This post was orginally published on Howell’s blog, From Law to Grace.
Yes Man: a person who agrees with everything that is said; especially: one who endorses or supports without criticism every opinion or proposal of an associate or superior (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Throughout recorded history, we have always had “yes men” (and women too), those people who simply refused to ask any questions — much less the hard questions — of those in leadership. Given our human nature, that is completely understandable. After all, who wants to be seen as “difficult” or “divisive?” Those who dare to ask any questions often find themselves not only with less benefits, but also on the outside looking in. Not an enviable position to be in, to be sure.
Perhaps because of my legal background but, more likely because of my personal upbringing, I have never been accused of being a “yes man.” My dad, who served on the town council and as mayor of my hometown, Lake Placid, FL, always distrusted “yes men.” He saw his fair share in the political arena, but, unfortunately, he also ran across a good number of “yes men” within the church. These “yes men,” whether or not they held formal positions of power within the church, were good at protecting the pastor from the slightest criticism or questioning. No one in leadership, even pastors, likes to be criticized. However, when we surround ourselves with “yes men,” we often end up making unwise decisions because we did not allow the hard questions to be asked, which in hindsight, might have saved us much grief and heartache.
There will always be a long line of “yes men” who will gladly agree with and never question the opinions, beliefs, and even actions of their leaders. That is simply a reality. However, every leader — from pastors of churches of all sizes to CEOs of Corporations to Presidents of SBC Entities — can either encourage or discourage the “yes men” mentality. Unfortunately, our culture, including the culture within the Southern Baptist Convention, seems to be encouraging, rather than discouraging, “yes men.” Why should this be the case, particularly within a religious organization of churches such as the SBC?
Could the answer to that question lie somewhere in the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention has morphed from a servant-leader model of ministry to a CEO-leader model of ministry? And, when I say CEO, I’m not talking “Chief Encouragement Officer.” It seems that more and more pastors — regardless of the actual size of their congregations — are “running” their churches more like a business than the body of Christ. These leaders surround themselves with “yes men” and even a few “yes women.” If you want to stay in the inner circle, you give unquestioning loyalty to the pastor. (I’ve even known of a few churches who require some sort of written loyalty oath pledge of allegiance to pastoral authority in order to be eligible to serve in any position within the church.) If and when you begin to question, your time on the inside (and perhaps even the church — see here) will quickly come to an end.
What’s wrong with this picture? Quite simply, our unquestioning loyalty should be to Jesus Christ and to the protection and safeguarding of His church, not to a particular person, not even the pastor. Scripture is clear that we should submit to our leaders and should not bring any “accusation” against the pastors/elders without at least two or three witnesses. However, we cannot misuse and contort that Biblical principle to mean that any questions — even hard questions — are off-limits. Leaders, particularly in the GCR-era of “transparency” (the real kind as opposed to what has been practiced by the SBC establishment — here, here, and here), should not hide from questions, but rather should welcome a wide latitude of questions. After all, leaders who have nothing to hide should not only practice transparency, but should live above reproach.
These same principles should apply to the entities of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Trustees of each of our entities should not serve out of unquestioning loyalty to the Presidents of these institutions, but rather should serve with unquestioning loyalty to Jesus Christ and to the protection and safeguarding of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. The title “Trustee” carries with it a sacred obligation to serve the interests of the churches of the Convention, not the interests of the President of a particular entity, be it the oldest seminary or the youngest seminary. In fact, Trustees are nominated with this very principle in mind:
“The (Nominating) committee shall recognize the principle that the persons it recommends shall represent the constituency of the Convention, rather than the staff of the entity.” (SBC ByLaws, Section 15E)
Our Trustees would do well to remember that their constituency is the churches that comprise the Southern Baptist Convention. Churches of all sizes. Churches with celebrity pastors and churches with pastors that no one really knows. Churches that send ten messengers to the Annual Convention and churches who don’t send any messengers to the Annual Convention. Traditional churches and contemporary churches. Older churches and new church plants.
