Containing updates and revisions to interact with Dave Miller’s post, “Combating the Culture of Secrecy in the SBC: Trust the People!” this post was originally published at FromLaw2Grace on July 19, 2010.
Transparency and openness, whether in government or in a religious organization like the Southern Baptist Convention, is a principle which almost everyone agrees with in theory, but which is much harder to define in practice. Such has been the case in the SBC. In June of this year, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCRTF), after a year of meetings and discussions, presented its final report. One of the seven recommendations that the GCRTF asked the messengers to approve reads as follows:
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. . . .
I’m not sure that there would be many Southern Baptists who could argue with such a principle. The problem comes when we begin to define what it means to “work toward the creation of a new and healthy culture within the Southern Baptist Convention,” particularly when it comes to establishing a “culture of trust, transparency, and truth.” This was nowhere more evident than when the Task Force, a week before their recommendations were to be voted on, issued a press release informing Southern Baptists that all of the Task Force’s “deliberations” would be kept secret for 15 years. That the Task Force could include “Component Two: Making Our Values Transparent,” while at the same time moving to seal the records of their proceedings and then fighting on the Convention floor to prevent ANY records from being released, is not exactly the best way to create a transparent and open culture.
When messengers Jay Adkins and Doug Hibbard made motions at this year’s Convention to open all (or at least a portion of) the records of the Task Force’s proceedings, members of the GCRTF argued strenuously against the release of ANY records prior to 15 years. And that is exactly what they were — proceedings. The Task Force was not impaneled to act like a Grand Jury, listening to secret witness testimony and deliberating whether or not to indict a criminal defendant. This was not the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, hearing top-secret testimony from undercover government operatives.
The Task Force, in opposing the release of even selected portions of their proceedings, used four main arguments to defend sealing the records. The first two arguments were analyzed in my earlier post, Radically Redefining Transparency in the SBC: Part 1.
In the 20 minute debate during the Convention’s Wednesday morning session (video here), both Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin raised the issue of confidentiality as a reason why the records of the Task Force should remain sealed for 15 years. Both stated that the GCRTF promised confidentiality — for an unspecified term — to those “invited leaders of Denominational Agencies and beyond,” and that to require the Task Force to release any records would cause them to break their word, something they were quite sure that no Southern Baptist would want them to do. According to Dr. Mohler, some of the proceedings where confidentiality was at issue regarded legally privileged personnel matters.
Several problems arise with the confidentiality defense. First, assuming for the sake of argument that promises of confidentiality were authorized to be made, the process should have been one of transparency and openness (as President Johnny Hunt promised), with very limited offers of confidentiality extended. Were these promises of confidentiality made in writing? If not, were these promises explicitly conveyed to the secret witnesses and a written record — perhaps in the minutes of that meeting — made contemporaneously to the offer of confidentiality? Dr. Mohler indicated that confidentiality was promised for “a term.” What was the promised term and when was it promised? However, just because confidentiality was promised does not necessarily mean that a summary of what was discussed — with certain information blacked out — could not be released to Southern Baptists as part of the official record. Despite my own objections to the Task Force’s use of confidential testimony, I do not believe that these agreements should be abrogated at this point. But, in the future, confidential testimony should be the exception, not the rule.
Secondly, what issues could this Task Force have been dealing with that were related to “personnel” that would have risen to the level of “privileged or confidential communication?” This Task Force did not have any authority related to personnel. There could have been absolutely NO witnesses that were brought before the Task Force over which they had any supervisory or employer/employee relationship. The only possible issues dealing with personnel would have been if the names of specific individuals were discussed in connection with current employment or future employment within any of the agencies or entities of the Convention. If agency or entity heads discussed with the Task Force any current employees, did they do this in such a way that the individual employee’s rights were protected?
Thirdly, the promise of confidentiality cannot cover the Task Force themselves. However, by arguing that promises of confidentiality were made that no one would want broken, the Task Force ingeniously blanketed their entire proceedings with secrecy, including their own internal discussions and any minutes or audio/video recordings from meetings where only the Task Force members themselves were present. With the confidentiality argument prevailing, ALL Task Force records are now sealed.
I now turn to the final argument used by the GCRTF to keep their records sealed. This argument offers the most insight into the philosophy of leadership that currently holds sway within the leadership of the SBC . This philosophy was expressed most clearly in the following two quotes from the debate:
The consequence of allowing unsealed records is that no future convention committee will indeed allow the recording of it deliberations and meetings because it would be compromised from the beginning. Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President, SBTS
If we vote to unseal these records, then future committees will be forced to do their work without the benefit of tape recorders and transcripts and we will lose forever the history of their important work. . . . Do not sacrifice history on the altar of politics. Dr. Greg Wills, Professor, SBTS
History has indeed been sacrificed on the altar of politics, but Dr. Wills is wrong when he ascribes the motivation of politics to those who would open the records of the Task Force proceedings for all Southern Baptists to see. In response to the assertion that future committees will simply not keep records if they will be forced to share those records, one must ask Dr. Mohler and Dr. Wills, “Why?” Why would future committees not allow records to be made of their deliberations? Who would force the members of these committees to purposefully fail to keep any records of their proceedings? After all, I thought the committees of the S.B.C. serve the churches of this Convention.
To argue that future committees will not want to operate in the open, with true transparency, is one of the most disturbing aspects of this entire debate and reveals a philosophy of leadership present at every level of government and present within the S.B.C. and some of her churches. That philosophy believes that the best form of government is that which is out of the public eye, that which is not subjected to the sunshine of a concerned constituency. Many leaders would rather conduct as much business as possible behind closed doors, out of scrutiny’s way. Those in power may say they believe in open government and transparency, but too often, their actions tear the very heart out of the concept of transparency. In the end, there really are only three kinds of leaders:
- Leaders who believe in transparency and openness and who lead accordingly
- Leaders who do not believe in transparency and openness and who lead accordingly
- Leaders who say they believe in transparency and openness — but really do not — and who lead accordingly
When it comes to leadership within our nation and within our Convention, I’ll choose door #1 every time. While we may disagree with the level of transparency and openness that should be practiced in any particular situation, “we must establish a culture of trust, transparency, and truth among all Southern Baptists. . . .” I believe that the GCRTF missed a golden opportunity to do just that when it moved to unilaterally seal all its records for 15 years. Others may disagree with my assessment. However, I think most Southern Baptists would agree that more — not less — transparency is needed urgently. Hopefully we can work together to accomplish Component Two in a way that does not radically redefine what transparency means. That would be a good place to start. I only wish it would have started with the Task Force themselves!
Here’s what I struggle with in this. What is an acceptable level of transparency and confidentiality in convention work.
I know that some confidentiality is essential. We all practice that.
I feel somehow that the Task Force went farther than they needed to in keeping secrets. My sense is that they crossed the line.
But I haven’t figured out exactly what the line is yet.
Dave,
I think your question, “What is an acceptable level of transparency and confidentiality in convention work” is the $64 million question. While others may disagree, I do think, like you, that the Task Force crossed the line of what I would find acceptable. If the GCRTF would have been willing to release at least some records (written or otherwise), thus giving Southern Baptists, in Doug Hibbard’s words “a window of transparency,” then I do not think that there would have been as much pushback.
That the Task Force, particularly Dr. Mohler, argued that no future committees would even keep records if forced to reveal their workings, goes to the very heart of where the balance is between transparency and confidentiality. There is no question that confidentiality is needed in some circumstances, but when talking about SBC committees and even trustee meetings, these should be the exception, not the rule. At least that’s where I would begin to draw the line. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell–
If I read you right, you are saying the secretive attitude headlined, by Al Mohler, is a journey down a slope no democratic organization wants to take if it is wise.
Gene,
There are at least two competing philosophies of leadership/governance in any organization, including the SBC. One philosophy believes that it is best for the leadership to conduct most of its work behind closed doors (i.e., in secret) and only reveal the final product and whatever information that the leaders deem their constituency needs to know. I can’t speak for Dr. Mohler, but this philosophy is, I think the natural tendancy for many. If it were not, then we would not need “open government” or “sunshine” laws in our states. Sadly, Congress is not covered by that. And, we have seen the results of this philosophy time and time again. I personally believe that the “less open, less transparent” model of governance is inherently wrong.
The other philosophy of governance believes that it is best to conduct as much business as possible in the open and to have a much transparency as possible with your constituency. Of course, even with this model, there will be limited times (i.e., some personnel decisions, top secret intelligence briefings) where confidentiality is mandated. This should be the exception, not the rule.
I do not think that any “democratic” organization, including the SBC, State Conventions, Local Associations, or Autonomous Churches, should operate with a secretive mentality and model. The problem is, that everyone, including the Task Force, says that they are for “transparency and openness.” Who gets to set the standards? Who gets to define what is true transparency and what is not? Right now, in government and in the SBC, the leadership is, I think, narrowly defining what it means to be transparent and open. The grassroots, both in the country at large and in the SBC, may have a different definition of transparency. Which side prevails will determine how we operate, both as a nation and as a Convention. Thanks for the dialogue. God bless,
Howell
Howell–
It appears to me that transparency and a free press is essential to any organization serving the people who elect them.
On the other hand, closed door meetings and secret deliberations are at the core of Dictatorship. As long as the people trust their leader is doing “what’s best,” things go well.
