Article IV. Authority: While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, associations, or convention. (Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention)
I suppose it depends on what your definitions of “never,” “attempt,” “exercise,” and “authority” are. It seems the latest assault on local autonomy comes courtesy of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, a wholly owned entity of the Southern Baptist Convention.
According to published reports in Associated Baptist Press (here and here — you will look in vain to find “reporting” on this issue from Baptist Press), the Tarrant Baptist Association received a letter from Southwestern Seminary informing the Association (the association in SWBTS’s backyard) that it
was in violation of its 1997 affiliation agreement, and it directed the association to vacate its property on James Avenue within six months. It also stated title on the property should revert back to the seminary.
Apparently, the original 99-year lease agreement was renegotiated in 1997 and ownership of the property in question was deeded to the Tarrant Baptist Association. As is common with gifts of property to be used for religious purposes, a reversionary clause was inserted into the deed. These clauses stipulate the circumstances whereby the property would “revert” (i.e., be given back) to the original owner (in this case, Southwestern).
A typical circumstance triggering a reversionary clause might be when property donated for use as a church ceases to be used as such. For example, if Church A decided to disband and wanted to sell the property for use as a nightclub, then a reversionary clause would kick in.
In the case of Tarrant Association’s ownership and use of the property in question, it appears (I do not have access to the original letter sent by Southwestern to the Association) that the seminary is invoking the reversionary clause and demanding that TBA vacate the premises within six months.
According to a letter sent by Tarrant’s Executive Director-elect Al Meredith to pastors of churches in the Association, the seminary (who exactly? Paige Patterson, attorneys for the seminary or someone else) indicated three areas of concern regarding the TBA’s non-compliance with an “affiliation agreement” that the association has with SWBTS:
1. The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 has taken a clear stand against homosexual sin. They contend that Tarrant Baptist Association has member church(s) who don’t stand in compliance with this statement. They feel this places them in a contradictory situation.
2. They contend that in past years they have asked for and not received any assistance from the TBA office in helping their professors and students gain access to empty pulpits in the Association.
3. They need the additional space for offices and/or a Welcome Center.
Prior to the December 12, 2010 letter, were these concerns ever expressed to the leadership within the TBA? If not, why not? Did Southwestern give Tarrant the opportunity to rectify these concerns before threatening to invoke the reversionary clause? If not, why not? There are multiple legal issues involved in this case. As I have neither read the deeds of conveyance and other pertinent legal documents nor have I read any of the letters that were sent by the seminary to the Tarrant Baptist Association, I will reserve comment on the legal aspects of this case.
However, let me offer an opinion as to another issue which is at play, one that is not really about law, but about ecclesiology. What has been couched in legal terms appears to be nothing more than an attempt to exercise raw control and authority over an autonomous association of Baptist churches. And this, in direct violation of the Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention.
How else to explain the use of the “nuclear option” of reversion? Were there no other alternatives but to invoke the reversionary clause? The reasons given for reversion, particularly 2 and 3 above, are simply ludicrous. For one of our Southern Baptist seminaries to demand that a local association of Baptist churches — many of whom are cooperating Southern Baptist churches — to give back property to the seminary based on the seminary’s “need for additional space” or the supposed lack of assistance in placement are laughable.
Reason #1 — the issue of homosexuality — is a red herring. Southern Baptists who believe in autonomy — the local church, the local association, and the state convention — should not be fooled. Cooperating Southern Baptists, who still believe in autonomy, must not allow any Southern Baptist entity to use any issue to “exercise control over any other Baptist body,” in violation of the SBC’s Constitution.
Before proceeding, let me say that I believe that the SBC has every right to disfellowship churches who endorse or support homosexuality. I have voted in convention meetings to affirm recommendations that churches be barred from seating messengers. I believe that state conventions and local associations likewise have every right to disfellowship churches who endorse or support homosexuality. If that were an issue in my local association or state convention, I would likely vote to disfellowship such churches. However, I do not believe that Tarrant Baptist Association’s inclusion of member churches that endorse or support homosexuality (i.e., Broadway Baptist Church in Ft. Worth) is what is truly driving this issue, despite what has been proffered by the seminary as one of the reasons for reversion.
I believe that homosexuality, in this case, is being used as the pretext for exerting control over the Tarrant Baptist Association (400 Baptist/Southern Baptist churches in the Ft. Worth area. The TBA is larger than the entire Baptist Convention of New Mexico). Here’s how. If Tarrant does not disfellowship churches (at this point, apparently only Broadway, which equals .25% of the churches in the Association) who support homosexuality, then Tarrant is in danger of losing property that had previously been given to the Association.
Understand the ramifications of this. The SBC has already disfellowshipped Broadway Baptist Church over the issue of homosexuality (I voted in favor of the motion to disfellowship). Now, an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention does not like the fact that an autonomous association has dared to allow Broadway to remain as a member in good standing.
Because of one church’s actions — out of 400 — the entire Tarrant Baptist Association is now somehow suspect and no longer in “theological harmony” with Southwestern Seminary. That does not make any sense. This is not about “theological harmony.” This is not even about homosexuality. This is about power, control, authority, and an assault on autonomy.
Remember, the slippery slope always starts somewhere. What issue will be next? Will it be churches who have women pastors? Been there, done that. What about divorced deacons? How about views on the end times? What about associations who have member churches who are members of organizations that the SBC does not like? If those churches do not stop their suspect affiliations and if the local association (or state conventions –think BGAV and BGCT) allow them to remain as a member in good standing, will the SBC move to disfellowship entire associations or state conventions?
These are all relevant and timely questions. As it is, many of the elites running the SBC and her entities have little or no regard (much less understanding) for local associations or state conventions. These “leaders” see the SBC as a “top-down” denomination instead of a grassroots convention of autonomous, cooperating churches.
If this power grab is allowed to stand, then we will have moved one step closer to the end of autonomy as we know it. And, the beginning of the end of the SBC as we know it. You might not think that the property rights of the Tarrant Baptist Association are worth defending. But, just remember. It could be your local association tomorrow!
I read some of this yesterday. I thought Al Meredith’s letter (he is the spokesman for TBA in the absence of a DOM) was incredibly gracious.
I’m guessing that SWBTS’ third reason is actually the biggest. They needed the space and are looking for cause to take it back.
Even though I am not licensed to practice in TX, it would be interesting to read the conveyance document. This situation seems to present a interesting situation. A proper Affiliation Agreement would be spelled out–including the definition of “affiliation” and the actual terms of affiliation. It would mention whether an association’s compliance with the BFM2000 includes the actions/inactions of it’s member churches and whether it includes making empty pulpits available to the seminary. If these things were spelled out, then violations would trigger the reversionary clause. If not, well, that’s what lawyers are for! Litigation and/or arbitration may be the next step.
Christians fighting Christians – yet another fantastic witness for Christ in our communities!
I am neither the lawyer nor the son of a lawyer. But I have some experience with these “recission clauses” and they can be pretty draconic.
In a previous church I served, the mother church had recission clause that allowed them to come and take back our property and assume control of the church if they determined that we were no longer a cooperating SBC church.