There was a time in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention when the Trustees of the various entities ignored the will of the majority of churches. Instead of representing the majority constituency, these Trustees, particularly at our seminaries, acted on behalf of an elite minority of the churches. When this abuse of power continued unabated, the Conservative Resurgence was born and accountability was eventually restored via the grassroots churches of the Convention. If the SBC’s leaders — and their “yes men” enablers — continue to act on behalf of an elite minority, don’t be surprised when a second Conservative Resurgence (and the GCR wasn’t it) — led by grassroots pastors and lay folk — emerges to restore accountability to the entities that are supposed to SERVE the churches of the SBC!
Howell,
Great post, and a great venue to post it ;^)
With that, I am…
Peter
You know, when I took issue with Jerry Vines’ recent statements regarding Calvinism in the SBC, a certain squad leader and his squad really took offense that I dare question the good Dr.’s wisdom and perspective. Guess I should have just been a “yes man!” ;^)
Joshua,
Excuse me? A) How you managed to squeeze a response like the above out of my little bitty comment no gifted logician could explain; B) Squad leader? And, might who my “squad” be?; C) “Took offense”? Well, no. I merely showed how your interpretation of Vines was non sequitur. Hopefully, when you decide to criticize sober statements in the future, you’ll be a bit more careful.
With that, I am…
Peter
I know I can always count on the “sobriety” of your statements Peter. ;^)
Peter, at this venue, I try to make sure that a wide range of viewpoints is heard. It’s pretty clear that I disagree with Howell’s perspective here. But I encouraged him to post it.
That is how we do it.
Dave,
Not sure why the response, Dave. Like Joshua above, you may be loading more onto my comment than the comment can carry. Even so, disagree with what? Are saying you do not believe there is an animal we could call “‘yes’ men”? And, I may have to read the piece again, but I did not read anyone one’s name in the piece nor did I see where Howell mentioned SBC Voices as the brunt of his criticism. It seems again, there may be some reading not only into my brief little comment but also into Howell’s post. I’ll be glad to stand corrected.
With that, I am…
Peter
Howell,
I’ve served the SBC in two formal capacities so far.
First, I served on the Committee on Committees one year. That was a venue that looked a bit more like a collection of “yes men.” The final stage of that process, the selection of officers for the Committee on Nominations, took place in a hotel meeting room among a group of people who had never been in a room together and would never be in a room together again this side of Heaven. They had not been permitted, prior to entering that room, to know who would be nominated to the Committee on Nominations, so there was no opportunity for prayer or thoughtfulness, but they had to select officers from within that committee to lead that committee before leaving the room. When people are ill-prepared and uninformed, they tend to follow whoever offers leadership.
Second, I serve as one of the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. “Yes men” is the last phrase I would ever consider using to describe THAT process. There are diverse opinions. The meetings can run long sometimes. People fearlessly speak their minds. Decisions are often the result of negotiation and compromise. I hope that my testimony will be an encouragement to you.
Bart,
I appreciate you sharing your experiences and testimony. I have no doubt that some of our SBC entities have less “yes men” while others seem to have more. In any organization — whether at the local church level or at a national entity level — you will have leaders who will — because of their personalities and leadership styles — encourage a “yes men” and seek to surround themselves with such folk. You will also have leaders, whether local church pastors or an entity Presidents, who will encourage dialogue and discussion (as has been your experience). Negotiation and compromise are not always a bad thing. If some of our current leaders remembered that, we might not have some of the difficulties that appear to keep festering. Thanks again for your perspective and God bless,
Howell
Bart,
it would seem to me that the Committee on Committees would by its nature be more of a “yes man” mentality because those are appointed by the President to then select the Committee on Nominations who then select and present trustee appointments etc. to the convention for approval. While I am not sure the “yes man” mentality is an accurate moniker, it would seem to me that this group would be more in agreement than lets say a trustee might of an entity.
The dynamics and make up of the two groups and the relative responsibilities of each would seem to me to more accurately reflect your experience as opposed to the make up of the committees themselves.
Just an observation on your comment.
><>”
Bob,
I didn’t articulate my point very well. The reason why the Committee on Committees degenerated into a “yes man” approach was simply because the format does not permit any committee member to be prepared to participate in the process of selecting officers for the Committee on Nominations. It is not because of the way that they are selected, but because of some of the sub-optimal procedural aspects of the task.