However, I have seen few Dictatorships which brought success and freedom to its people. Our ancestors left England and Europe because there was little freedom. The King told them what to do / taxation was intrusive / the royalty lived in castles and the surf lived under a thatched roof leaking in the rain with barely enough to eat and lucky to get a new pair of shoes a year!
After a while some of the “people being cared for by the King” stepped back and noticed the inequality. Some were educated enough to do the math and discover it was all a lie! England has a rich royalty, but still has enough pomp and circumstance to support it—but with royalty being made the brunt of gossip and rumor to entertain the common man.
I have been to England and Europe. It is a beautifully manicured land with lovely castles and historic places to visit. I could not help asking, “Why would people leave this beauty and culture to carve out an unexplored continent where you only got a house by cutting trees / hewing timber / digging stumps to clear you fields for livestock and crop production? It was indescribably hard before the era of explosives and powerful machines. Many died of dread diseases and over-work.
People obviously did it because they were fed up with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer with little hope of ever doing better. Laws and lawyers managed to keep the inequity “lawful.”
Our new Democracy was based on eliminating the things which caused the crisis in the Old World = voting rights / a free press / separation of church and state / ideals of representative government with balances of power among the 3 branches. It wasn’t as simple as royalty or a dictator, but it has brought us to great heights of properity for the common man willing to work hard and take risks.
Our SBC history replicates our story of a democratic republic. We advocated for local church freedom / servant pastors and denominational leaders / giving in good faith so that missionaries could stay on their field for the maximum time possible without stopping to raise money from home. At its core is openess and trust.
Like our nation, we now elect leaders we really don’t know. We read wonderful words like “godly / great / mission-minded” without a review of their budget. A large Atlanta church which gave .50 out of every dollar to the Cooperative Program grew much larger—but their pastor used those mission dollars to buy busses / primetime TV coverage / massive new buildings / competition against other churches to become the largest and biggest religious show in town.
That was a lot of money, given in trust, but having nothing to do with missions and growth beyond that local church. Those who once rejoiced in mission giving had no alternative but to leave. Those staying were obsessed with being the “biggest Baptist church in town.” They had no clue how things had changed!
It was a lesson in ego obsession: “We are the biggest and best so you must come worship with us!” Whether they were worhiping themselves or God, I will leave to blog readers to decide!
“Culture of Trust”. Translation: never question what “leadership” does. Make no attempt to hold them to any standards of behavior.
Reminds me of “Newspeak” from 1984.
I would like to argue with you, Bob, and tell you that you are being overly cynical and untrusting.
Right now, I’m not convinced I can argue your point with integrity.
I hope we are both wrong.
If the SBC doesn’t hold it’s leadership accountable then whatever happens, they deserve. The fact that there are a group of people blathering about “If you ask for the records to be unsealed, you’re questioning the character of these men” would be enough to guarentee that I’d continue to ask for the records to be unsealed.
Joe—
At times you are a rascal, but this time you are a true Prophet!!!
Bob, I’d take “culture of trust” more positively, as in not feeling like that if I don’t know what’s going on, it must be bad.
Not holding leadership to any standards and not questioning leadership is more of a culture of not smart at all.
Dave Miller:
I do not believe those records should have been sealed for 15 years.
They sent the wrong message to the SBC by doing this IMO.
I think that if they had done a shorter duration, perhaps, people might not have been so upset.
Or, perhaps, they could have had someone independently review the documents to decide if there are any truly confidential matters.
I, too, think they sent the wrong message.
Here’s the thing:
During the CR, I carried water for the team. I believed in (and still do) the goals of the CR. No surprise to anyone. So, I trusted the leaders and didn’t raise too big a stink when I saw stuff that bothered me.
I’m through carrying water for anyone. I am a loyal SBC guy. I’m glad we are what we are. I respect Danny Akin (a lot) and Al Mohler. I respect these men, but I am not planning to sit quietly and swallow my ennui and just go along.
I’m never going to be a company guy again. I am also not planning to be a mindless critic of the SBC. I love who we are, but when I see things I don’t like, I’m going to speak up.
I’m guessing that is why some of the powers-that-be don’t like blogging. It has given a forum to people like me (who live in their mother’s basement and wear housecoats).
Dave–
Your sense of humor is without compare!!!
Somehow, I can’t see you in a housecoat in your parents’ basement, but it is a hoot!! It is like Jesus’ image of the man with a stick in his eye plucking sawdust from everyone else’s eye!
Jesus, too, had a great sense of humor.
Although we may see thing differently at times, that why I respect and love you as a Brother in Christ!!!
Howell,
Good the first time round and not bad the second ;^)
I see the point in wondering the level of transparency “acceptable” but nonetheless do not believe it is as a deal-breaker for insisting on vagary. Plain-vanilla “common sense” is a flavor not irrelevant to policy issues like this leaving only a few dangling ends about when not to be “transparent.”
Even so, you’ve got to give it to these guys; they argued their point well enough to persuade the convention messengers to go along when there was no indisputable reason to do so. Like you said, what possible “witness” would need to be “protected” from public scrutiny for offering information? Unless, of course, they were sharing info they were not “supposed” to have. Or the info itself was questionable.
For me, it makes little sense, if any, to guarantee identity “protection” for consulting with a task force charged with offering recommendations for CP giving. And, of course, the convention could have qualified the records (as you point out) by striking the person’s moniker from the record.
Finally, the non-transparency in this case needlessly raises suspicions there exists data in the records which potentially throws embarrassment toward the TF–or some members of the TF–itself.
Thanks again, Howell.
With that, I am…
Peter
Amen and amen brother. I do not have any reason to believe that there is within those recordings anything that needs to be hidden, but it is perfectly logical that one only hides things he thinks needs to be hidden. I can only hope and pray that this is not the case in our convention. However if we are really going to speak of transparency when will we begin discussing financial transparency???
Between now and 2025, someone needs to stand on the convention floor and move that we unseal those records every single year. Don’t let it die. That’s what they’re counting on. We only need to win that vote one time. Once the box is open, the issue is over…and not until then.
I think that a more moderate (sorry to use a dirty word) motion might have a better chance. Say, something like appointing an independent arbiter to judge which items are truly and justifiably confidential personnel matters and then releasing the rest.
That works for me…as long as SOMEBODY impartial can look at those proceedings and provide assurances that nothing unusual was done that needs to be hidden or covered up.
Where would one find an impartial person? Would they be paid?
It amazes me we are talking about Christians in a Christian organization.
Having been a city board member, I find it ironic that our laws on transparency are very strict. The only closed meetings including any TF/Committees that were allowed was when we were disciplining a paid employee.
As Christians, how can we do less?
Dave—
MODERATE in it’s basic meaning is “to take the edges off and do what is right/wise for the most people involved!”
It is just another word for COOPERATION without CONFORMITY.
The only reason it has become a dirty word is how it was used to describe middle-of-the-road / “let’s major on missions and minor on minute theological issues which only divide and make people angry” leaders of the SBC.
The reason the SBC was formed was simple: Support missionaries together / don’t make churches give up their independence and local way of ministering. As long as we baptize by immersion and honor the Bible through the prism of Jesus Christ, little else need be required.
Bad as I hate to say it, we need to let it pass. At this point, there’s no value in refighting that fight.
Rather, visit the wrath about it on every future proposal that is presented without transparency. Otherwise, while we keep revisiting the good, bad, and ugly from Orlando, something bad may slip past in Baltimore. Instead, start with the “any questions?” point after board/agency reports and ask real, respectful questions about what is going on in each place. Insist that the agency heads now answer to the Convention.
Raise questions of nominating committees and wherever else it can be done in a God-honoring fashion. Stop accepting the “we prayed about it so you can’t question us” answer from the platform.
And don’t vote to approve any more task forces, blue ribbon committees or any thing else that will operate solely on the approval of the president of the SBC and have no accountability.
That sounds defeated, but I was right there and saw it defeated when the irritation was the strongest in Orlando. I doubt you’ll get the groundswell back at any point. We’re not going to see that info until 2025 or later, and even then it will probably be an email sent to the church history departments of the seminaries stating that the tapes can be checked out. And watch, they’ll get checked out immediately and stay gone for a long time while they are “studied” at SBTS or SEBTS.
I thought your motion in Orlando was very reasonable. I agree with almost everything you’ve said here. However, I’m not ready to just move on, because I believe the irritation in Orlando is not growing weaker, but stronger.
Some on the last discussion thread have asked why we keep hammering on this. Its a done deal. Frankly, I don’t think we will ever pass a motion to open those records.
But if we keep this discussion going, it may serve as a cautionary to those who would do such deals in the future.
Some may ask why we are still talking about Orlando and the GCRTF’s decision to seal their records. Part of the reason is that the issue of transparency and openness was one of the seven components that the Task Force asked Southern Baptists to approve. And, we are a long way from realizing that goal.
I agree with Doug that we cannot go back and refight the Orlando fight. Both Jay’s original motion to unseal all the records and Doug’s amendment to unseal a portion of the records were laudable, but destined to fail because of the intense politics surrounding the GCR debate. I fully understand why the majority of messengers agreed with the arguments presented by the Task Force members and their supporters after a short, 20-minute floor debate.