Here’s the thing: NO standards were listed and it stated that we had no recourse, no appeals. I can’t believe anyone from our church ever signed that document, but they did. The mother church could have determined that they liked our locations or buildings better than theirs and claimed we were not cooperating. They did not have to show cause and we had agreed not to appeal. Wow.
Fortunately, when we constituted, the mother church (well, their pastor) realized how ridiculous this was and they agreed to excise the clause from the deed.
My point is that traditionally, these rescission clauses have been weighted pretty heavily in favor of the “mother” – in the case that would be SWBTS.
Brian,
From a legal standpoint, I agree that the language of reversionary clause, including the “affiliation agreement,” will control. My understanding is that the documents call for arbitration. However, I even if Southwestern has the “right” to invoke the reversion clause, I think that their actions smack of hubris and heavy-handedness towards a fraternal organization of fellow Baptist/Southern Baptist churches. In this situation, I think reversion is a drastic step for a Christian seminary to take towards the Tarrant Baptist Association (the association in their own neighborhood). Perhaps other facts will emerge that cast Southwestern in a better light, but given their recent track record, I am not optimistic. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
By the way, its not just Christians fighting Christians, but Baptists fighting Baptists. Yippee!
I sense some FOIA requests being written up right now.
Then again, people ignored legal documents concerning last year’s major issue just so they could defend their own indefensible stance.
This incident has no ‘winners’.
Perhaps the attorney for TBA should point out to SWBTS that the seminary is located on William Fleming Court. Mr. Fleming and his family were long-time members of Broadway and very generous benefactors to both SWBTS and Broadway, as well as TCU and a host of other groups in FW. Fleming Hall at the seminary is named for Mr. Fleming. It houses some of the administrative offices. The SWBTS counseling building is named for F. Howard and Mary D. Walsh, daughter and son-in-law of the Fleming. Mr. Walsh died in 1998 and Mrs. Walsh died in 2005. The funerals of both were held at Broadway.
Before SWBTS directs its righteous indignation toward TBA, perhaps it needs to review any donations, big and small, it has received from Broadway members. Once, they have compiled a list, then they should do the right thing and return these gifts and buildings, plus interest, to those Broadway members from whom they have accepted donations. Only then should the seminary examine the speck in the eye of TBA.
I don’t think any of that is legally germane.
I fully support the efforts to deal with a church like Broadway which has denied Baptist doctrine and principles. Tarrant Association should get rid of them. I’m glad the SBC did the right thing in regards to Broadway.
But this is about the Association and SWBTS.
Mary Ann,
I would simply ask: 1) are you suggesting that all these Old Time supporters of SWBTS in the pioneer days would be comfortable with Broadway’s position on homosexuality? My understanding as someone connected to SWBTS for some time is that there might be a problem.
My opinion is that one does not “buy influence” with a free-will offering to the Lord’s Kingdom. I think you might want to check with the IRS before you start making claims for a return of gifts given to a non-profit institution.
I think it is shameful if all those people you know gave gifts in contemplation of buying influence.
I do think you point out a particular problem in church life: honoring gifts by attaching men’s names to sacred space. I’ve never thought that was a good idea, or one that truly honors God.
2) Are you suggesting that anyone who gives a gift can “buy” perpetual influence in the institution? If that were the case, I believe the gifts of Conservative, Bible-believing church goers have garnered the lion’s share of influence.
I apparently didn’t communicate clearly when I commented, and my sarcasm fell flat.
I, too, agree with the SBC’s action regarding Broadway. I don’t think Broadway left the SBC any other option than to do what it did. Homosexual acts are wrong according to Scripture. Period.
That said, I think it’s wrong for the seminary to use this issue as a way to reclaim property it gave as a gift but is now coveting for its own future expansion.
Broadway’s issues are not new. The church directory episode regarding homosexual couples was reported in Baptist Press in 2007. If Broadway’s membership in TBA was really the issue in reclaiming the property, why wait 3 years to bring it up?
My family moved to Fort Worth in 1961 when I was a child. We were not members of Broadway but had many friends through the years who were. Broadway has long been perceived in Fort Worth as being somewhat different. It didn’t get to the point of the very public church directory issues overnight. They had been going down a path that led to this episode for decades.
I find this whole situation very sad. The point I was trying to make in my original comment is that it is ironic to me that the seminary gave the property to TBA in 1982 and received a very generous property donation from a Broadway family in 1992. It is well-known in Fort Worth that this particular family has been very generous across decades to Broadway and SWBTS. This has been true of the distant past and recent past. SWBTS issued a press release in 2005 at Mrs. Walsh’s death acknowledging the family’s generosity to the seminary with no mention of the Broadway church membership.
It seems odd to me that SWBTS doesn’t consider itself having an informal association with Broadway when it accepts a gift from one of its members. Yet it is looking for a way to kick TBA off campus because of a Broadway connection. And, no, I don’t think Broadway is the real issue. It’s the smokescreen to use to get the property they think they need.
I did not intend for my previous comment to be taken so literally. I do not think the seminary should give back gifts. But I do wonder what would happen if the gift of the counseling center building had come with a clause that allowed the Walsh estate to get the building back when the seminary recently changed the counseling program.
I did not intend to give the impression that I was endorsing influence-buying types of gifts. I am strongly disgusted by that sort of thing.
I believe SWBTS should give TBA the grace to deal with Broadway in a Christ-like way.
I’m trying to understand why the seminary thinks it’s OK to receive gifts, including property, from Broadway members, but not OK for TBA to keep the property the seminary have it. I personally don’t see how 1 church out of 400 in TBA makes TBA guilty of theological error.
Mary Ann, I don’t know the history as you seem to, but is it possible that SWBTS had at a point in the past been perhaps wandering down a different “path” then the mainstream SBC and in recent years efforts have been made to bring it back to the mainstream SBC “path”? Would that account for the time when gifts were made and received?
I agree that this all sounds very crass – if there have been no ongoing conversations between the seminary and the Association. Howell, makes a valid point that if the Seminary is to the point of invoking a reversionary clause then it should be breaking off all ties with the Association.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with the Seminary breaking off with an association that is supporting a church with a pro-gay agenda. Even it’s only one church. After all the SBC disfellowshipped with one church out of 40,000+ churches.
But I can see some of the points being brought up about the “true” motive behind invoking the reversionary clause. I know focus is being made to the points besides the SBC view on homosexuality, but isn’t it true that lawyers will throw in as many “points” as possible in legal situations to see how many they can get to stick? It seems very clear that the Association has been in support of a pro-gay church – this would seem enough of a reason to break fellowship and legal ties. Now the big question is would the Association be willing or if it has been given the opportunity to “fix” the issues that the seminary has brought to light. If the Association is not being given the opportunity to correct those issues – than that would be wrong. If the Association is saying “no we are autonomous and we will associate with whom we will including a pro-gay church” then it would seem the Seminary is right. There seems to be a lot of unaswered questions.
I think I have a problem with the “1 out of 400” reference. I am pretty certain that Broadway is not the only “problematic” church in the TBA from an SBC perspective. Broadway was a more glaring problem with more publicity.