Howell, I have a couple questions: 1) Did the CR bring about such transparency? I’m asking because what you’re calling for concerning financial transparency, hasn’t happened in years upon years to my knowledge. Have the various SBC entities ever shared how much their heads make? 2) What current examples are there of “yes-men” in the SBC today?
Jared,
Thanks for the questions. I am not going to “name names,” but I would say, if the shoe fits, wear it. As to financial transparency, we still do not know how much OUR entity heads make. When financial information for other large, well-known charities and non-profits is available with the click of a button on your web browser, you would think that this information would be readily available for the constituent churches of the SBC. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
What would a second conservative-resurgence look like today? What do you mean by a 2CR?
Jared,
There’s no doubt that the first CR had leaders. However, what distinguishes the first CR with the GCR and what would likewise characterize a second CR is that it was a grassroots-led movement of pastors and lay folk in the churches who were taking on the entrenched establishment. The entities were being led by folks who, in appearance and reality, were taking actions that were contrary to the sentiments of a majority of Southern Baptists. (I suppose we could quibble about how one defines a “majority of Southern Baptists,” but I would say that less than 3,000 messengers in Phoenix passing a resolution on amnesty would probably not be the best way to do it.)
Likewise, just because folks in the pre-CR days had control of the entities and the Trustee Boards did not automatically mean that they were governing in a way that represented the majority of Southern Baptists at the time. From my vantage point (which could admittedly be wrong and/or off base), it seems that some SBC leaders are taking actions which may not represent the majority of Southern Baptists. Even though they control the Trustee Boards (through legal means), that control does not in and of itself translate into majority support.
Therefore, a second CR, if it were to happen, must bubble up from the grassroots level. The leaders of a second CR will come from pastors and lay folk who believe that the current establishment has not only veered off course, but continues to govern in such a way that dismisses the concerns of a large segment of the SBC constituency. My answer could probably form the basis of a stand-alone post, but hope that helps. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I’m not sure if that is completely accurate, Howell. First, calling the CR a grassroots movement is a little bit of historical revisionism. I would say the GCR and the CR were actually very much alike.
*Yes, there was general dissatisfaction with the direction of the SBC.
*The impetus of the CR was men who met together and made a plan to change things. Patterson. Pressler. Criswell. Rogers. Several others. Men of power and influence met and planned the movement.
*The majority of Baptists rose up and supported the movement. It was grassroots in that the majority got behind it.
The GCR followed a similar track.
*Many expressed a concern about the direction of the convention.
*A group of influential people met to plan a new course.
*Actually, the GCR was more grassroots in that approval was sought for the establishment of the task force.
*The majority of Baptists have consistently voted in favor of the GCR and related ideas.
And, before anyone brings up the sealed documents, let me give my impression. Things today are much more open and transparent than they were in the days of the CR. Everything there was done in secret and we voted to support it because we agreed with the direction.
The CR was more “top-down” than the GCR.
I think you have engaged in some historical revisionism here, Howell.
Dave,
There is in one sense a way that Howell is right here. Maybe you both are right in some ways. It is true that leaders did appear. You named some, but certainly not all.
Those leaders were able to get something moving early because a great and I mean great number of “grassroots” pastors and laymen were simply tired of what was going on in the entities. Maybe one way to look at what happened is to get the picture of a volcano that finally erupted. Think Mt. Saint Helens.
Dave,
“Historical revisionism”? That’s pretty strong, it seems to me. Besides it’s dead wrong, if you mean by that that the CR was not a grassroots accomplishment. I’m surprised our good friend, CB, let you get away with that by suggesting “both are right in some ways.” Moreover you’re making much more out of the supposed “similarities” between the CR and the GCR than can reasonably be accepted.