However, as both Doug and Rick argue, that does not mean that we have to forget what happened in Orlando and that we cannot learn from the past when these issues will come up in the future. Transparency and openness apparently mean different things to different people. No one is arguing that there is no place for confidentiality. But, that should not be used as an argument to either stifle debate or keep proceedings closed from the constituency of churches that make up the SBC.
Going forward, if leaders continue to trumpet the “creation of a culture of trust, transparency, and truth among all Southern Baptists” yet take actions that are contrary to that principle, then the irritation — per Rick — will only intensify among the majority of grassroots Southern Baptists. Thanks for the discussion and feedback. God bless,
Howell
Consider for a moment what likely would have happened, if all the records of the GCRTF were revealed right away. Or even in a so called “reasonable” amount of time, say 5 years. No one here would be able to realistically tell me that those TF members would safe from any attacks from which ever side disagreed with what they did/said. The SBC-blogosphere and the historic SBC good ole boy network SCREAMS that these attacks would take place. Even now, the TF is lumped as a whole, and as a whole and as individuals they are attacked by a small, but vocal minority in the SBC world. Is opening up the TF members to even more abuse and attacks okay as long as it is done in the name of “transparency”? Maybe, just maybe, the TF members voted to keep their records sealed because they KNEW that attacks would come by some of the same people who rejected the idea of a GCR in the first place. No all in opposition to the GCR did levy attacks. But those that did have some measure of respect and leadership in different levels of SBC life whether national, state, or associational. Maybe these records are sealed so TF members are not all but kicked out of their churches by angry associational members who force the churches to decide between being SBC or keeping their pastors.
No this may not be the case, there may not be a nefarious plot a-foot to attack GCRTF members and kick them out of churches. But the fact that everyone assumes that there are “bad” reasons to keep these records sealed rather than giving the TF members the benefit of the doubt does only strengthen my original premise. People want material to attack those they dont agree with, and since they dont have it, they will use the lack of material to wage their attacks. Sounds just like US politics to me…And as a Christian institution, that is scary that we look so secular
“And as a Christian institution, that is scary that we look so secular”
That word ‘secular’ ? In your comment, is it related to the ‘perceived’ solidarity of the SBC with the GOP, or is it related to some other matter in US politics?
Secular in that if you were to remove any references to WHO you were talking about, you would not be able to differentiate between SBC politics and US government politics. Both have the same amount of insane backstabbing, political assassination, and just overall mindless nonsense.
“Risk is part of the game if you want to sit in that chair”
Capt. James T. Kirk to Captain John Harriman
Star Trek: Generations
There is a difference between taking the risk of going skydiving with a parachute, and jumping out of a plane with out one.
When you choose to accept the prestige and visibility of a leadership position such as they have, you also by default choose to accept the risk that people may not like you and what you decide. If you can’t live with that risk, don’t accept the position. If you feel like what you’ve done needs to be hidden because you’re worried about what people are going to say or do to you, there may well be a reason that you need to rethink what you’re saying/doing.
Maybe you’re right, but what if you’re wrong and the TF did overstep their authority? Do you really think we should wait 15 years for the transparency we were promised to begin with?
I would stand by what I said elsewhere—if people were honest and behaved as Christians in their dealings, what do they have to fear?
Who is going to force Ronnie Floyd or Johnny Hunt from their churches over the GCRTF actions? Any church in the SBC is supposed to be independently autonomous of each other and from outside influence apart from Scripture. It should not be possible for any pastor to lose his pastoral position over what he told the GCRTF if he spoke and acted with integrity.
The same should be true of any denominational workers that spoke with them: if they were honest, then the boards should see to it they suffer no repercussions. If they behaved in violation of Scripture, should we allow them to hide out for 15 years before the lack of integrity shows?
I stand 100% believing those meetings should have been opened, and since they were not but they were taped, those tapes should be public.
If associations, state conventions, and the SBC are so petty that they would throw out churches led by people who truly want what’s best in terms of stewardship and fidelity to Biblical mission, then that needs to come out, so those of us who think that would be petty can know it and get out as well.
Sorry, but since the GCRTF was composed of people inside the power clique of the SBC, I have a hard time believing they feared reprisals.
“Sorry, but since the GCRTF was composed of people inside the power clique of the SBC, I have a hard time believing they feared reprisals.”
You are right. So what would be the point of sealing the records?
Image management?
I must apologize. I believe my vision is so clouded by what has happened in the past few years in the Missouri Baptist Convention, that it has me seeing the same thing else where. You know where the MBC kicks out 5 churches in good standing simply because they worked with Acts29. Or how about the time just over a year ago, when the Missouri Baptist Laymen Association, with the blessing of Liberty University, handed out pamphlets that vilified and attacked two seminary presidents and a rising Godly young pastor in MBC simply because of their Acts29 connections. If you have not seen that piece of garbage i do encourage you to, with discernment, look up MBLA’s website and read it.
So in light of these (and others) events, I hope you could understand why I would be sensitive to the mindless and senseless attacks that some might levy. If people are willing to condemn and all but demand the removal of Seminary Presidents, no matter how small their loud mouthed voice might be, I do think that leaders in this denomination must take steps to reduce those attacks. Trust me when I tell you, being the target, even from flies, is not fun. And is not something that anyone should have to put up with, no matter how connected you are.
My question on those issues would be this:
1. Did those seminary presidents lose their positions? No.
2. The churches “in good standing,” were they summarily disfellowshipped or was there a process where the state convention attempted to reconcile and showed that the MBC, as whole, felt that the churches had to choose between Acts29 and the MBC and the churches chose Acts29? Not knowing what went on in Missouri, I honestly don’t know the answer to that question.
As to the MBLA document that targeted the 2 seminary presidents for their apparent endorsement of Acts29, part of why that was done in that manner was because it appeared to concerned (perhaps misguided, I’m not certain) people that the officers of Cooperative Program funded ministries were leading those seminaries away from historic Baptist principles and that there was no accountability for it. I recall being handed something of that nature in Louisville by a Missouri person who pointed out that the SBC had forbidden them from distributing the paper. It was done the way it was, at least from his perspective, because of a lack of transparency and accountability by SBC people.
Are people sometimes attacked for their viewpoints? Yes. Do they deserve it? Not every time. But entrenching secrecy is only going to cause more suspicion. I’d say it’s better to say openly “This is what I think, this is what I have to say. If you don’t like it, say so yourself as well, but at least let’s have it on the same page.”
“” But the fact that everyone assumes that there are “bad” reasons to keep these records sealed””
I think this is precisely the point: secrecy breeds the assumption of misdeeds. That’s why darkness is associated with evil in the Word. So, the action itself mitigates against any benefit of the doubt.
Again, we are talking about an “open organization” that has nearly 45,000 constituent churches. The assumption should be that these 45,000 constituent church through their members can readily evaluate the actions of a handful.
Why are you not willing (as the TF) to give the people the “benefit fo the doubt.” Your argument lacks a basic logic for me.
mis-trust works BOTH ways
Howell—
I think you have put into a nutshell the problem(s) had in the SBC for many a years. Too much stuff going on behind closed doors!!
I remember in my early SBC days hearing of secret meetings at specified airports. Those never had the press present!
Baptists, during my entire lifetime and that of my father before me, have always worked best when everything is out in the open. It would have been considered by both of us as “dirty politics” in the local church to have important things decided before the monthly church conference. There might be debate, but it helped clarify the thoughts of the entire group and usually concensus was reached so all went away with smiles on faces and a sense of ownership.
In that open process people were brought together just as a good coach involves his players in the game plan. They each can do their part to reach the goal of winning as a team. A shared victory is always superior to a superstar victory without thanks to the linemen and the defense.
In the reverse, there have been lost games because players felt snubbed and quietly said, “If they think they are so great, I’ll just lay back and let them see how it goes without me!”
Anything people are expected to financially support had better be something on which they can agree. NC is a mini-SBC example:
In the 50-70’s it was a unified and enjoyable time for most churches involved in state-wide work. We had a few independent-minded pastors who complained, but even they gave and went along with the majority votes. Their right to speak openly was a plus in keeping things from going off course–especially with some wanting to make the Bible a secondary part of Convention work.
As soon as “secret meetings” and “political strategy” started to take a prominent place, the spirit of cooperation began to fail. We started looking on one another with suspicion and everyone was looking at groups gathered in the hallway wondering, “What group do you represent?”
On all sides, I didn’t like what was happening. When secrets are whispered and eyes are suspicious, it is hard to cooperate and give with a smile. In the last 20 years of plans and programs forced down throats, our spirit of cooperation has reduced. Attendance has reduced at the annual meeting. Giving is behind and has little chance of catching up. The Executive Committee has too much power and they are losing our trust.
We all recognize, in NC and the SBC, that things need to change for the better. It matters not whether it is SBC / CBF / Timbuctu–secrets and plotting destroy trust and openess! Herein lies the secret to success as a group = get the team together with open and clear expressions of what we intend to do TOGETHER!
I was not there, but everything I have read about the GCTF report is that people walked away greatly disappointed. There are new terms and programs, but there is not a sense of joy that it will be done and financially supported.
It was supposed to be a great time of recommitment, but the secrecy poured water on the flame of excitement. That my be part of why Johnny Hunt is having to take a year of rest. He sincerely, as a personal friend serving a community where I served, worked himself to exhaustion, but it didn’t work due to the secrecy.