I do agree this is a big problem if the only real issue is expansion. If that were the case, I’ll bet there could have been a way to promote a win-win situation. If something underhanded is going on, it is going to be a lose-lose situation.
As the Scripture says, “Money is the root of all kinds of evils.”
Mary Ann,
You communicated just fine and your sarcasm was duly noted. You have merely pointed out the pink elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. It is easy for some (most?) people to side with Southwestern in this case because of the homosexuality issue at Broadway. However, because of how SWBTS has apparently handled this case, there is an issue of inconsistency on their part, particularly when it comes to receiving money from churches and church members of the Tarrant Baptist Association.
If this is such a major concern for Southwestern (and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be), then let the seminary not only take back the property, but also refuse to take any money or other assistance from the churches of TBA until their concerns are addressed. How much money has Southwestern taken from the churches of this association since the Broadway controversy came to national light? Has the seminary taken funds from these churches (or indivudal members) since Broadway was expelled from the SBC? Are any faculty, staff, or students currently members of or serving in one of the churches of the Tarrant Baptist Association? The answers to these questions can tell us much about the true motivations behind what the leadership at Southwestern is doing. Thanks for your personal reflections on this issue. God bless,
Howell
Issues of Concern: [1] … Tarrant Baptist Association has member church(s) [that] don’t stand in compliance [with BFM 2000]. [2] … [SWBTS has] not received any assistance from the TBA office in helping their professors and students gain access to empty pulpits in the Association.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): Would, then, those that gained pulpits, be questioned for taking such, or if taking said position, would SWBTS have the expectation that said person would do whatever he could to bring the congregation in line with BFM2K?
non-sequitor. The theological problem was not with 400 churches but with one.
Dave: non-sequitor. The theological problem was not with 400 churches but with one.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): One? That seems inconsistent with “… has member church(s) who don’t stand in compliance ….”
The focus has always been on Broadway.
Dave: The focus has always been on Broadway.
Norm (AKA bapticus hereticus): If you are correct, then who, seemingly, is not reporting the issue properly, SWBTS or Al Meredith? Before a a solution can be sought, it is helpful that facts are not in dispute.
Just quickly read this. Am not familiar with the Tarrant County Association and its issues or relationship to Southwestern.
My initial read is that the title to this post and some of the concepts in it are not accurate.
The identification of legal entities is a fundamental first step in determining who is doing what to whom.
Southwestern, I believe, is a separate non-profit corporation. The Southnern Baptist Convention cannot direct SWBTS what it needs to do. The convention can replace trustees, but that’s it.
In this situation, we have SWBTS exercising its rights (it believes) under an agreement with another separate Baptist entity.
I have not seen the agreement. But if the agreement gives SWBTS the right to exercise the reversionary clause, then the rest of this is a moot question.
A reversion may or may not be in order. If the parties don’t agree on this, take it to a neutral forum (a court) and let the court read the agreement and decide.
The SBC is not acting in this case.
Arguing that it is, is like arguing that the SBC chose not to renew Dr. Klouda’s teaching contract or grant her tenure. The SBC did not do either of those things. SWBTS did.
Louis, would you agree that perhaps there is a difference between what might be legal and what might be ethical?
Perhaps SWBTS has the legal right to do this, but is it the right thing to do?
Louis,
Without getting into the minutia of corporate law or real property law, the SBC is the “sole member” of all the separate entities of the Convention. While the trustee boards of each entity have authority, SWBTS is “owned” by the Southern Baptist Convention.
Perception often equals reality and, in this case, whether it is technically the case or not, Southwestern is seen as an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention. What Southwestern does, the Convention does, at least from a public relations standpoint.
My concern is not primarily with the legal ramifications of what Southwestern is apparently attempting to do. In my earlier reply to Brian, I affirm that the legal documents (deeds, affiliation agreements, etc.) will be binding in this case. However, from a religious perspective, particularly with regard to the “property dispute” with the local Tarrant Baptist Association, what SWBTS is attempting to do — at least as to the reasons that have been made public — are, in my opinion, a direct assault on the autonomy of this association with which the seminary has had a long-standing fraternal relationship. To invoke the reversionary clause in this case looks like an attempt to exert power and authority over a sister Southern Baptist organization.
My concerns stem, not from the legal issues involved, but from the theological and eccesiological. I would be interested to hear your take on Southwestern’s relationship with Tarrant and why you think it is appropriate for one church out of 400 (assuming the facts are as stated) to cause an entire association to be out of “theological harmony” with SWBTS. If this is the direction that the overall SBS is headed, then that does not bode well for autonomy. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Should read, “If this is the direction that the overall SBC is headed . . .” (sorry for the typo)
Howell,
I have not lived in Fort Worth for a few years now, but I don’t think the tension between SWBTS and TCA is all that new. It has been heading south for at least a few decades.
I really don’t think the problem is 1 church out of 400. I think that is just the most visible irritation.
I do agree this is not going to be a stellar public relations event for SWBTS. That said, however, I think it might to a point that the inevitable is on the horizon and time will only make the matter worse.
I’ve been in the middle of such disputes and I also agree that all that matters are the four corners of the prevailing documents. All ecclesiastical matters are mute when it hits the court–as a matter of law. This can lead to some pretty funky legal decisions.
My suspicion is that since we are hearing about this, there is no way the genie is getting back in the bottle. We are probably past that point. There is probably no chance for a win-win on this one.
You know I’m not really sure I’m understanding here – is the consensus that it’s ok to associate with an association that affirms a church who supports homosexuality? Does it have to do with degrees of separation? I understand that it seems like there’s something more cynical going on, but are we saying here that it’s ok to affliate with an association that doesn’t seem to have a problem with a pro gay church?
I don’t know of anyone here who has said that.
Maybe I’m missing something then – why shouldn’t SWBTS disassociate with this association then if no one is saying that? Is it that they shouldn’t take the property back? Let me go back and read this again as I seem to be missing something.
“Reason #1 — the issue of homosexuality — is a red herring. Southern Baptists who believe in autonomy — the local church, the local association, and the state convention — should not be fooled. Cooperating Southern Baptists, who still believe in autonomy, must not allow any Southern Baptist entity to use any issue to “exercise control over any other Baptist body,” in violation of the SBC’s Constitution.”
Alright, this seems to be saying that the Association has the right to support a pro-gay church and SWBTS should still associate with them? I’m still missing something here. This property is on the grounds of SWBTS? So it’s believed that SWBTS should allow an assoiciation that supports a pro-gay church to remain on the grounds? What am I missing?
there’s two issues: 1) Autonomy.
2) The suspicion that it is a little bit convenient that just at the time that SWBTS wants to build a welcome center, they also suddenly feel the need to break fellowship with TBA.
Alright, I get #2 and can agree with everyone – it wouldn’t be ethical to kick someone out based on some new idea for improvements to the campus.
But on the issue of autonomy – The SBC disfellowshipped from Broadway so it would seem natural that an SBC seminary should disfellowship from an association that supports Broadway. Now is it the point that the Seminary is not giving the Association the opportunity to disfellowship Broadway or is it that because the Association is autonomous that the Seminary doesn’t have a right to say “no as an SBC Seminary we cannot be in fellowship with an association that supports a pro-gay church.”