Fundamentally, the CR was an outside movement whereas the GCR has been from the beginning an inside operation. Not a single CR leader had power within the denominational infrastructure. The GCR has been fueled primarily by all denominational leaders, including the most powerful, influential voices being entity heads. The CR’s strategy was to change the system by changing the trustees who have been representative of the grassroots. The GCR strategy has been to change the SBC by using powerful voices of the upper denominational elites. I could go on and on with this. The two are so fundamentally different, it’s surprising someone who actually lived through both (Dave & CB) could suggest the two focuses are so much alike. The CR was Southern Baptists arguing against those who controlled SBC denominational stings, telling them “we don’t want to be who you have led us to be”. The GCR is led mainly by denominational employees telling Southern Baptists you need to be who we think you need to be. In a strange sort of déjà vu way, today’s GCRTF defenders sound like the pre-CR days when the moderate/liberal denominational elites told us ignorant Southern Baptists that whether we liked it or not, we will be who they say we will be.
No substantial difference? Think again.
With that, I am…
Peter
And all the evidence is that the current direction of the SBC leadership does represent the majority. If the name is changed, it will be because the majority approves it (twice). The GCR passed because a strong majority of Southern Baptists voted for it. Bryant Wright was elected by a majority.
I just don’t buy the whole “majority Baptists” thing. The majority of Baptists have not vote for what the “Majority Baptists” claim is the majority position in several years.
Good or bad? Well, that is where we differ, my friend.
Dave,
First, I you do have me beat when it comes to first-hand experience with the CR, since you are considerably older than me 😉 I’m not the least bit surprised that you would say that the CR and the GCR are “very much alike.” However, just because you (and others) keep repeating that mantra does not make it so. Of course Patterson, Pressler, Criswell, and Rogers were men of power and influence. No one is denying that. But, could you refresh my memory as to what entities these men led at the prior to and in the early days of the CR movement?
I won’t rehash the GCR Task Force and its authorization and approval. I was one of the 95% who voted in favor of its creation in Louisville. I can’t speak for anyone else, but had I known who the Chairman of that Task Force would be and what the real agenda (not necessarily the Great Commission) would do, I most certainly would have voted against even the creation of the Task Force.
To try to argue that the CR was more “top-down” than the GCR is to use different definitions of “top-down” and “grassroots.” I’m afraid it would be fruitless to dialogue on that point as we would be speaking two different languages. I will grant you that a strong majority of messengers to the Annual Meeting in Orlando voted for the GCRTF Report. A strong majority of the 3,000 messengers in Phoenix voted for a resolution that seems to endorse amnesty for illegal immigrants. If you and others want to continue to argue that these types of votes are representative of the majority of the 16 million Southern Baptists in 45,000+ churches, then I can’t dissuade you. Of course, you may be the type of person who believes that Barack Obama’s majority vote election (popular and electoral college) win in 2008 automatically means that the majority of Americans actually support him 🙂
Elections have consequences. I readily admit that I may be “all wet” when it comes to my interpretation of the SBC political landscape. There may not be a second CR nor any strong opposition to the establishment come New Orleans. Time will tell. But, those who fail to study history (revised or no) will be doomed to repeat it. Things should be interesting between now and New Orleans. Look forward to the spirited debate that is sure to follow. God bless,
Howell
‘I was one of the 95% who voted in favor of its creation in Louisville. I can’t speak for anyone else, but had I known who the Chairman of that Task Force would be and what the real agenda (not necessarily the Great Commission) would do, I most certainly would have voted against even the creation of the Task Force.”
Me, too.
I will ignore your shot about my age and avoid assigning you views to youth and immaturity. Whippersnapper.
My point is that pretty much every key vote for 5-6 years has gone against those who claim to be Majority Baptists.
One comment bothers me a lot. Are you accusing the leaders of the GCR task force of some kind of hidden, unspoken agenda? That is a serious charge against their integrity if I am understandong your words. Do you not believe that these folks were motivated by the Great Commission and a desire to see the SBC prosper?
What are you claiming was the real agenda of the GCR?
Dave,
As to the “real” agenda of the GCR, I don’t know because I am not privy to conversations and private strategy meetings that may or may not have taken place. All I can tell you is what I believed (and Lydia confirmed this in her comment) was presented as a “Great Commission Resurgence” to motivate and encourage the churches within the SBC to fulfill the Great Commission morphed into a major — some might even say radical — overhaul of the structures of the Convention. I would dearly love to know what was discussed in the Task Force meetings, but we will have to wait another 13 years for those records to be unsealed.