If there were a promise that there would never be another major committee or meeting not fully covered by an un-biased press, the problem could be solved. Nothing good ever comes from secrecy!
We are seeing it this very week as the President and Congress have “stuck a deal” without full disclosure to the electorate which pays the taxes. No one is happy. Everyone is suspicious. We will be looking even more closely at the tax code to find ways NOT to send another dime to Uncle Sam because we feel used!
The economy is not getting better. As a small business owner, I see NOTHING in the last 3 years which has actually helped me have business because NO ONE has any money to spend on my services! If Small Business, like Small Churches, were being helped by Big Government, we could come out of this together. When only Corporate America and wealthy campaign supporters reap the benefits of the process, it has nothing to do with Team Play!
Gene
#1 and #2.
For those calling for full disclosure in the SBC… I have three little words… “REMEMBER PECAN MANOR”
Okay, Greg, I guess I’m thick, but I am not getting this one.
What happened with Pecan Manor? All I know is that an improvement and expansion took place a few years ago. When I went through at graduation in 1993 we didn’t even call it “Pecan Manor.” Did Patterson not talk to anyone about those plans or something? Did this ruffle a few feathers? If so, he should have been more forthcoming. But two wrongs don’t make a right. His lack of disclosure does not justify anyone else’s.
Dave, I thought you had been blogging long enough to Remember the whole “Pecan Manor Affair”…
I just think that if we are going to call for an “Inquisition” into the GCRTF then we should be willing to call for a full accounting of the excessive expenses and lifestyles the “Rich and Famous” of the SBC as well.
Full Transparency is what I’m all about… … … “Now let’s see those Pecan Manor records.”
we should be willing to call for a full accounting of the excessive expenses and lifestyles the “Rich and Famous” of the SBC as well.
You mean the rich and famous associated with Paige Patterson, right? I thought getting back at Paige Patterson was Don Quixote’s job. You mean he’s not still working behind the scenes even though he’s no longer blogging? I figured he could at least leak personal emails and private phone conversations he’s recorded.
Further, there is no way you would ever support the GCRTF’s records being unsealed even if whatever it is you want to see with Pecan Manor was unsealed.
How about all SBC institutions, entities, and task forces ought to be open and transparent?
What is that? An ad for KFC? “This isn’t a belt. It’s a fence for a chicken grave yard.”
Joe, Click on Portrait Prices and multiple the full size price by 1.5 and you will get a hint at what I am talking about…
And of course he’s the only one to have ever wasted that kind of money on a picture of himself? Plus, if you know how much was spent on Pecan Manor it must not be that secret.
I’m sure you didn’t notice since you were falling all over yourself to get to your keyboard and run down Paige Patterson because someone dared to suggest that the GCRTF’s records shouldn’t have been sealed but I think someone on this comment thread said “How about all SBC institutions, entities, and task forces ought to be open and transparent?” In fact, I think that person was me.
“I’m sure you didn’t notice since you were falling all over yourself to get to your keyboard and run down Paige Patterson…”
Joe, I have not sad one disparaging word about Dr. Patterson on this blog… not one word. Funny how my call for “Radical Transparency in the SBC” is seen as an attack on Dr. Patterson and yours is somehow not viewed as an attack upon the members of the GCRTF or the Leadership that spoke in favor of sealing the GCRTF records… Funny how that works.
Joe, I have not sad one disparaging word about Dr. Patterson on this blog… not one word
Oh, so who were you talking about when you said “Pecan Manor Affair” and then linked to a picture of Paige Patterson and told me if I clicked yadda yadda yadda I would get a hint at what [you were] talking about. Quite obviously to anyone wth a lick of sense, what you meant was “Dr. Patterson spent too much on Pecan Manor renovations and was not transparent about it”. Now, did you come out and say that? No. But if you’re going to say the whole “Pecan Manor” line and linking to his portrait were not intended as a slam on him then I am amazingly confortable calling you a liar.
Oh, and since you seem to have missed it, twice now, I’ll type it again for you very slowly so it’s easier for you to read.
How about all SBC institutions, entities, and task forces ought to be open and transparent?
Joe—
If it’s any comfort to you, here is a good one about his President’s Home in Wake Forest:
Mrs Patterson must have a penchant for royal names of her house. At SEBTS it sits at the corner of the campus on business 98, a well traveled route to Durham.
She named it “Magnolia Hill.” How stately!
Unbeknownst to her, there was a famous house in Wake County already named such—it was the last active “house of ill repute” during the 30’s!!!!
Now that is funny, but the amount of money spent on its renovations–including a large dining addition with a commercial kitchen (immediately after they decided to tear down the Seminary Cafeteria which served all students and the community with good meals at a reasonable price) is not funny at all.
I personally tried to get access to records for what was spent with absolutely no success. The closest I got was talking with a contractor for the first renovations under the Drummond Administration. He said it would not do for Baptists to know what CP money was spent because Mrs. Drummond could not make her mind about many of the changes. They were done / torn out / re-done as many a 3-4 times. Each re-do had to be paid for at double the price because it cost just as much to tear out as to build in the first place!!
So much for transparancy!!!
Gene,
Are you telling me the records have been “unilaterally sealed”…. O my goodness! Where is the outcry against this injustice? Don’t worry Gene… I am sure that Howell will address this along with all the need for transparency and examination of all the financial records of a few high profile individuals in the SBC.
Yep, rest easy Gene… I am sure those records will soon be unsealed and posted on SBC-Voices for all to read.
Greg–
I hate to throw water on our ideal assumptions, but if I could not get any records as a regular member of the SBC and an active pastor, what makes us think they will open the files for anyone?
My other concern was that, with so many students from non-SBC churches, did they have the SBC church recommendation in the file of each student who was matriculating at a super low price for his SBC-funded education. Again, I could not have access to “confidential information.”
You be the judge of how open and transparent the SBC and SEBTS is these days. The actual time frame was late 80’s. I was the eastern NC Representative for Ministers Life Insurance Company and was on the SEBTS campus about every 3-4 months. I lived in Rocky Mount which is a 45 minute drive from Wake Forest. I was the Interim Pastor of several churches and part-time pastor as well.
They would not divulge anything to me as a pastor supportive of CP giving from his church.
CB Scott doesn’t come around much, but he has said publicly that he was a part of this renovation, and that the facts you present are grossly in error.
I know that you don’t always let the facts get in the way of your stories, Gene, but I want the readers to know that the facts Gene is presenting are disputed by someone who was an employee of SEBTS and involved in the process.
Dave,
I think that I have refuted Gene’s story at least twice on Voices and at least once on Wade’s blog in the past.
I will simply say Gene is lying about SEBTS. He knows little of nothing about what happened there during the Patterson tenure and it is very much the same for what he has said about events during the Drummond tenure.
He knows absolutely nothing about the tenure of the current administration of the current president of SEBTS.
Folks, Gene Scarborough is a liar. He is not a man who accidently repeated false information. He is a man who, with willful intent, tells lies about people, places and events of which he knows nothing.
I have been reading his comments for close to two years now. It is my opinion that Gene is an ungodly and hate filled man who have no character or integrity.
You folks believe whatever you desire. That is your right, but Gene Scarborough is a liar and there is no defense for him on this blog or any other.
Dave,
I need to make a correction.
I have been reading his comments for close to two years now. It is my opinion that Gene is an ungodly and hate filled man who “has” no character or integrity.
I don’t want anyone to misunderstand my opinion of Gene Scarborough. BTW, his being a liar is not an opinion. He did lie about SEBTS and continues to do.
He also lied about a Christian school in Mobile because he thought no one would know and be able to call him on it.
Those are strong words, cb.
I have simply told what I know. You claim to have dealt with the Presidential home and office. The only thing toward a lie is your claim you know the EXACT money spent and it is less than I suspect. “Lie” does not apply to this!
This blog’s topic is transparency with SBC leaders, not your differences with me. What you are calling me is in God’s eternal judgement territory. He holds you accountable for your false accusations. Even more for your attitude of hate in doing it.
By the way, you never got it touch over the N. Rocky Mount things you said you wanted to discuss privately.
I’ve missed your diatribes and Joe has been much nicer while you were away—so where have you been = a Mean Clinic, perhaps???
Joe, You can’t hold me accountable for you having a sharp mind and being able to connect the dots… 🙂
“How about all SBC institutions, entities, and task forces ought to be open and transparent?”
I’ll sign that petition… if you will sign the one pledging that all Southern Baptist are to abide by the votes of the Convention.
Deal???
Abiding and questioning are two different things.
Care for a dictionary from Santa?
There’s a substantial difference between expecting the agencies we fund to be accountable and open to the people that are funding them and expecting people to follow a non-Biblical model of a church hierarchy.
No dice there.
This doesn’t tell me much.
Can you be more specific?
Where is the portrait with the dog? Or was that SEBTS?
Let’s not get personal here… that kind of comment only degrades your own integrity.
Yeah, Greg, because making comments about how Pecan Manor was handled (still not sure what your beef is about that) and linking to a picture of Paige Patterson, then commending me for having a sharp mind and being able to connect the dots that you were in fact slamming on Paige Patterson wasn’t the least bit personal, was it?
To be honest, Greg, I had some quarrels with Patterson’s behavior (interfering at IMB, other actions, etc) but I did not follow every accusation laid at his feet. I thought a lot of those accusations were shrill and personal and I tended to tune a lot of it out.