I mean I guess the assumption here is that the Seminary is just looking for an excuse to get the land – but isn’t the fact that the association is supporting a pro-gay church a pretty good excuse?
I admit I haven’t read the links, but I don’t get this question about autonomy – if you can’t break off with an association for supporting a pro-gay church when can you?
I guess the question is more of whether or not there’s really a right to go back and activate a clause in the sale of property to take the property back. The Seminary is not, apparently, saying they want to break all ties with the TBA over this, rather they’re just demanding the building back. The TBA owns the building in the eyes of the law, so they’re responsible for it. SWBTS doesn’t provide financial support for the TBA or any maintenance on the facility.
Also, the same church this is about, if I recall, had several members that were SWBTS faculty right up until the SBC vote to sever fellowship. The faculty then had to move their membership since it is required they attend an SBC church. So SWBTS had no apparent problems with faculty members that attended a church that supports open homosexuality, until the vote in Orlando, then it was a problem.
If SWBTS really wanted to take a stand against the situation at Broadway and within the TBA, there were some opportunities to do that well before you send a letter stating “6 months and we take your building back.”
Bess,
Thanks for the questions. As far as I can tell from published reports, there were three reasons given for invoking the “reversionary clause.” The main one that everyone seems to be focusing on — and the one you are questioning — is the issue of homosexuality (although Doug makes an excellent point below regarding autonomy and ministerial placement). I have not read the legal documents in question, but am commenting based on the to-date published material, including the letter that Al Meredith, pastor of Wedgewood Baptist Church and the Executive Director-elect of the Tarrant Baptist Association sent to the pastors of the association. If the facts as reported are wrong, I will certainly revise my opinion, but to date, no one has disputed the statements contained in Pastor Meredith’s letter.
Because of apparently one church’s stance on homosexuality, the entire association, for purposes of property, is now deemed to no longer be in “theological harmony” with the seminary. As far as I know, SWBTS has not sought to sever ties with the association over any of the issues of concern. As an autonomous body, Southwestern certainly would be within their rights to sever their ties with any group who it feels is no longer compatible (for whatever reason). If this is such a cause of concern, why doesn’t SWBTS terminate any fraternal relationship that it has with Tarrant?
The issue of homosexuality is a relatively easy one for most Southern Baptists to be against. However, when it comes to autonomy, there will be other issues which come into play, particularly when power, control, and money (including property) are involved. I suppose the question is whether you invoke the nuclear option of “reversion” upon another Baptist body for what appears to be one church who has views Southwestern does not like. Do you punish the entire association by taking back property that you gave them? Do you allow them to remedy the alleged problems?
That Dr. Patterson, after meeting with association officials after the first demand letter, was informed of facts which he was not aware of and that he subsequently had to go back and consult with seminary attorneys, is quite telling. Anyway you cut it, this is not positive for Southwestern or the SBC. Thanks again for the questions. Hope that helps. God bless,
Howell
I’d like to read if anybody knows, just what Broadway Baptist did in regards to homosexuality to bring them into disagreement with the BFM2K.
Jack,
I don’t exactly remember, but you might search the Baptist Press (and Associate Baptist Press, perhaps) archives. The recommendation to “no longer count in friendly cooperation” was made in Louisville in 2009 and then investigated (as far as the SBC does) and the vote taken at Orlando in 2010.
I don’t remember the particulars, but I think it was related to the church doing a new picture directory and allowing homosexual couples to be shown in the directory as family units. Something beyond a simple allowing of any sinner to come to church and headed towards normalizing that one particular sin. That’s my recollection, but there’s probably some links at Baptist Press or on a few other blogs, both for and against it.
Doug , Thank you for responding. A lot of years ago, possibly 30, a major airline I was associated with negotiated into the flight attendents working agreement benefits such as health & travel for ” partners ” of working employees. This was without any marriage contracts which didn’t exist then. This provision cost the Company plenty of money and was way ahead of what has transpired since then regarding joint property, Wills etc. Thanks again.
Howell,
If the list of 3 areas you quoted are accurate, I cannot believe that SWBTS would try to equate those as reasons. The first reason is one worth consideration. If the property was deeded with a condition that the association stay faithful to current SBC guidelines, then there’s a case for that. It would be interesting to see, though, if there’s a timeline issue between what the SBC By-laws were when the agreement was made and what they are now. When did we amend that article to what it says now?
However, to then also state “We need the space” doesn’t sound like a clause that should have been approved by the association. What Baptist organization won’t decide to build something eventually? Somebody was asleep at the documents to let that be a valid reason to take it back.
The threat, in my view, to “autonomy” comes in that middle reason. The association has failed to help seminary students find jobs within associational churches? That’s wrong in several ways: 1.)SWBTS is paying a church relations office/placement office staff. It’s their job to help seminary students find jobs. 2.)What if these students aren’t qualified? 3.)This is the big thing: The association is not supposed to have the ability to tell a local church who to hire!
This sounds like SWBTS is wanting at least 1 leg of their “we’re not in agreement” to be that the Tarrant Association is respecting the autonomy of churches to employ/hire/call/support ministers, rather than take whomever SWBTS sends them. Now, since the TBA hasn’t found jobs for SWBTS students, the Seminary is going to punish the TBA by requiring them to either: 1.)find jobs for students to make it work or 2.)Buy, build, and relocate to new offices.
You want to see the threat to autonomy, that’s where it is. SWBTS is, at least apparently, striking out at the TBA because SWBTS is not being allowed to choose who will lead the churches in that association.
However, the legal documents will control. I wonder if it will go as smoothly for SWBTS as their last lawsuit?
And I really don’t think this should go to court in front of the secular authority. But that’s another post for another time.
A further wondering: #1 and #2 in that letter are contradictions, aren’t they? The TBA is not properly in fellowship with the seminary (#1). Seminary students can’t get jobs in the TBA (#2).
If the association has abandoned being faithful to Scripture, why is the seminary upset that their students can’t get work in the churches in the association? Do we get mad at Unitarians that they won’t hire our seminary students? Methodists? Catholics?
I think the concern with the unfaithfulness of the association is limited to dissatisfaction with 1 church – Broadway (the leads to destruction) Baptist.
Christiane, I deleted a comment that had absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Address the topic at hand, please.
Sorry, DAVID,
I was responding to this from Doug “Do we get mad at Unitarians that they won’t hire our seminary students? Methodists? Catholics?”
I hope he was able to read that comment before it was deleted.
It was kindly meant. Not a criticism, but an encouragement.
I see that on the first point, but the second one seems to spread SWBTS’s complaint to an issue with the whole association not doing the will of the school.
Just to spread this wider, and you can delete this if you need to keep the discussion on track: the last association I was in before I came here had just brought in a Missionary Baptist Church. The Association, then, is willingly partnering with a church not in friendly cooperation with the SBC. Does that make for grounds to punish that association?
It would be very telling to see the actual agreement, to see what the rules of the gift actually were.