Just as there was an “agenda” for the CR — most of which was organized behind closed doors (which is part of the legitimate political process), so there appears to have been an agenda at work to implement a radical (Bryant Wright’s words) redefinition of the SBC. I do not believe that those who have worked to accomplish what has come to be known as the GCR are evil or immoral. For the sake of argument, I would like to believe that most of the establishment leaders are motivated by a sincere desire to fulfill the Great Commission. I just happen to believe that they are sincerely wrong in their approach and, if left unchecked, their approach will lead to the destruction and not prosperity of the SBC. That’s why I and others continue to speak out, even when it would be easier to shut up and go away. Lastly, I do believe that many within the GCR movement — like those leaders in the CR before them — know how to play hardball politics. That is a reality. Hope that helps clarify my earlier comment. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
That is the issue here, of course.
When the leaders met in secret to plan the CR, I cheered them on because I was in support of the effort.
I think the GCR was mostly right on target. I agree with the aims of the GCR. The SBC needed a shot in the arm. While I am no longer willing to just blindly support things, I am willing to give them a shot to implement their vision, since I agree in general with it.
I would no longer put up with some of the stuff that I put up with during the CR – perhaps because I’ve become more cynical, or maybe I’ve just grown up. But I think our leaders right now are taking us in the right direction.
Dave,
I am sorely confused at one point. You said, “The GCR passed because a strong majority of Southern Baptists voted for it.” Are you refering to the vote in Louisville or the vote in Orlando? I was at both. The vote in Orlando was anything BUT a majority who voted for it. The fact is, the first vote looked to me to fail and Johnny Hunt did some serious footwork and some statements were made and a vote taken and the gavel dropped, and it was over.
Funny thing happened immediately following that move; a big group of folks got up and headed out of the convention center where the vote had just taken place. If I my memory serves me correct, Wright’s election was the next act of business.
I realize the publicity and the press reports do not reflect what I just stated but I have two eyes when my contacts are in and am a pretty good of hands in the air… the vote was as close to a 50/50 split as one could get, from where I sat.
><>”
Bob, I was there as well. I’d have estimated it somewhere nearer to 60-40 from over on the far side where I was, but it was close enough that ballot numbers would have been better.
Howell,
Could you elaborate on your thoughts concerning the “veering off course” in the following statement: “The leaders of a second CR will come from pastors and lay folk who believe that the current establishment has not only veered off course, but continues to govern in such a way that dismisses the concerns of a large segment of the SBC constituency.”
Thanks.
><>”
Bob,
Thanks for the question. I would say “veered off course” means a radical restructuring of the Convention so that it has more of a top-down denominational organization whereby the establishment dictates to the “ignorant grassroot masses” (see Marty’s comment below for how some view the grassroots), where money contributed by the cooperating churches of the SBC through CP and Annie Armstrong are given to “sending churches” to plant dually aligned churches less than a mile away from existing churches, and where anyone who questions the leaders of OUR entities is written off as some sort of nut or divisive person. That’s just off the top of my head this morning.
At some point, what I believe is a majority of the cooperating SBC churches (i.e., those who actually give more than a pittance to CP, Lottie, and Annie) will say, “enough is enough.” But, the second CR, like the first, will not be led by the people in power, but by the people in the pulpits and pews of the churches. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Thanks for the response. I am one of those who is saying “enough is enough” and am sending NAMB for instance $1 for Annie Armstrong and perhaps the balance to the IMB. My prayer is that the people in the pew will wake up and do exactly what you indicate needs to be done and I am doing what I can to encourage as many as will to do so, hopefully in New Orleans.
><>”
Howell, do you encourage this type of response? Did your church give to the IMB this past year; and are you giving to the NAMB this Easter?
Bob, way to punish the missionaries. So, you don’t agree with how things are being done exactly. Unless you can prove your argument biblically, that the NAMB and IMB are in sin, I don’t think you have a good enough reason to withhold giving. Sure, you’re free to do so, but understand that the missionaries and missions are who and what will suffer.