So, I do not know precisely what the “Pecan Manor” thing is all about. I remember discussion of that, but I didn’t really pay attention.
However, there is a significant difference here. Let’s say that Dr. Patterson overspent on renovations at Pecan Manor (is that what it was all about? Seems a distant memory). Fine. That is a matter limited to the workings of SWBTS.
The GCRTF made recommendations that altered (or will eventually alter) the workings of the entire convention.
So, I’m still not sure the point you are making, but the fact is that whatever went on at Pecan Manor is in a completely different class from what happened with the TF.
“So, I’m still not sure the point you are making, but the fact is that whatever went on at Pecan Manor is in a completely different class from what happened with the TF.”
Dave, so what you are saying is that you are for “Selected Transparency in the SBC”???
Seriously, you’re going to put those words in Dave’s mouth?
Are you kidding me?
Greg, you reached for an obscure blogging brouhaha and decided to use THAT as your argument against transparency with the GCRTF records?
I personally thought you were referencing the SWBTS’ decision to erect the largest Home Econ class in the world.
No, Greg, I’m saying that these two issues are two different things. I still don’t know what the SWBTS/PP issue is you are raising, but if something is being done in secrecy, I’d not like that.
But the issue here is the GCR, when is changing the way the SBC operates.
Greg, lets talk about the GCR. It seems to me that you are raising a red herring with this whole Pecan Manor thing.
“I thought a lot of those accusations were shrill and personal and I tended to tune a lot of it out”
Is there such a thing as an impersonal accusation?
Yes, Lydia. I can say that I think your actions are wrong. I can say that I believe your doctrine is askew. But if I begin to ridicule you or your wife, or engage in character assassination, that is something different.
Frankly, I am concerned that you do not see that difference.
“Yes, Lydia. I can say that I think your actions are wrong. I can say that I believe your doctrine is askew. But if I begin to ridicule you or your wife, or engage in character assassination, that is something different.
Frankly, I am concerned that you do not see that difference.”
No need to be concerned. We ARE talking about an “accusation”, remember?…see a few comments above. That is different than a question or disagreement on a matter. An “accusation” is always personal by it’s very nature. It is from the word “accuse”.
If you ridicule my “wife”, THEN you can be worried :o)
I am no huge fan of Dr. Patterson (in recent years), but I can tell you that this is not going to become a Paige-bashing endeavor. I will shut the comment stream down and take whatever action I must.
I thought the Paige-bashing in the past was shrill and personal and it will not happen here.
You are free to criticize actions he has taken if it is germane to this discussion. But there are people who despise Dr. Patterson and ridicule him.
Fair warning – not gonna happen here.
“”I just think that if we are going to call for an “Inquisition” into the GCRTF then we should be willing to call for a full accounting of the excessive expenses and lifestyles the “Rich and Famous” of the SBC as well.””
I’m just wondering, Greg, when you through around the words “rich and famous,” if you include yourself in at least the “rich” part.
Do you EVER spend anything on more than the basic necessities of life? If you are like most Americans the answer is “yes.” The question then becomes one of a “speck and a log.”
I’m not condoning wastefulness in anybody, but I think it is a bit hypocritical to keep pointing fingers at others without considering just how condemned we are by our own lifestyles.
Frank (and/or) Larry,
This is a true story… Three weeks ago a Christian couple who had recently moved to Utah sent me a message on Facebook saying that they had not been able to find a church to join in their new city and ask if they could send their tithe check to my church until they found one. I sent them a message back saying that they could do so, but only until they found a new church home and I encouraged them to find one soon.
The very next week a check came in the mail for $3,000… I discussed receiving this check with my Elders and informed them that I felt led to give $600 to a mission in Belize to purchase a much needed freezer for the “Children feeding program” of International Servants, and give the remainder to a our small local Christian School that is struggling to pay their bills.
Not once did I even entertain the idea of spending this money on myself… in fact I told my elders that, while the Christian couple gave me permission to spend the money however I felt led to spend it, I always felt it important to give money that came from outside our church to missions work in order that we not be tempted to spend it on ourselves.
While I am sure that all of us (myself included) could always find ways to do with less in order to give more, I do not believe I have mishandled any of the finances God has so far entrusted to my stewardship… Perhaps in others eyes I have? But I guess we will find that out on the Day of Judgment want we?
Thanks for the gentle reminder…
Greg, I understand what your saying and commend your generosity, but it is slightly askew of the point. You gave away a windfall. I was talking about the windfall we live off of on a daily basis.
I wasn’t necessarily referring to you in particular, because I am just as rich as the rest of America compared to the rest of the world.
I believe that if you looked into Dr. Patterson’s giving you would find that he, too, is very generous. That’s why I feel it is unfair to single him out in the “Pecan Incident.”
You are right, we all need to be reminded of our stewardship requirements as believers.
The difference being, Southern Baptist churches don’t fund my or Greg’s lifestyle. Do they yours Frank and Larry?
Isn’t Greg a pastor or in the ministry?
Then a SBC church would be funding his lifestyle…
“But the issue here is the GCR, when is changing the way the SBC operates.”
Funny thing… a friend of mine is always saying “Give a man enough rope and he will eventually hang himself.”
The title of these post are Radically Redefining Transparency in the SBC are they not? But you have now reveled that the true motives behind these post has nothing to do with “Transparency in the SBC” at all… The true motive behind these series of post is nothing less than a desire to disrupt and damage as much as possible the “Great Commission Resurgence” movement in the SBC.
Of course this is just my opinion…
Greg,
Let me simply yield to your point and ask you to reciprocate with regard to ours.
In other words, “Yes, Page Patterson is accountable to the Trustees of SWBTS for the work at Pecan Manor and any seminary funds used to pay for his portraits.”
In return, will you agree that the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force is accountable to the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention who created it and funded its work, and that, as our subordinates, they should therefore give a full and complete account of their proceedings to us as their superiors?
The bottom line is that when it comes to the work of the GCRTF, Ronnie Floyd works for you and me. As a Pastor, he is accountable to the folks in Springdale, but as an elected denominational servant, he is accountable to us. We have a right to review the record of his work.
Rick,
You said… “the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force is accountable to the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention who created it and funded its work”
Yes… Exactly… and I, along with the vast majority of the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention, have said by vote of the Convention, “We trust the members of the GCRTF to have conducted themselves with honor and integrity… and we (the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention) seal the records.”
Now Rick, all I am asking is that you and everyone else here abide by the expressed wishes of the Convention and end this… Is that really asking to much?
Greg,
I obviously disagree with the vast majority of the messengers who were swayed the first time the issue came up, I believe, by a few very influential and eloquent men to accept the premise that unsealing those records would (1) force good Christian people to betray their promises regarding sensitive personnel matters, and (2) destroy the future of Southern Baptist historical preservation.
The next time it comes up, I hope convention messengers will have had a little more time to digest whether or not the Task Force should have gotten involved in “personnel” issues in the first place. In the future, I hope the reasoned arguments of men like the Baptist journalist and Doug Hibbard, not to mention Howell Scott’s excellent rationale, will prevail.
I am “abiding” by the wishes of the convention — not tearing into those boxes in Louisville — while still exercising my right to oppose the secrecy and lack of accountability that the initial unsealing vote exposed. Should the convention ever get this right and allow someone outside the Task Force to review those documents, I will at that time “end this.”
I just hope it happens before 2025.
Greg, you condemn yourself with your own logic. Out of one side of your mouth you chastise anyone who would question the majority wishes in regard to the GCRTF. Then, out of the otherside of your mouth you slam one of the leaders of majority votes for over 20 years.
Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.
I’ve never been one who has believed that a vote of the majority necessitates the continuing silence of the minority. Minorities have a way of becoming majorities as time and circumstances change.
Frank (and/or) Larry,
Who did I slam??? Just because Joe makes some unfounded accusation (which he does quite often) does not make it true… How have I slammed Dr. Patterson??? All I did was bring into this debate the fact that a call for transparency in the SBC might uncover some of the questionable expenses of of the current occupants of Pecan Manor…
How is that “Slamming” someone?
Reply to Greg,
One common trick person’s use in blogdom is to slam with inuendo and then hide behind a strick adherence to particular phrasing.
I apologize if I misunderstood your implications and you were actually seeking to imply that Dr. Patterson was not a greedy and out of touch rich man who misspent seminary money.
“Now Rick, all I am asking is that you and everyone else here abide by the expressed wishes of the Convention and end this… Is that really asking to much?”
No, you’re asking us to sit down and shut up.
The records are still sealed. We just believe that they shouldn’t be sealed. It’s our opinion and we’re using things like facts, past precedence, and other things to support our arguments. You’re using High School Debate tactics and bad ones at that to support your argument.
Greg, the messengers of the SBC made resolutions in the early 1970’s that were widely viewed as permissive of abortion. Should we have let those stand?
The SBC Annual Meeting in 2010 made a decision. But that does not mean that it is written in law of the Medes and Persians and can never be undone.
I don’t know if you were a fan of the resolution on redeemed church membership, but it failed several times before it passed. Just because a convention spoke on something does not mean that it is beyond appeal or review.
Dave, “Just because a convention spoke on something does not mean that it is beyond appeal or review.”