Doug,
You have hit the proverbial nail on the head with your analysis regarding Southwestern not being allowed to “place” students and professors in the pulpits of the TBA. Why would anyone from SWBTS want to serve in churches in an association that was not in “theological harmony” with the seminary? Of course, the legal documents will control, but what is legal doesn’t always mean that it’s right. According to the published reports, the agreements between TBA and SWBTS regarding this property call for arbitration. That this letter was sent in this manner — apparently without any warning or opportunity to correct any problems with the affiliation agreement and reversionary clause –speaks volumes about the state of affairs at one of the SBC’s flagship seminaries (and for full disclosure, I am a SBTS alum), as Dave points out. Thanks for the questions. God bless,
Howell
Observation:
If theological correctness was really the issue, then there is a better way to go about this. How about a letter stating that if, in one year, Broadway is still in associational fellowship, this action will be taken.
Was warning given? Was the association given a chance to rectify the situation? Not that I can tell.
With this information, I find myself suspicious that the motivation is finding room for the welcome center and the theological problems are a convenient reason.
Point one is very important in the eyes of the agreement between TCA and SWBTS. They can very much enact action and TCA was given enough time to find suitable, if inconvient, arrangements for their offices and personnel. Now, is this a jerk move? Probably.
But it’s business, and people always seem to forget that in many ways churches, associations, and conventions are businesses. This makes the third point important to the seminary as well.
Now, as for TCA acting as a headhunting firm for the seminary, I would assume that associations would always try to help new and upcoming seminary graduate find gainful employment. This is truly an absurd point in my opinion because I’m sure about only a handful of seminary graduates did the initiating of job hunting with the TCA. I could just be running off on this one, but point 2 remains the most laughable of the three points.
I sincerely doubt that any sort of mediation could be found in this issue because the seminary has the clear upper hand if all reported stories and they apparently have plans to either put offices or a McDonald’s in that spot so they can and probably will affect the vacation of the premises by the TCA. That’s okay because it’s only stuff.
If TCA has member churches in violation of the BFM2K, then it needs to rectify that issue since it does have larger implications for the assocation.
Now, I do think that we ought to start looking at how we minister to homosexuals. How do we bring them into our fold. How do we justify keeping them out for their sin while we wink at the sins of so many of our other members. I think we really need to look at our stances and how we apply them. It’s not a justification for putting homosexuals into leadership positions but a justification to remove deacons and other leaders having affairs or viewing pornography regularly from their positions.
Just curious… If TBA disassociates with the homosexual lifestyle-affirming Broadway Baptist Church, they only lose ONE out of 400 churches, and all of this goes away, right? Just because SWBTS wants them to do this and is pressuring them doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad idea.
I concur that the seminary wanting that property probably has more to do with what they want to use the property for and less to do with Broadway. Having said this, this serves as another opportunity to cast Broadway_that_leads_to_destruction Baptist Church’s name in an unfavorable light and remind everyone once again of their unbiblcal position of allowing homosexuals to be members, thereby proving they are not a Christian church. Therefore, possible ulterior motives aside, I’m ok with this.
So we banish those mired in the sin of homosexuality yet shake hands with those mired in adultery and pornography?
Sin is sin. All sexual immorality is to be fled from, not just homosexuality.
Just to clarify, Al Meredith is the Moderator-elect, not the Executive Director-elect. He is still pastoring Wedgewood Baptist and is speaking on behalf of the Executive Committee. Making the situation more difficult is that Tarrant Association is currently in the search process for a new Executive Director. An I agree that the letter by Pastor Meredith was very gracious. I hope we all seek to be so gracious when dealing when brothers, especially in such public matters.
Bill
Bill,
You are right about Meredith’s position. Mis-typed that in my article. You are also right that his letter was very gracious. I do not know what kind of relationship that Meredith has (or thinks he has) with Southwestern, but his response, given what appears to be a blindside by the seminary, is the right tone, regardless of the eventual outcome.
Rick and Joe,
I know this is a difficult argument for me to make because one of the core issues is dealing with homosexuality, but I do have a problem with the way Southwestern has apparently handled this situation. I say apparently because there may be more than we know apart from the statements contained in Meredith’s letter and the published reports to date. And of course, from a legal standpoint, the reversionary clause language will determine if it can even be invoked in this instance
That being said, if SWBTS believes that Tarrant is no longer in “theological harmony” because of a church or churches in the association that support homosexuality (Broadway?), in contravention of the affiliation agreement and the BF&M 2000, then SWBTS needs to either given Tarrant an opportunity to rectify the situation before invoking the reversionary clause OR it needs to immediately move to sever any and all relationships with TBA. If this is such an issue for Southwestern(as well as the others, which I think are ludicrous for reversion), then they need to stop taking any money from any of the churches in this association. Let Southwestern put their money where there mouth (and supposed values) are.
As far as I know, there has been no move by SWBTS to sever ties with Tarrant, an association of 400 churches. There has been no move to give back any money from this association, now deemed to be out of “theological harmony” because of one church. If it’s so important because of the property, shouldn’t it be just as important to no longer have anything to do with this association of theologically suspect churches?
Southwstern could have gone about this in a better way and could have legitimately severed their relationship with Tarrant and invoked the reversionary clause. But, if they have “unclean hands” (i.e., improper motives) in this situation, then I do think it should be a concern to all Southern Baptists about the pressure that has been placed on another autonomous body by an entity of the SBC. Because, one day pressure will be exerted against another local association or state convention by SWBTS or another SBC entity and the issue will not be about homosexuality. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Like I said, I have no doubt that the reason given about TBA allowing Broadway to remain in the association is little more than a crock of hooey and that the real reason is that they want that land/building. I was justing saying that it doesn’t bother me to see them doing it even if I don’t think it’s the right way to do it because it casts an unfavorable light on Broadway again. I’m not saying what SWBTS is doing is right. Just FYI.
Dave:
For me, in this case, the legal and the ethical are not exclusive. The ethics of the situation are controlled by the promises the two organizations made to one another, as evidenced by the legal documents. Therefore, construing those documents is the central question in the case.
I find that Christians often have a problem with this basic concept (I am not speaking of you, of course).
It goes something like this, “Yes, we signed that agreement. But there is another principle here – the ethical one, that prevents us from going strictly by the promises we made to each other. We should layer some ethereal perception of ethics that each of us have over the situation, and make a decision based on that.”
I personally do not find that to be Christian at all. I believe that Christian ethics are perfectly compatible with living by the agreements one has made.
We had a recent situation like this between Belmont College and the Tennessee Baptist Convention. When Belmont was founded, the TBC made a substantial gift to start the school and funded it for 50 years thereafter. Recently, Belmont, unilaterally, changed its charter to elect its own trustees, rather than the TBC electing them. Problem is, Belmont and the TBC had signed an agreement when the first gift was given that said if Belmont ever wanted to become independent, it could do so, but it would have to return all of the gifts the TBC had given. That meant that Belmont owed the TBC 60 million or so.
Belmont was shocked when the TBC did not agree to let them go. Belmont offered 3 million or so, and the TBC turned it down. The TBC filed suit, submitted the original agreement to the courts for interpretation and application.