Jared,
As to your first question, I would encourage each autonomous church, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, to be good stewards of the money that God has entrusted to them and to give as they have purposed 🙂
As to your second and third questions, yes, our church strongly supports the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions. Will will, for now, continue to support the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions. This year, we will probably keep the same goal for the NAMB offering as last year. Our church typically leads our Local Association in giving to both of these offerings. I don’t say that to boast, but just to clarify our past and present support for IMB and NAMB.
However, depending on what NAMB does in the future, I cannot say with certainty that our contributions would remain the same or go up. They could well go down. Hypothetically speaking, if NAMB were to 1)start funding “sending churches” (with Annie and CP money) in the Southeast who planted new churches in the Southwest that were dually aligned with the SBC and, let’s say, a non-SBC church planting network and, 2)these new churches were started without so much as a courtesy consultation with the local Association or State Convention and, 3) these new churches were planted within blocks of an existing SBC church, then, under these hypothetical circumstances, I could see the church I pastor and other churches in a particular state change how they “partner” with NAMB, including how much money they give. That may not be a good enough reason for you and others to freely decide how to spend the resources that God has entrusted to a local, autonomous church, but it will be good enough reason for us and for countless other churches. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Hello Howell,
you mention the ‘hard questions’
what ‘hard questions’ do you think need to be asked?
Howell,
At the risk of defeating your purpose, because you so clearly get it, I am tempted to express my strong agreement with your piece with the gesture of a fist pump and an exclamation of “Yes!”
Rick
I suspect that 99% of Trustees don’t think they are yes men. But, like an episode of Jaywalking, I suspect a good 75% don’t understand that Trustees have the primary legal responsibility to make sure the institution is managed correctly.
So they have the wrong inertia. As a group, they are responsible to prove to themselves that the CEO is doing the right thing. Instead, many assume they should defend the CEO (even against other Trustees!) until there is proof the CEO has done something wrong.
Balancing oversight and delegation is hard. But Presidents are not pastors. Agencies are not churches. Trustees are not deacons or elders. Confusing the jobs makes our agencies (and churches) weaker.
Great topic, Howell.
One church I was in had a history of Mason pastors. That set-up created a very political atmosphere in the church and in the business meetings. You could tell the decision was already made when the business meeting started. Roberts Rules of Order is just a guideline for our business. When the pastor has to throw out the additional title/power he thinks he has called ex-officio, you know you are in the wrong church.
Another pastor was setting up the structure of the church. He had all the backing he needed with the pile of books he had on his desk and several “yes-men” sitting around in his office. In Texas, we call them “the good ol boys”. We were submitted a flow chart with the little boxes and lines drawn to each “Team” of people who made up the group. Of course, the single box above all the teams said, “Pastor”. A pile of them were left on the counter and I took my Marks-a-lot and drew through the “pastor” and in bold letters wrote “JESUS CHRIST”. Later that night the pastor and his wife were entertaining a class reunion at the church when one of them happened to discover my revision. I didn’t desire them to find anything like that, however, the CEO failed to let the church know what he was doing.
This subject should be taught to our churches so people know what to look for if they ever have to relocate or try to find another church. The pastor has to create in the church a trust in God rather than a trust in a position.
Again, a great post.
When leaders lead the grassroots you get the CR and the GCR. When the grassroots lead the leaders you get Disney boycotts, Resolution 5 and Mark Driscoll denunciations.
You, sir, are an elitist. The CR happened without any leaders leading or any followers following. It remains the greatest accident of recent religious history.
Stuart: I’m glad somebody in this comment thread still has a sense of humor. Tip of the hat, sir.
Bahaha. Nice.
Does it seem a little surreal, Marty, to be viewed as a yes-man to the elites.
I remember a time when I wasn’t completely comfortable with you and the SBC Outpost guys and the force of your criticisms against Paige et al.
I still suspect you and the Littleton boys of being behind the satire site SBC Too Dazed. None of you will cop to it, though.
*places hand on Bible (HCSB)* I had nothing to do with SBC Too Dazed.
Well, as long as the Bible was an HCSB, I guess I’ll have to believe you!