I hope your church members do not feel the same way about decisions made by vote of the majority of your congregation…
I sure would hate to see your members publishing articles in your local paper about the wisdom of your leadership decisions. Just guessing, but you might not view that as being very healthy for your church?
Actually, our members are always free to dissent from what we do. They don’t have to publish it in the paper. They just come to me and talk to me about it.
And since we try to do things by “Spirit-led consensus” instead of a few people dictating to everyone else, by the time we make a decision, everyone has had a chance to have their say. We try to operate in the sunshine.
And, finally, I have told my people this before when we made a decision. Just because we decide this today doesn’t mean we cannot change our minds in the future.
If we had perfect wisdom, we could afford to never revisit our decisions. Lacking that perfect wisdom, we sometimes have to rethink things later.
Does your church have a provision for revising your bylaws? If the decisions of the church were never to be reconsidered, why would you allow for the bylaws to be changed?
Dave,
“Actually, our members are always free to dissent from what we do. They don’t have to publish it in the paper. They just come to me and talk to me about it.”
So Dave, I challenge you to take your own advice here… Why not pick up the phone and call Dr. Ronnie Floyd and say Dr. Floyd I am troubled about a few things concerning the work of the CFRTF. Would you mind setting down and and hearing my concerns and discussing them with me as openly as you can? I am willing to bet Dr. Floyd would welcome your honest questions and I am willing to bet he would be very forthcoming with as much information as he could without endangering someones job and or future in the SBC.
All this speculation tends to take on a life of it’s own, and sometimes we can get all worked up when one phone call just might put many of the fears expressed lately on this blog to rest.
Greg, the decision from which I dissent was not a decision made by Ronnie Floyd, but by the entire SBC. And, I am guessing Ronnie Floyd is a little too busy to spend much time with an Iowa pastor with a big mouth.
Greg,
Your making a straw man argument here and I’m about to set it on fire.
The convention is not a church. Therefore, there are different implications at work here. You can’t compare questioning the decisions of a man created denominational leadership as akin to people outwardly questioning the decisions of a God-called pastorate of a church. They are two totally different things.
If you think the Convention is a church, then maybe you ought to be Catholic. There’s nothing wrong except maybe you’re in the wrong denominational tradition.
But hey, thanks for playing…
“Greg, lets talk about the GCR. It seems to me that you are raising a red herring with this whole Pecan Manor thing.”
Actually it is not a red herring. It is about the culture of secrecy and lack of transparency in the SBC as a whole.
The title of these post are Radically Redefining Transparency in the SBC are they not? But you have now reveled that the true motives behind these post has nothing to do with “Transparency in the SBC” at all… The true motive behind these series of post is nothing less than a desire to disrupt and damage as much as possible the “Great Commission Resurgence” movement in the SBC.
I go to Walmart for a few hours and the discussion really starts heating up! As the author of these two posts on radically redefining transparency, it is good to know that others are able to ascertain the “true motives” of why I wrote them. That saves me much time in having to further explain myself. But, let me at least try to clear something up for a few folks.
I have never hidden the fact that I have opposed the recommendations of the GCRTF. I voted against the final report in Orlando. I also was initially troubled by the TF’s unilateral decision to seal ALL their records for 15 years. When the Task Force vehemently objected and argued against the release of any records, all the while trumpeting Component Two (Trust, Transparency, and Truth), I was no longer willing to sit silently on the sidelines. I started my blog a few weeks after the Orlando Convention.
As a side note, I pastor an autonomous Southern Baptist church. Whatever resolutions that are passed at the annual meetings, even if they were unanimously agreed upon by the messengers assembled, have no force to bind any State Convention, local Association, or local church. When that happens, we will cease being a Convention of churches and turn into a denomination.
To be clear, to the extent that I believe that the GCRTF recommendations and any other actions proposed by those in power will bring harm to the Southern Baptist Convention — at all levels — I will not hestitate to speak out and do all that I can to stop it. And, the more establishment leaders and supporters of the establishment tell me and others like me to sit down, shut up, and move on, the more energized the grassroots will become.
One final note. Dave Miller does not tell me what to write or when to write. He does not edit my headlines or post titles. The opinions that I express in my posts are solely my own. For that freedom, I am truly grateful. If anyone has any questions about the “true motives” behind a particular post, it would be wise to ask the author of said post. Otherwise, you might end up hanging yourself with your own rope! God bless,
Howell
Howel,
“I have never hidden the fact that I have opposed the recommendations of the GCRTF. I voted against the final report in Orlando.”
In fairness to the readers of this blog I just want to make sure that everyone is reminded that the person writing these articles is someone who is against the Great Commission Resurgence in the SBC.
“I also was initially troubled by the TF’s unilateral decision to seal ALL their records for 15 years.”
You and I have been down this road before… that statement is untrue… The messengers to the convention sealed the records for 15 years… the GCR Task Force did not, let me say it again, did NOT “unilateraly” seal all their records.
“When the Task Force vehemently objected and argued against the release of any records, all the while trumpeting Component Two (Trust, Transparency, and Truth),”
I don’t think I have heard anyone accusing the conduct of the members of the GCRTF as being “vehement”… no one except you!
“I was no longer willing to sit silently on the sidelines. I started my blog a few weeks after the Orlando Convention.”
So Howell, you only started your blog to address the wrongs done by the Orlando Convention. So you are admitting that your series of post really has nothing at all to do with “Transparency in the SBC” and everything to do with taking down the GCR???
Interesting… Did anyone else influence you to start writing and posting negative articles attacking the work of the GCR Task Force? Before you answer that question, let me caution you that I have “the email” and the list of all those who it was sent to.
Greg,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts for all to read here at Voices. Just a couple quick points before I retire for the evening. First,
I think that folks can be for the Great Commission as found in Scripture without necessarily supporting the Great Commission Resurgence “movement” or the recommendations. That is, unless you equate fidelity to the Biblical Great Commission with the GCR.
Second, I suggest you go back and review the facts surrounding the sealing of the Task Force Records. Facts are stubborn things. The Task Force, per a press release issued by Ronnie Floyd, announced that the Task Force was sealing their records for a period of 15 years. Both Jay and Doug made motions to unseal all or a portion of the records. Despite your protestations to the contrary, there was no motion voted on at the Orlando Convention to actually seal the records. As this is at least the second time where you have mistakenly questioned my veracity, I must assume that you are making these accusations with willful intent. As you are a pastor, I believe that you are treading into dangerous territory.
Third, “vehement” is a word which could also mean “forceful, powerful, passionate, or impassioned.” That the Task Force members were passionate in arguing against Jay’s and Doug’s motions to unseal the records was evident for all to see. They did exactly what they should have done in defense of their actions. Jay and Doug also argued passionately (i.e., vehemently) in support of their motions. I’m sorry that I used a word that you have not seen used by anyone else in relation to this argument. Glad to be of assistance.
Fourth, one of the reasons I started my blog was to write about issues that intersect law, politics, and religion, including, but not limited to, the SBC. These two posts (as well as others) have as their subjects key issues that came out of the Orlando Convention and the passage of the GCR. One of those issues deals with transparency, both within the context of the GCR records and the larger problems with secrecy within the Convention at large. No one can “take down the GCR.” But, I and others can speak out on issues which we believe are important in the ongoing discussion of the future of the SBC.
Lastly, I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to “the email.” You don’t need to caution me about anything, brother, because you are subscribing to conspiracy theories that are figments of the active imaginations of people who fear that their power is slipping from their fingers. By the way, how many are on that email list? 57? God bless,
Howell
“Thanks for sharing your thoughts for all to read here at Voices.”
You are most welcome Howell… Thanks for admitting to everyone here at Voices that you are “Vehemently” opposed to work and vision of the Great Commission Resurgence in the SBC, and that while “No one can “take down the GCR.” you are committed to doing your part.
Regardless of the process of how the records were sealed “Everyone knows” that the GCRTF does not have the authority to “unilaterally” keep these records sealed… The records were sealed by the GCRTF, and this action was approved by an “overwhelming vote” of the messengers of the convention. So your use of the work “unilaterally” to describe the sealing of the records is not quite the whole story of what took place in Orlando, now is it?
On your use of the word “Vehemently”… Do your members often congratulate you for “Vehemently” preaching the Word of God?
“Fourth, one of the reasons I started my blog was to write about issues that intersect law, politics, and religion, including, but not limited to, the SBC. These two posts (as well as others) have as their subjects key issues that came out of the Orlando Convention and the passage of the GCR. One of those issues deals with transparency, both within the context of the GCR records and the larger problems with secrecy within the Convention at large.”
I will take your word for this…and eagerly await your next article that will finally move on from just criticizing the GCRTF and begin to actually address other needs of transparency in the SBC. (I would give my list of where I would like to see some transparency in the SBC, but Joe would not like it…)
Lastly… Nice dodge!
Greg,
As a matter of fact, I should have a post up next week at Voices dealing with transparency and openness in the finances of our SBC entities and agencies, especially as it regards the compensation/benefits of the top officers. As Joe is an auditor at a CPA firm and therefore a “financial” guy, I think he would bring an interesting perspective to this particular issue.
Apart from that, I think I shall take my own advice that I shared with Doug on his excellent post and simply say that I hope you have a wonderful Lord’s Day tomorrow! God bless,
Howell
Why are most mega churches and their pastors who now control the SBC so reluctant to openly post a budget where salaries and benefits are given line-by-line???
