and “Radical” are related is very puzzling… You do realize that Radicals act Radically right? That is why they are called Radicals. I can send you a link to Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language if you need it. 2) My comment about being on the “B” list of SBC bloggers is part of an ongoing gripe that I have with the way that SBC Voices decides who’s voice in the SBC should be given more exposure and whose should not… In this case the voice of someone who is very hostile… Read more »
Greg, I play on SBC Voices, I’m coming into your house when we have a perfectly neutral playing field here that we can play together nicely. First, I never said that radical and radically weren’t related. I merely pointed out the context which apparently isn’t important as long as you can look up words on the internet. Definitions are a great thing, but so is context. This article calls for a dramatic shift in the thinking of transparency, your definition linked his call to those who would blow themselves up for any given cause. You were trying to argue context… Read more »
I’m not sure why you would say that Howell has crossed a line into Destructive Diatribe. He is a very loyal and supportive SBCer.
I for one am looking forward to part 2.
That’s the nature of blogging – especially on an open viewpoint blog like this one. If you like one article, you will not like the next one that comes down the pike – and vice versa.
Greg, First, I was wondering when someone would challenge my use of the word “radical.” For those readers unaware, it was our new SBC President, Bryant Wright, who first used the word “radical” in interviews and in the open letter he sent to all SBC pastors shortly after his election. You can read my initial reaction to his use of the word at http://www.fromlaw2grace.com/2010/07/15/radically-reprioritizing-and-redefining-the-sbc/ I figure if it’s good enough for President Wright to use, then I can use it as well. Second, I wrote that “the GCR has led to more division and distrust among Southern Baptists. . .”… Read more »
I think this might be one place that Howell and I differ. I supported the GCR (but not the sealing of the records). I think that Howell may not be a huge GCR guy. Right?
Howell, First – The last time I checked “Bryant Wright” was not on the GCRTF… and as much as it galls you that Dr. Mohler’s Pastor is now the President of the SBC… He was elected to that position by vote of the messengers to the Convention in Orlando. I know you are deeply committed to this whole grand SBC leadership conspiracy theory thing being what is really behind the GCR… But it’s hard to deny the legitimacy of what took place in Orlando. Second – “If there is another person or party, that we are yet unaware of, that… Read more »
“I’m trying to keep a balance with devotional and positive posts. I have seen SBC bloggers who became relentlessly negative and seemed to be on destructive campaigns against the SBC. I do not want to be that.”
Everyone has a different definition of what is destructive and/or divisive. Negative truths are almost always divisive.
Greg, Thanks for the response. First, we will obviously have to agree to disagree about the language that I used. You used some fairly harsh language in your response on your blog. I am not offended or insulted by strong language. I would prefer that folks interact with my arguments by providing their own persuasive counter-arguments, but that may be asking too much at times. In part 2, I will address the “confidentiality” argument raised by the GCRTF. I believe that if confidentiality was promised, then it should be respected. I am not asking, nor have I ever asked, that… Read more »
Dave,
Was your question about me not being a “huge GCR guy ” tongue in cheek? I don’t think that I stated it in my post, but for the record, I voted in favor of the creation of the Task Force in 2009, but voted against the Final Report in 2010. For full disclosure, if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I would have voted against the creation of the Task Force in 2009. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I thought I had read that you were not a huge fan of the final report. Just my memory, which is often faulty.
Greg, The only thing I will respond to you about in your last comment is your baseless implication/accusation that I have “written a slanderous comment directed toward the leadership of the SBC.” The comment, which you again take out of context, was directed at your failure to understand the word “unilateral.” I will give you the benefit of the doubt in simply not grasping my rebuttal to you as opposed to you intentionally and willfully accusing me of slander. I think the rest of your comment speaks for itself. I am perfectly happy to have folks read my post and… Read more »
SBC Tomorrow has a new post about a letter from Alabama State Convention regarding the GCR. If other states follow Alabama I wonder what happens?
Howell,
I guess the question is what do you expect to gain by seeing the records? What information are you trying to obtain? Again, trust your leadership, you elected them!
Do you believe it is ever okay to question the leadership of the SBC?
I was thinking about this last night and it reminded me of a time we were serving in this little inner city church. The church called a pastor and they voted almost uniamously for his call. Well my husband and I were 2 of like 5 or 6 who voted against. I don’t even remember why we thought this guy wasn’t qualified – attitude and experience probably. So anyway 16-18 months later this guy leaves and the church is all in distress. We had conversations with some of the other families and heard, “we didn’t like him from the beginning… Read more »
Here’s my thing – I think I can be both a loyal Southern Baptist and question decisions and directions of our leaders at the same time.
I think one of the biggest problems is that some of our leaders, their surrogates and many supporters foster the idea that dissent is disloyalty and that questioning our leaders is somehow sin.
That is as un-Baptist as liberal theology.
Yet it is what is taught in many churches.
Michael, Thanks for the questions. It is not a matter of what I expect to gain by seeing the records. And, it is not a matter of trusting or not trusting leadership. Norm, below, gave a good summation of what I would say as well. I simply believe that the best way to lead and govern, whether in government or in the SBC or in any Baptist State Convention, is to do as much business in the open as possible. Closed door, executive sessions should be the exception, not the rule. Offering even a “window of transparency” into the process… Read more »
Michael, Look at our track records. I get in trouble all the time here for painting with a wide brush stroke, but when more than one person gets in scandal after scandal, then at some point you have to set boundaries for each and every leader following the moron. I have two daughters. If one keeps getting in trouble doing the same things, then I’m going to eventually forbid them BOTH from doing that one thing. It’s not that I don’t trust one daughter more than the other, it’s that I have to hold one daughter accountable and therefore it’s… Read more »
BTW: When someone feels the need to say “trust your leaders”, that is the time to ask the hard questions.