“When leaders lead the grassroots you get the CR and the GCR. When the grassroots lead the leaders you get Disney boycotts, Resolution 5 and Mark Driscoll denunciations”
Whaddya gonna do when the ignorant peasants are allowed to speak and make motions? Seems lots of other peasants voted for those things, too, or they would not have happened. I am still freaking out over how many “educated” people voted for Obama and a vague notion of ‘hope and change”. Oh well.
I guess the only alternative is less democracy? Less Priesthood of believer and more caste system priests?
Lydia, that is a wild twisting of what Marty said.
“Well you know, it turns out that, um, our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes” — President Obama on 6 Feb in interview with Matt Lauer
(sarcasm on) If only we let the elites tell us what to think, we would be in much better shape! Those in the grassroots don’t know how to do anything but pass idiotic resolutions. They don’t know how to govern. Leave it to the professionals. (sarcasm off) The similarities in governing philosophies between elites in the SBC and elites in Washington, D.C. — particularly President Obama — is uncanny. I appreciate Marty’s comment for reminding us of that fact. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell, that’ s where I think you go off the rails. The call for transparency, for openness among our leaders – I will give that a solid amen.
But calling our leaders “ruling elites” and comparing them to the imperial president just stretches reality.
What he is saying is that this is the way our system works. We don’t sit at the convention in silence until the congregation feels led in a certain direction. OUr leaders lead us and then we vote. Thus it has always been. That is the way it is supposed to be.
Dave,
We will again have to agree to disagree. You read Marty one way — I read him another. I don’t think he was trying to argue that the “system works” (but, that’s a nice try). My interpretation of what he wrote is, “When the grassroots lead, you get Wiley Drake (Disney Boycotts) and the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association (Mark Driscoll) — wink, wink, and we all know how THOSE people are. But, when we let real leaders lead, we get the CR and the GCR.” I thought he was pretty clear in what he thought, but maybe I (and Lydia)misinterpreted. It does happen 🙂
Marty has never been anyone’s yes-man. He was part of the original blogging group that expressed dissent from the authoritarian direction of the SBC leadership, when there was truly an imperial leadership in the SBC.
Things have changed so much in the right direction, largely as a result of Marty and others like him and the battles they fought, which often got ugly.
There is greater openness and transparency now than there was back in 2005 and 2006. I will discuss this by email with you if you wish, but I’m not interested in reopening that can of worms here in public.
What is interesting is that some who are championing “dissent” now were the same ones who were telling us to “obey our leaders” back then.
There is just no way on this green earth that Marty is saying what you have interpreted him as saying. He is saying that we elect leaders because we believe they can lead us and then we consider what they say. He is not saying that our elites are to be allowed to rule without accountability.
There is a difference between leading and ruling. And the beauty of leadership vs rule is that we get to decide whether to follow. Marty is right on this.
If you knew Marty Duren (who was one of the leaders of the blogging movement back in the “dissent” days), you would realize how wrong your characterization of him is.
He is simply saying that the reason we have leaders is so that they will LEAD. They do not rule over us, they lead us. We either assent to that leadership or we oppose it.
But Marty is stating facts here. IF we we don’t want our leaders to lead, why do we elect them? They do not rule over us. Maybe a few forget that from time to time and use tactics that are inappropriate or manipulative.
All this just to say I think you are unfairly mischaracterizing what Marty is saying.
Just for clarity.
First, Dave thanks for the nice words. I want to be a “yes man” for the Lord. #JesusJuke
Second, my comment was intended to demonstrate that SBC is grassroots, but only to a degree. Both the CR and the GCR were grassroots efforts according to those who were there. But, both had visible leaders who were well known. It would have been impossible, for the plan designed by Bill Powell and adopted by Pressler and Patterson to have been solely grasssroots because it required presidential appointments. As has been noted, the committee on committees, and the committee on nominations that were appointed for 25 years were all “yes men,” but they were all yes men (and women) to the cause and the president.
The GCR, as Dave noted, grew, at least partially, from a grassroots efforts of bloggers, pastors and others who voiced opinions and concerns. Although Danny Akin preached an initial message from a leaders with 12 or 13 points, that banner was taken up by the grassroots and other leaders. This is typically how things get done in organizations as large as the SBC.