Why did it take so long for us to find out Reccord and the NAMB had a private jet at the Charlie Brown Airport waiting to whisk them (at triple or more the expense of flying coach) so they could visit with missionaries and attend meetings as expensive 4-star hotels—all at CP expense?
Our sole purpose for giving used to be to support missionaries who were frugal spending any CP dollars. Dr. Corts Redford, in the 50’s, always took a train over an expensive airline ticket to make his trips (first HMB CEO I knew).
When leaders are transparent and open, we have no fears as to whether we are supporting missionaries—or an affluent CEO with only the finest of furnishings in his office / travel / income.
As you look at that offering plate passing today, can you trust that your sacrifice of some really nice Christmas present is just as sacrificial as a SBC Executive? Are you willing to give up anything to give toward the spread of the Gospel by our missionaries in some hard places of service?
I would love the services of a private corporate jet, but it doesn’t fit with a Saviour who walked to work in sandaled feet and took no pay for it! I drive a 1990 F-250 diesel with the A-C not working because times are hard for my business. It’s hard for me to justify giving to missions with no detailed accounting of how my gift is being spent.
Hoping this goes under Gene’s comment…
Gene,
I wrestle with it, and whether much trickles down to the real work. I’ve passionately encouraged churches I serve to give to missions, to give to the SBC Missions offerings.
I want more transparency, but I know at least a little gets down to real work. I don’t want to lose the real work, and am hoping we can get the rest fixed.
But I will admit, it’s getting harder. Can’t imagine what Lottie Moon would have thought, dying of hunger with her mission field, at any of us having the plush offices we’re paying for at IMB, NAMB, and that Lifeway and Guidestone have funded for themselves from the money they receive from Baptists.
I want the structure of the CP to work. I want the SBC to work, and I want it to honor Christ through word and deed. This is my prayer and hope, and I know it’s shared by many people here and off-line. Maybe we can get there.
Every organization has issues with how much is spent on administration and how much goes to the actual cause for which it is raised.
We used to estimate that 5-cents of every dollar raised in special mission offerings was used for administration and .95 went to home or foreign missions. That is quite reasonable.
I would extend this in day-to-day costs for our Mission Boards to between 10-15%. I don’t think any Baptist giver would find that offensive.
In the local church, I find the hiding of individual staff members’ income under general categories more and more. However, the general budget usually gives a percentage and dollar figure for that part.
Usually, a reasonable business model should show .333 going to the owner and administration. In my business I base “success” on .333 going to labor and .333 to keep machines up and purchase new equipment. It works for me.
Our current corporate model of expense often gives .666 to administrators and .333 to investors / taxes / new acquisitions. That is why we have had the meltdown in the economy in recent years. The CEO, et al have been getting rich at the expense of investors and new acquisitions. Why no one seems to see this is beyond me. Why would any manager expect a more than cost-of-living raise plus an astronomical bonus when he led his corporation into the dirt and red ink going on today.
It defies common sense and—any confidence an investor should have in the equities market. Without confidence and fairness, an investor (giver) should exercise caution in putting his money out when personal issues of reduced income have him in a vice squeezing the very life out of him.
Every time I see our NCDOT trucks riding down the road, they are all new. When I see their crews working, 3 times as many are looking on as to those actually working. If I ran my business on that model, I would be out of business within a couple of years! Yet, because government can tax, I am forced to support public works where “work” is the last thing they do for us taxpayers.
We are on the verge of a taxpayer revolt, and it’s not hard to see why!!! I think this is true of churches as well, but no one can make a Baptist church given to the CP. It is a good faith issue with many large church pastors focusing on local growth over expansion of mission churches.
“Before you answer that question, let me caution you that I have “the email” and the list of all those who it was sent to.”
Care to enlighten the rest of us to this thinly veiled threat which probably is easily debunked?
Careful, because I have “the internet” and I can do google searches…
Greg,
The Task Force announced the sealing of the records, then a motion was made to force them to unseal them. The Convention defeated that motion.
Had that motion not been made, the records would have been sealed without debate. It was the GCRTF that made the decision to seal and the SBC confirmed it.
You can call that the SBC deciding to seal if you want to, but it is clear from the record that the GCRTF planned on the sealing. Either that, or the pastor I talked to at a mic who was going to speak against the motion to unseal was mislead into thinking they promised him several months before that his statements would be sealed.
they promised him several months before that his statements would be sealed.
Doug,
You may or may not be able to answer this question, but did the pastor you talked to standing at the mic during the “unsealing the records” debate indicate that the promise of confidentiality was made at the time he actually gave his statements/testimony “several months before,” or was he informed several months before that statements/testimony that he had previous given would be sealed?
This goes to the heart of the “confidentiality” argument that was raised by the TF members, particularly Dr. Mohler, in why the testimony/statements of witnesses should not be open for inspection. Even though I disagree with the Task Force’s use of confidentiality agreements, I do not think that these should be abrogated after the fact. If promises were made at the time the statements/testimony were given, then those promises should be honored. There should be written confidentiality agreements or minutes of the TF meetings reflecting the specifics of each agreement.
However, confidentiality cannot be attached after the fact. If the pastor at the mic you spoke with was only promised confidentiality after his statements/testimony had already been given, then that brings up even more questions. When did the TF decide to seal their records? Was it at the beginning, middle, or end of the process? If it was toward the beginning of their work, then why wait until 10 days before the Orlando meeting to announce that all the records would be sealed? Were witnesses informed at a later date that their earlier statements/testimony would be sealed? Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I think we have a high level of presumption on the part of the GCRTF that they could be funded for air travel / housing / service to the SBC without having their activities readily available to those who paid the freight!!!!
In fact, that goes beyond assumption to actual lack of fiduciary responsibility to those paying for their meetings and for whom they were supposed to be doing a service.
Does the SBC now fund a paid vacations for hidden discussion in it’s appointed Committees?
Anyone with any history of how CP funds are normally spent takes strong exception to this agenda and would cry, “FOUL!”
In addition, we have never in our history carried on “hidden agendas” except when a small group wanted to manipulate decisions with “airport meetings.” To accomplish their outcome, they clearly violated rules well established for the number of Messengers allowed to a given church.
After it was revealed, it was too late! Faith and trust that churches would be honest went out the window. We have had nothing but trouble since!!!
As I recall, he told me they had told him (hearsay and shaky memory, so I’m doing the best I can) before he spoke with them.
That’s my recollection. Can’t remember his name, and he didn’t actually speak, so it’s not on the record.
I’m with you on this Howell, we need to honor the promises made, whether they should have been made or not. That was the hope of my amendment to that motion, that by having the Chair of the Historical Commission, the Executive Committee President, and I think I said the convention’s legal counsel, to go through and release what wasn’t promised as privileged or legally privileged. Since the chair of the Historical Commission is (or was then) Dr. Mohler, and the EC Pres had just become Dr. Page, both of whom were on the GCRTF, and lawyers have to keep secrets, there would have been the ability to find what hadn’t been promised sealed.
At the end of the day, I felt like the Israelites felt towards their elders after the treaty with the Gibeonites. Maybe not totally in tune with a complete rebellion, but just frustrated that we needed to keep promises that shouldn’t have been made.
Going forward, business needs to be done differently. Any recommendation that has to be presented after secret deliberations needs to be much more deeply considered, and rejected over the means even if the ends are good. There are secrets worth keeping—the one known around here as “Strider” and those like him (are they the Dunedain? anyway) are probably the primary example. I can’t really think of any other secrets that are justifiable for the cooperative work of the SBC.
Doug,
Thanks for the further information about the pastor you spoke with during the floor debate. One of the main issues which needs to be addressed going forward is how we conduct business within the Convention. Some do not like the fact that I and others are using the GCRTF as a model of how NOT to do things in the future.
However, the arguments used in the debate to unseal the records (as you and I have tried to point out, the records were already sealed prior to the Convention — I do find the picture of Rick tearing into the boxes at Louisville amusing though) will continue to be used by future committees unless the process and culture is changed. Dr. Mohler all but said that future committees will not even keep records of their meetings if they know they will have to make them public. That argument, perhaps more than any other, is the most troubling because it tends to indicate that there are some who will continue to operate behind closed doors in the future if given the chance.
What Rick has said, and I agree, is that Southern Baptists do not allow what happened in Orlando — the lack of transparency and openness — to happen again. One of the ways to ensure that those in power do not hide behind confidentiality and “preservation of historical records” arguments in the future is to bring up past instances where these arguments were misused. As someone once said, “Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.” Thanks for sharing your thoughts on how we can move forward from here. God bless,
Howell
Has anything been done in the open in recent years?
More and more decision-making becomes an “Executive Session” closed to the press.
In NC, our annual meeting is little more than to rubber stamp recommendations from the Excutive Committee. Therefore, the attendance is down by half—and November’s meeting had the fewest Messengers since the 50’s.
If Messengers have no right to a say or any input, you have only a guess as to “what Baptists want.” In this day of surveys, what would be the problem with using the state paper mailing list to send survey forms to as many Baptists as possible.
An Association usually has the best mailing list for church members. You could survey through this format even more efficiently.
We have been a denomination of great laity involvement in the past and that is the foundation of our rapid growth. With fewer and fewer lay people coming to the anual meeting, it is becoming a Preacher and Staff meeting and may have little to do with the “average Baptist.”