Michael: [1] … what do you expect to gain by seeing the records? [2] What information are you trying to obtain? [3] Again, trust your leadership, you elected them! Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): [1] From a liberal arts perspective, knowledge is its own reward. To know is a good thing, has intrinsic value, and the double plus of it is that it provides a foundation and experience for handling complex problems that subsequently arise. [2] To know what is not known in order to more fully appreciate the integrity of the thing and the implications of such. [3] Leadership is… Read more »
Another observation on point 3, in regards to the GCRTF–they were not elected. They were appointed. True, the SBC elected the one man who appointed them all, but in fairness, I don’t think it was a decided issue that they would be appointed when he was elected. As to the overall issue: the GCRTF is being used primarily as the illustration of the problem. The problem is not “The GCRTF won’t tell us what they talked about.” The problem is “There seems to be an attitude that certain people are above having to share what’s going on in their leadership… Read more »
Hey Everyone…
I have a great idea, let’s make public the private conversations between SBC employees and the GCRTF and see how many of them get fired. That sounds like a lot of fun… and should give us something interesting to blog about for the next few months.
That is not what anyone is saying, Greg. I think you know that.
Dave, That may not be what anyone is saying… But are you saying that this will not happen? Here in Florida I can promise you we know full well what happens to State Employees who cross the executives who sign their checks. All I am saying is that you and Howell need to consider what would happen should the records of the GCRTF actually be unsealed before these State and Entity executives, who might not like what they find their employees said about them, have a chance to retire. As I said before… on everything else you are saying about… Read more »
“That may not be what anyone is saying… But are you saying that this will not happen? Here in Florida I can promise you we know full well what happens to State Employees who cross the executives who sign their checks.”
Greg, that only proves there is a deeper spiritual problem. So when and how can we deal with that when we do not have transparency.
Lydia,
This will be the third time I have written this on this post… I am for the transparency that Dave and Howell are seeking in the SBC… Just not for the unsealing of the GCRTF records that would hurt a lot of good people.
I have stated that there are things that should be confidential. But also things that should not be. I think we have drifted too much in the secrecy direction.
Just because I advocate for more openness does not mean that I am saying that every piece of confidential information should be revealed. There is middle ground here.
Dave,
I fully agree!
And I thought I painted with wide brushes…
Given that most of the GCRTF members were not direct bosses of SBC entities, except for 3, I think, there shouldn’t be any power on the part of anyone to fire them for their statements. And given that no changes were recommended for seminaries, one could think that the seminary presidents didn’t hear any problems from their employees. That leaves Frank Page, who is new to his spot anyway. Given, of course, that our institutions are run in a trustworthy manner by the trustees and that no one working for the SBC funded by the Cooperative Program said anything untrue,… Read more »
At the risk of acting defensively, let me tell you my philosophy here at Voices. There is a restaurant in town here that sells hot dogs – with a little variety, but its a hot dog place. If you like hot dogs, that is your place. If you don’t like hot dogs, you are out of luck. There are blogs like that. They serve one person’s opinion or they serve the same viewpoint on things. I don’t want this to be that blog. There are also “all you can eat” buffets out there (believe me, I know). At these buffets,… Read more »
Norm, I read your comments twice and you are obviously and educated individual but I still have no idea what you are talking about. I’m just a simple redneck from NC, we use short sentences that make sense. I’ll give you an example of what I’m talking about: I served on the Board of Directors of our state convention. There were times that the executive committe of the BOD went into closed door sessions. Sometimes called “emergency” sessions. I didn’t for one second question what they were doing in there or why they were doing it or demand to know… Read more »
Michael: I read your comments twice and you are obviously and educated individual but I still have no idea what you are talking about. I’m just a simple redneck from NC, we use short sentences that make sense. Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): And you were placed on a board due to being a simple-redneck as the controlling qualification? Let’s dispense with the nonsense and false humility, shall we? Michael: I’ll give you an example of what I’m talking about: I served on the Board of Directors of our state convention. There were times that the executive committee of the BOD… Read more »
“”are usually rare relative “”
Good point. This type of secrecy seems to have been on the rise of late. I think that should be a “red flag” (or “blue flag” depending upon your particular political viewpoint).
The “flag” is the whole bait and switch. At first it was everything’s going be open to the public which led to not open to now sealed for 15 years. I think alot of people are thinking what they voted for and what they’re seeing is not at all the same thing.
The bait and switch is what bothers me. How can we believe them anymore?
You know, all this talk about “confidentiality” and “you need to trust your leaders” sounds more like “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”.
It scares me when I find myself in agreement with Joe–but I do here.
John Fariss
John,
Come to the dark side. We have cookies.
Everyone has their price. Mine is DARK chocolate. :o)
“First – The last time I checked “Bryant Wright” was not on the GCRTF… and as much as it galls you that Dr. Mohler’s Pastor is now the President of the SBC… ” Bryant Wright was Mohler’s pastor? I thought that was Ezell, president of NAMB. Greg, The root problem is WHY was transparency communicated then records sealed? How could good people be hurt if we are able to read the minutes? Can you give us an example? The reason I ask is because if people can be fired for speaking out or having a different viewpoint, then we have… Read more »
Lydia 76, I agree with you. Their history says a person took about a million dollars. Money has been paid by some entity for church plants for which no churchs exist. It’s possible just by common sense that other monies have been squandered – maybe for missionaries that don’t exist. The laity doesn’t have to have proof to have a look. If indeed the Layity’s job is that of an overseer then we can take the heat for whatever, if anything, if discovered. Nothing but good can come from an inspection unless someone is a crook and then with this… Read more »