You should have seen the firestorm that errupted. The TBC was chastised by Belmont and others for not doing the “Christian” thing.
Actually, the Christian thing was to ask both parties to abide by their word. If the document was not legally enforceable for whatever reason, tough for the TBC. If it was enforceable, tough for Belmont.
I believe this kind of thing is what gives Christians a bad name in the market place. Especially among non-believers.
True, in this case (and in Belmont’s) people can be “results oriented”, meaning that they have a perceived result that they think is appropriate and fair. And that is the right outcome.
But Christians, as much as all peole, should live by the agreements they make. Let our yes be yes, and our no be no.
If there are cases where we don’t want to do that for whatever reason, then argue the merits.
But don’t drag Jesus into it.
And don’t try to dress up the arguments as being “Christian” as opposed to abiding by the agreement that was made as being “un-Christian” or “sub-Christian.” That is really a dishonest approach.
Oh, on the Belmont thing – what happened, after the TBC took all the heat for asking the Court to construe the legal document, the TBC appointed a committee of pastors. Pardon me, but they were a group of well meaning, no business experience people.
After a few months in the court, a guy on the committeee decided that Jesus was telling him to get this worked out, so he made contacts with a local pastor of a large, influential Baptist congregation who was a trustee at Belmont. The 2 of them got together and “prayed.” And before long Jesus had spoken. And they convinced the TBC committee that Jesus wanted Belmont to pay 5 million (or something like that), but over time, which when reduced to present value was less than the 3 million Belmont had originally offered.
So, the case settled for less than Belmont’s original offer.
The TBC never got any credit for this, of course. They were still seen as power hungry for suing in the first place, and then seen as stupid for settling on such bad terms.
Oh, and then this year, Belmont openly changed its employment policies regarding homosexuals. The entire issue of sexuality in that area at that school has shifted in the span of about 3 months, such that if the Christian view of human sexuality were to be presented at the school, it would probably be considered “un-Christian.”
Sorry to give so much history in this response, but to make the point, I had to follow the analogy to the end.
Interesting. I find all this legal stuff fascinating.
As far as the legal/ethical thing goes, you make a good point. But biblically, it seems we always have a responsibility to attempt to reconcile.
I guess my question would be this – did SWBTS make a good-faith attempt to reconcile this situation? Did they tell TBA, “We are dissatisfied with your acceptance of this (clearly) uncooperative church?” Did they give them a chance to resolve the situation? “If things do not change within six months (or a year, or whatever) we will invoke the clause.”
If that happened, great. But I have not read anything about a process of attempting to resolve this (which may not be legally required, but is biblically important).
In the absence of this reconciliation attempt, this seems like a land-grab more than a defense of biblical truth.
does anyone know if a legitimate attempt at resolution was made prior to this?
I’ve read the dictionary definition of “homosexual”, several passages in the Bible, Bfm2K and at sometime would be interested in what , if any type of mingling ( didn’t want to confuse the word “association”) people think would be acceptable – maybe them attending church for example would be o.k. It would help me better understand what SWBTS motives really are as well as where this situation is headed in the future. I don’t want to hi-jack this blog.
Howell:
The sole member argument does not change the fact that SWBTS is a separate legal organization with its own trustees. Therefore, SWBTS’s acts are its own, not the acts of the SBC. I attended the EC meeting when this came up and was debated. It was STRONGLY asserted that the separate legal nature of the entities would be maintained, and if this were not the case, the SBC counsel would not have recommended it.
In fact at the convention several times over the years I have heard motions made by the convention directing certain agencies to take certain actions.
They are always ruled out of order because of this principle. The convention cannot direct an agency to do something because the convention does not control a separate legal entitly.
Jim Guenther, the convention’s attorney, understands this well, and has been the primary architect and protector of this principle so that the SBC and the other entities do not get entangled legally and for liability purposes. If it were not this way, the SBC would have been a defendant in the Klouda lawsuit, for example.
On to your other questions – whether it violates autonomy or whether SWBTS should do that it has done.
I certainly does not violate autonomy.
Each side – SWBTS and Tarrant County decided, on their own, to the legal and financial arrangement they voluntarily entered together. Each is a separate entity and had legal representation (or the opportunity to obtain same) when they entered the arrangement. Each acted on their own. Each was autonomous. Each entity acts autonomously now. The association can associate with the churches it chooses on the basis it chooses. SWBTS does not have any control over or representation on the Tarrant Board. Neither does the Tarrant Board have any control over SWBTS.
From what you have posted, they have a lease – now a deed, with a reversionary clause.
Each side can act autonomously to determine judgments about church associations (in Tarrant’s case) and application of the deed (in SWBTS’s case).
Does SWBTS have influence over Tarrant’s decisions by virtue of the fact that SWBTS can trigger the reversion? Of course it does. But that’s the way it was when the arrangement was structured. It is no different from any legal contract that is entered between parties where one side has voluntarily said that its ownership of property is contingent on its behavior toward the purposes of the grantor. There is still autonomy, but one side has decided to enter a contract that places it at risk if it makes certain decisions.
I enter an employment contract with my employer. I am autonomous – completely, in that, and in how I act afterwards.
But I make a certain bargain with my employer. Maybe I can’t moonlight at certain businesses. Maybe I can’t say what I would like to say publicly about a subject or a client because it would affect the business. So, I have surrendered some amount of freedom to get what I wanted – a paycheck. But if I violate the agreement because I have decided that a certain course of action is best for me, it is the moral and ethical thing for my employer to stop paying me.
It works the same way between companies who enter contracts, or nations that enter treaties.
As to whether SWBTS has acted appropriately since it is only 1 out of 400 churches, I cannot tell with the facts I have. It seems like a quick trigger pull.
But then, again, there may be attitudes on the ground that are clear signals about the directions of the association that cannot be perceived by the numbers alone.
No one doubted Broadway Baptist’s feelings about homosexuality for years. But Broadway was intentionally obtuse about its feelings to keep the game going with the SBC. The same thing could be happening with Tarrant, but because I am not there, don’t know the players etc., I cannot tell.
Louis,
Thanks for the response. From a legal standpoint, I would not disagree with your analysis. IF Tarrant has violated the terms of the agreement (for an arbiter or courts to decide, not Southwestern), then Southwestern would have the right to invoke the reversionary clause. How they go about doing this, in my opinion, does need to be done not only in a legal manner, but a Christian manner. And that includes how Southwesten’s reputation will be affected both within the Christian community and among non-believers. In other words, it should be above reproach. As you mentioned the Klouda lawsuit, SWBTS does not have a good track record as of late in this department.
As we know only the facts that have been reported — including Al Meredith’s letter (which has not been disputed) — we do not know if there were other contacts made regarding this issue as it applies to the property. It has been reported that the affiliation agreement, which is at issue in this case, stipulated some type of arbitration if there was ever a dispute between the parties. Particularly with Christian organizations, I think this is a wise way to handle disputes. As you stated, SWBTS may have pulled the trigger quickly. I won’t restate my argument above, but if this issue is of such a concern to Southwestern and they move to take back property from a local Baptist association (who they are in otherwise “friendly” relationship with), then I think they should be consistent — under their own autonomy — with their values and beliefs by refusing to take any money from the churches of the Tarrant Baptist Association unless and until the seminary and association are once again in “theological harmony.”