The more remote convention activities become to the average giver, the less they are willing to give. Add the dimension of secrecy and closed records and you can just about guarantee our demise.
I’m having trouble with the redaction (re-writing) of Baptist History to “fit” the current modus operandi!
In the last 20+ years we are being told “The Convention and Association are autonomous so they can tell churches what to do with respect to who can participate.”
I checked with several friends like Al Ayscue (NCBSC President), Gene Puckett (editor emeritus of the Biblical Recorder), other leaders I know in GA/SC/NC as to when they first heard such stuff. They see it like me = sometime in the 80’s / a total redaction of Autonomy since it applied ONLY to the local church from the beginning of the SBC.
What is the old saying: Tell any lie loud enough and long enough and people who don’t know will believe it!
Gene, no matter how often you bring up the same wrong idea, it is still wrong.
Please move on. You do not understand autonomy and you are not willing to learn the historic Baptist position. Unfortunately, you have made that clear. But no one wants to make EVERY discussion a discussion of your strange views of autonomy.
With all due respect, Dave—–
When I consult my personal knowledge and that of quite a few acquaintances who are equally Baptist and have a far longer tenure than you—-
With all due respect, you have been deceived and have no other proof than “Gene is wrong!!!”
David
Maybe you could have a Gene Scarborough playground so he can listen to himself talk about #1, #2, and #3 to his heart’s content without bothering all the intelligent people who post here.
Let’s have a productive discussion, folks.
I generally discuss questions about my moderation in private, “Committed to SBC”. And would be glad to do so if you wish to continue this.
The post is about the issue of transparency in the SBC. Let us focus on that discussion, everyone.
Greg,
Are you going to put up another post how we’re all just whining and moaning about the Great Commission Resurgence with little regard to anything else? Are you going to complain about the lack of guest bloggers (by which you mean…you) on this site?
If so, that’s great because I’ve lost count of the number of other topics and guest bloggers in the past month.
Greg, I hate to say it, but when you get several people who generally can’t stand each other, like me and Joe Blackmon, to agree on their disdain for you and your painfully biased stances with little to no supporting evidence, then you really are fighting a losing battle here.
And no, I won’t come play on your own personal blog, not when I have no doubt that you’ll start pushing the delete (or unpublish button) option or the edit option when your own arguments get demolished over there.
Just wait a few for Dave Miller to post another topic and come back and play then. At the rate Dave is posting material, I guess he’s trying to compete with the DrudgeReport in the amount of content posted per day.
Thanks,
Bill
And Greg…. Happy Winter Solstice
🙂
“Greg, I hate to say it, but when you get several people who generally can’t stand each other, like me and Joe Blackmon, to agree on their disdain for you…”
If you think for one moment that I engage in these debates in order to win the praise of men you are sadly mistaken, and this post is a sad example of the ugly side of blogging and why many of our SBC leaders never even try to engage in debate with the likes of you.
Grace Always,
Greg,
They also tend to avoid many bloggers because then they’d have to answer to things like facts and their own previous statements.
I have the “clip” where Johnny Hunt promises openness and transparency in ALL the meetings of the GCRTF. No caveats, no exceptions, just openness.
The Southern Baptist way of dealing with mistakes or major issues is to ignore it and hope for sycophants to blindly defend the indefensible.
They did the first part.
You’re doing a bang up job on the second part. Well, until you come on this site…
Bill,
This is the second time on this very post that you have issued a “Personal Insult” to me that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand… So much for Dave’s keeping things civil here on SBC-Voices…
“The Southern Baptist way of dealing with mistakes or major issues is to ignore it and hope for sycophants to blindly defend the indefensible.
They did the first part.
You’re doing a bang up job on the second part…”
Thanks for the Insult… and you have a great day in the Lord Brother…
Here’s the thing, Greg. I am not a policeman. Everyone here wants me to police the people they disagree with. You had no trouble making insinuations against others on this comment stream, but you want me to protect you from bill’s comments.
Here’s what I do:
1) for the most part, I let you guys police yourselves. You are all grown ups and should be able to behave without a babysitter.
2) I do not read every comment. I did not read what Bill wrote to you.
3) I would not have deleted Bill’s comments. He called you a sycophant. Do I think that is fair? No, but neither do I think you were fair in what you said about Howell and others.
This is a big boys (and girls) blogs. Mostly, I intervene to ASK people to watch their conversation.
Sometimes, I delete comments I think are out of bounds.
But I do not have the time to read every comment and judge it.
Sometimes I’d like to just tell everyone to grow up.
Don’t worry about it Dave…
🙂
Bill: What are you talking about? Believe me Greg knows what he is talking about here and the proof has already been presented more than once. Pretty iron clad proof. Either we want full transparency or being selective in transparency is pretty much a mute point.
I’m sorry, I combed through but Transparency posts and Greg’s own webpage referencing the first of the posts.
The wealth of information you’re talking about is woefully absent compared to the evidence presented by Howell and others. However, Greg isn’t presenting evidence, he’s trying to point to other things which are fundamentally different and would fall under a different set of both oversight and biblical implications.
Greg, The last time I ran into you on this Blog you were concerned that because I didn’t use my first and last name and you couldn’t research me. So much for that but it is time we all act like big people and not be so thin skinned as to let trivial matters trouble us.
Question concerning procedure here:
Was there a vote to seal the records separate from the vote to approve the report?
Or was it announced that the records would just be sealed with a motion introduced to unseal the records?
I can’t remember how it went down.
The latter. The Task Force announced that the records would be sealed, then the motion was made to unseal them.
Bill,
According to this article (www.biblicalrecorder.org/post/2010/06/14/GCR-Task-Force-now-wants-15-year-secrecy.aspxin) published in the NC Biblical Recorder (which is where I first read about this), the GCRTF announced about a week before the Convention that they were unilaterally (i.e., all by themselves with no other person or entity authorizing them to do so) sealing ALL their records for a period of 15 years.
The motion (and debate) to accept the Final Report of the GCRTF was on Tuesday afternoon. The motions to unseal were separate and were presented for debate and approval on Wednesday morning.
At the Convention, Jay Adkins introduced a motion to authorize the UNSEALING of the records. At the time of the SBC Annual Meeting in Orlando, the records were already sealed. Unless Rick somehow made it to where the records are kept and starting tearing through the boxes :-), the records were sealed before the first messenger arrived in Orlando.
Doug Hibbard offered an amendment to the original motion which would have — in the interest of offering a “window of transparency” — authorized a partial release of the Task Force’s records after a review by SBC officials. Both Jay’s motion and Doug’s amendment were motions to UNSEAL records that had already been sealed. As I have previously stated, the Task Force members, specifically Drs. Mohler and Akin, argued passionately (i.e., vehemently) against the release of any records.
The messengers at the Convention listened to a 20 minute debate and followed the recommendations of the Task Force. Those of us who have been in Baptist life for very long understand that it would be rare for messengers (or church members) to reject a recommendation from an appointed committee. The messengers approved the continued sealing of the records by defeating motions to unseal the records.
Despite my truthfulness being questioned on at least two occasions regarding my presentation of these stubborn facts, the truth remains (as I’m sure both Jay and Doug could attest) that had the Convention done nothing, the records were already sealed and would not have been unsealed until 2025. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Okay, well that allows the use of the word “Unilateral”
uni·lat·er·al
adj \?yü-ni-?la-t?-r?l, -?la-tr?l\
Definition of UNILATERAL
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : one-sided c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
2 a : having parts arranged on one side b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts
3 : unilineal
4 : having only one side
— uni·lat·er·al·ly adverb
See unilateral defined for English-language learners »
Examples of UNILATERAL
1. Our country is prepared to take unilateral action.
First Known Use of UNILATERAL
1802
Well this should finally settle the entire debate over the use of this word. I wonder how the other side will respond to the use of facts and a dictionary on this one.
CB SCOTT, How many times are you aware of the President’s home at SEBTS being renovated and over how long a time would that have been. And would you have been in an employee position there to have this knowledge. I hear you calling Gene a liar which is strong language and since he offers “some” facts I thought I’d see if you have any we could read about.
I’ll take that one, Jack. CB Scott was an assistant to the president of SEBTS (Paige Patterson). I’m not sure of his exact title, but yes, he was one of Dr. Patterson’s assistants, and if I remember correctly, was directly responsible for overseeing the renovations that Gene has referenced.
Jack Wolford,
Are you the same person who used to be simply Jack who has a son in ministry?
If so, you might remember that I have gone over the SEBTS office renovations extensively in the past on comment threads on this blog after Gene told some of the same lies he tells now. Gene has no facts. He simply lies. His “facts” come along as his wicked and twisted mind develops them and he publishes them in blog comment threads.
Well Dave you also say that there were renovations there as Gene says there were. So that’s one for Gene. I’m now aware of a Housing Manager named C.B Scott at SEBTS that also handled “special projects”. Would this be the same man?
Yes, CB I’m the same “jack” as you have described. Now are you the same CB SCOTT I’m aware of. Whether it would be a complement or not I don’t know but I thought your “other” name might be Killian.
There is only one CB Scott. Some might argue that one is too many, but everyone knows that there is only one.
I’m not recalling anything about “office renovations” but charges of several dining room and “commercial kitchen” renovations. Did those happen if you know?