As to whether SWBTS’s actions “violate” autonomy, I would stand by my assertion that they certainly seem (at this point) to be assaulting autonomy. We may have to agree to disagree on that point. Thanks again for the dialogue. God bless,
Howell
I want to thank Howell Scott for his bold effort to call the hand of SWBTS for its naked aggression on the matter of church autonomy, whatever the legal arrangement. The issue of ecclesiology is paramount, the right of the local church, association, etc., to govern themselves is at stake here. I also appreciate the comment of Louis regard the Tennessee Baptist convention and Belmont College. What that boiled down to in essence is that the Trustees stole a college and got away with it on the cheap ($3 Million as opposed to $60 million). Unfortunately, Baptists seem to lack the intestinal fortitude to stick it out until the matter is worked through and resolved, regardless of the howls of the unthinking public. SWBTS’ naked power grab is obvious, and I feel so much the better to see Conservatives who have the wherewithal to tackle the issue. A lot of our folks do not know their doctrines well enough to realize what is being done in particular cases. I think we are being set up for a great dissolution act, and then the folks waiting in the wings will step in and take open control of the nations and its religion. Mr. Scott you give me hope that Baptists might well wake up. When they do, we will have our Thrid Great Awakening for which I have been praying since the spring of 1973. The fact that the enemies of the Faith are becoming so bold as to rule praying in Jesus name out of order in governmenal institutions while allowing appeals to Allah or to some pagan deities points to likelihood of that Awakening being near. Satan gets really nervous, when he perceives that he is about to lose a great slice of his kingdom. How about every soul on earth being savingly converted in this generation and then for 999 more – for a grand total of 1000. Cf.I Chronicles 16:15? God is not noted for wasting His breath. Thank you, dear brother.
Dr. Willingham,
“God is not noted for wasting His breath.”
Great Comment!!!
Okay, Howell, I’m developing an opinion here. You tell me where I’m getting it wrong. (By the way, the interactions with you and Louis are fascinating to us legal laity).
I’m not sure this is an autonomy thing. Autonomy is the right of one organization to act without the control of another. SWBTS is not really trying to control TBA.
TBA can continue to fellowship as it pleases. It will just lose its office complex. Their autonomy is not abrogated, just their office space.
The issue to me is whether Dr. P and the SWBTS powers made a good-faith effort to resolve this whole thing. The actions as they are being presented seem to indicate a land-grab that is based more on a desire to take back possession of the land. Would this be happening if SWBTS had no usage for the land at issue?
Where am I seeing this wrong? Both SWBTS and TBA are autonomous institutions with the freedom to act according to their own will (hopefully by Christian principles). SWBTS is exercising its autonomy. TBA is still free to exercise theirs (just in a different office space).
To me, the issue is the intent of SWBTS and the ethics of their behavior.
Dave,
Who knew that this issue would be the one that Greg and I could agree on :-). You and I (and others) may disagree as to the intent, but there is most certainly an aspect of trying to exercise authority (i.e., control) over an autonomous Baptist body by the use of legal process to take back property and the building on said property. This is not just “their office space.” This is their property, deeded to them by the seminary. In the last 14 years, since the property was deeded to TBA, how much money has TBA invested in their property? What is the current value of the property now compared to 1997?
For the seminary, under the apparent conditions that have been alleged, to invoke a reversionary clause, strikes me as harsh to the extreme, particularly when the seminary has probably received CP funds and other contributions from TBA churches since the whole Broadway deal in 2009.
We may quibble with whether or not this violates the autonomy of the Tarrant Baptist Association. You and Louis may be technically correct that this is not about autonomy. At its heart, I believe this is an issue of autonomy. And the issue of control, per the SBC Constitution, only limits what the SBC (in this instance, an entity of the SBC) can do in terms of exercising authority.
If SWBTS is going to invoke what I would consider the “nuclear option” of reversion in this case (based upon not being in “theological harmony”), then they need to immediately sever all ties with TBA and refuse any gifts or CP funds flowing from this association. If they do not, that will show their hypocrisy in this matter. And, if Southwestern does not take this action, it may be time for the autonomous Tarrant Baptist Association and its churches to sever ties with Southwestern, including making sure no CP funds flow to the seminary. After all, if some of our prominent churches can designate their “Great Commission Giving,” then the 400 churches of the TBA can as well.
As a side comment on an issue that you and Greg have been discussing in the BP thread, isn’t it interesting how the SBC loves the money that flows from the BGCT and the BGAV (inclduing the missions offerings), but yet cooperating SBC churches in these two state conventions usually (never?) receive any appointments to the boards of the various entities. Iowa and New Mexico also have no representation on certain boards due to our limited size. Sure doesn’t stop anybody from taking our CP dollars. Maybe autonomous churches, associations, and state conventions should rethink their giving priorities in light of that. Just a thought. Interesting dialogue to be sure. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Who knew that this issue would be the one that Greg and I could agree on
Of course Greg agrees with you one this. It’s something negative about SWBTS. LOL
$5 says Don Quixote will chime in sometime. LOL
Dave,
“I’m not sure this is an autonomy thing. Autonomy is the right of one organization to act without the control of another. SWBTS is not really trying to control TBA.”
I’m going to have to disagree with you here… It appears to me that SWBTS is doing just that… “trying to control TBA.” There actions appear twofold to me: (1) to punish TBA, (2) to get the property back.
This issue does not just affect one church, it affects all the churches of the TBA and their right to deal with Broadway as they deem appropriate without undue influence or pressure from any outside group. I cannot believe that the majority of the churches in the TBA look favorable upon the actions of SWBTS. And as one who can tell you from experience, Baptist Churches have very long memories. This can only be bad for the relationship between SWBTS and these churches for years to come… probably long after those at SWBTS who made this decision are retired or moved on. This is a public relations disaster for SWBTS!
You do bring up a very important question… Where is Dr. Patterson in all of this?
It think I remember reading somewhere that SWBTS and TBA have had strained relations for quite some time now??? Is this just the latest volley in an ongoing battle???
Autonomy: the quality or state of being self-governing. (Webster’s Online)
I agree with those who question whether this term really applies. Call it “putting pressure” on another entity or even offering a “strong-armed, bullying ultimatum” but I fail to see how anyone is losing their right to make decisions about their own organization.
As a Southwestern alum, I always thought it very strange to have such a liberal Baptist Church right next to such a conservative Baptist Seminary. It’s a very peculiar juxtaposition. I think in fairness to the Seminary, their real quarrel is not with the other 399 churches, but really it’s only with Broadway.
I can see the autonomy thing both ways here. TBA is being strong-armed, as Rick says. But technically, their autonomy is not being violated.
However, I remain with a sense that this is not being done right.
These are great discussions, conducted among gentlemen. What a compliment to this blog.
There is a significant issue being discussed here. But the words, and meaning of words are getting confused.
Sure. SWBTS is trying to pressure Tarrant to act in a way that pleases SWBTS. That is the result of the contractual relationship that they each voluntarily entered, autonomously. How Tarrant reacts to this pressure is (will be) an autonomous act of Tarrant.
This type issue came up when I was serving on a board of an agency of the SBC back in the early 1990s. CBF had just started. CBF was still giving some money to some SBC causes, but excluding certain agencies, including the one that I served on.
We were asked what we (the agency) intended to do with the money that CBF was sending us.
CBF’s goal at the time was to convince as many SBC churches to give to the CBF, which would then turn around and give to SBC missions, but not things like seminaries and the Christian Life Commission. One of the CBF’s giving plans (I believe they had 3) was called by CBF the “Transitional Plan”. That plan had the most money being forwarded to the SBC. The other plans had less giving forwarded to the SBC.
The CBF eventually gave up on this giving scheme, and eventually started its own missions agency (ironically led by the former President of the IMB), and dropped the pretense that the CBF was for SBC missions, not just all the “bad stuff” (i.e. confessional theological seminaries etc.)
At any rate, at our trustee meeting where we were to decide what to do with the CBF money being sent to our agency, when such moneys were not being sent to the seminaries etc., I suggested that we NOT accept the money. I argued that it was clear what the CBF was trying to do – set up a designated giving system outside the SBC which would hopefully (to the CBF) put pressure on the seminaries and other “bad” agencies (in CBF eyes), and that accordingly, we should send the money back because accepting it hurt our sister agencies and the SBC as a whole.
Now, some would suggest that the CBF was assaulting the SBC’s autonomy by enacting this scheme. I say – not so. The CBF was just trying to persuade the SBC to behave in a certain way, and was using money to try and achieve that. That is NOT an assault on autonomy. Any more than it is for one restaurant to lower the price of its hamburgers, or raise the rent of a competitor restaurant (if it is the landowner). It’s just two organizations relating.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Say John Baugh’s estate gives Tarrant a brand new office building. And then Tarrant goes to all of the churches in the association and bad mouth’s SWBTS for it’s stand on some issue or the way it behaves, and it convinces the association’s churches to issue a censure of, or stop giving to SWBTS until it changes its position on an issue.
In those reverse circumstances, Tarrant would NOT be assaulting the autonomy of SWBTS. SWBTS is still free, independent and beyond the control of Tarrant. Sure, SWBTS would feel the pressure brought by Tarrant, but that would not be an assault on SWBTS’s autonomy.
In our case back at the SBC agency, when I made my suggestion, that we refuse the money – send it back to the CBF, some wise acre objected and said I would be assaulting the autonomy of all those churches that gave through the CBF giving plan.
I said not so. Those churches are still free to do as they please. Just as our agency is free to do as we please. There is not an autonomy issue at stake. The world “autonomy” was being used by my detractor because he was a CBF supporter and did not like my idea, and by using the word “autonomy” he thought he could confuse enough trustees to be complicit in the CBF scheme to hurt the seminaries and other agencies.
When I made my argument, he became apoplectic and said that he hoped our board hasn’t been infested with a conservative plant, or something of that sort. Up until that time, we had very good relations. Ironically, we do today. After a few years of CBF performance, he came around. But at the time he suffered from the same angry spirit that characterized so many of the early moderate leaders. The President of our agency at the time was a moderate, but he could see my point, and he could see that the other guy was out of line, as did the other trustees.
So, I think what I would like to say is that is more accurate to argue that SWBTS is being unwise, or unfair, or some other description, that to pull the “autonomy” card. That word has a very specific meaning and history.
The meaning of that word should not be “stretched to Texas” to make it include any pressure that one group might put on another.
Otherwise, every transaction or relationship where commercial pressure can be brought to bear would be called an “assault on autonomy” when it is not.
As an example – when I told my daughter that she could go to our in-state University, and I would buy her a new car, or she could go to Auburn (as she has chosen) and I would NOT buy her a new car, I would be assaulting her autonomy.
I am just trying to be a good dad and use my resources wisely and influence her decisions, if possible.
But I am NOT trying to assault her autonomy.
Louis,
Thanks for your well thought out response. You almost persuade me regarding the “autonomy” issue in this case.:-) However (and you knew there would be a however), I may concede (for the sake of this argument) that what Southwestern is attempting is not a technical violation of Tarrant’s autonomy, but rather at its heart is an assault on their autonomy.
Perhaps I could have used the word “bullied” or “strong-armed” or “putting pressure” on (as some have suggested), but the outcome is still the same. I’m not sure anyone would or should feel any better to believe that SWBTS is not guilty of assaulting Tarrant’s autonomy, but instead is just a big bully using its powers to get what it wants.
I guess the question that we can ask is if Southwestern is attempting to “exercise any authority over any other Baptist body,” in violation of the SBC constitution? Does this exercise of authority have to be done in a specific way to be outside the bounds of our governing documents? Can this be an indirect move to exercise authority? All in all, whether SWBTS is assaulting TBA’s autonomy or just being the schoolyard bully, I think their reported behavior falls far short of what any of us should expect of a Christian (and Southern Baptist) entity. Thanks again and God bless,
Howell
Howell, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about all this. Did SWBTS or Dr. Patterson do any kind of resolution before the letter? Did they give SWBTS a chance to change things, tell them what is wrong and how they could make it right?
Was an attempt made to resolve things, or was the first contact the announcement that they were taking back the property?
Dave,
I wish that I did have more knowledge of the facts surrounding this case, but I do not. From what I have been able to gather through the reporting on this issue, including the interview with Al Meredith and the letter he sent to the pastors of the Tarrant Baptist Association in response to Southwestern’s letter, it appears that this was not something that was discussed with association officials prior to the initial letter being received.
In response to your question, it does not appear that any effort was made to resolve this issue prior to the seminay trying invoke the reversionary clause.From Meredith’s quotes in the ABP article, Meredith and two other officials from TBA met Dr. Patterson 10 days after receipt of the letter to discuss the situation. I would think (but do not know for certain) that if TBA had received any prior communication (verbal or written) prior to the December 10 registered letter being received, that it would have been stated in the article. It may turn out that steps were taken to resolve this.
It is interesting to note that at that meeting, the three TBA officials apparently conveyed to Dr. Patterson “information he did not have when the original December 10 letter was delivered.” I can only speculate, but was that information relating to the arbitration clause reportedly contained in the agreement whereby SWBTS could not unilaterally invoke the reversionary clause?
As I am not privy to the letters sent by the seminary to TBA on December 10, 2010 and January 18, 2011. I have been very careful to avoid naming individuals in this case. I would be curious to see who signed the original letter. Was it an attorney for the seminary or was it a seminary official? From my legal and pastoral vantage point — as an outsider looking in — the way that this has been handled by the seminary does not make any sense thus far. I’m not saying that there is not some reasonable explanation for how SWBTS has gone about this, but at this point, there just seems to be more than meets the eye. Thanks for the good questions. God bless,
Howell
Update…
http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=7204&issue=1/25/2011
There is an article in Baptist Press, actually covering the dispute between Southwestern and the Tarrant Association.
Looks like someone is listening – OR READING.