Is it possible for leadership abuse to take place? Uh, yeah.
As far as resolutions go, I stand by my words. Most of them serve to do nothing practically, and many others just make us look like self-righteous Pharisees.
Dr. Finn and I had a little debate about this a while back. If I were the Baptist Pope, resolutions would go the way of the dodo bird.
Ditto: Resolutions are a colossal waste of time at most, and an embarrassment at worst.
For the record, Dr. Finn had some pretty good arguments for the importance of resolutions in a convention such as ours.
But you are right that they are often embarrassing.
Getting to the party late.
Let me state that Marty Duren is no yes man. I have spent a good deal of time with Marty and I know he is no yes man unless you tell him dinner is on you. Then he is a yes man and then only as long as the meal lasts and until the bill is paid. 🙂
Seriously, in this comment Marty has made he is well on target. He mentions Bill Powell in relation to the CR. There are others as well. It was Bob Tenery who first called the movement the “Conservative Resurgence.” Tenery had as much to do with the CR being the “CR” as any man in the SBC at the time. There are others. The CR was going to happen. Too many people were tired of what was going on within the entities. Many people were making waves long before anyone in New Orleans had coffee.
As to the GCR and the “birthing” place and force behind it; Well, I’ll leave that history for younger men to write. Maybe one day they will. It was/is an amazing story.
Yes, and who voted for the presidential appointments?
Nor is it seriously addressed precisely how Pressler, Patterson, and others gained any momentum at all. Again it was through grassroots people. They had no power. Power was given to them. On the other hand, the GCR force was filed with power brokers already in places of influence. To imply it was bloggers who gave them their boost is absurd. Only someone who is himself or herself a blogger could spin out such a scenario of self-studied importance.
Hence once again, the CR was both a bottom up and outside looking in movement. Contrarily, the GCR has been a top down, inside looking out movement. It’s why, for example, it’s own adherents question its success (.i.e. Chuck Lawless).
With that, I am…
Peter
Criswell, Rogers and others were hardly men without influence. Of course, they were not in SBC entities, but they were in churches of influence.
And I did not say that “bloggers” changed things. I said that Marty and men like him did – those who opposed the excesses of the secret power brokers who were running amok in the SBC.
Strange phenomena, those “yes men”. One person’s “yes man” is another’s “loyal opposition”, no? Just depends on the particular leader or particular issue.
Proliferation? Hardly. We just don’t tend to notice them (or care) as much when we agree with them. (Or when we ARE them.)
“Things have changed so much in the right direction, largely as a result of Marty and others like him and the battles they fought, which often got ugly. ”
I am not sure I would say the right direction. Does that include sealing records for 15 years? That IS part of the direction no matter how one spins it. HOW we do things as important as what we do. We do not seem to ever learn that. So many want to ignore some serious negative truths. The direction is elitism. Only elites would dare do something like that and get by with it. And they are getting by with it because so many “yes” people are willing to say they don’t like it but do like the direction. Which makes no sense to me as it IS part of the direction. (Notice I include women in being yes men. :o)
Lydia-
Though I was almost entirely disengaged from SBC matters during that period of time, I did make the suggestion that all the GCR meetings should be open and live streamed. I thought the sealing of the records was a mistake. Even if all they did was have sentence prayer, it portrays things wrongly.
There were, if memory serves, two open meetings with questions from attendees and these were streamed. The secretiveness could have been handled better, I think, but there were also efforts at some openness.
Thanks for the info Marty. But “sealing records” has an alarming ring to it worthy of a John LeCarre novel. We now have “need to know” basis and security clearances in the SBC? Are the task force records in a safe buried in the mountains of Virginia?
It only makes one wonder what is in them that is so alarming they must be sealed for 15 years.
That is not supposed to be who we are. And, I am not sure I would ever hear a reason good enough to do such a thing from those who are supposed to believe in the Priesthood. For me, it IS part of the direction we are going. It is one of those actions we ignore at our own peril. Those sorts of activites tend to proliferate when they get by with it.
You do like singing that one note, don’t you?
“You do like singing that one note, don’t you?”
To me, it is middle C and cannot be ignored.
Why not argue the merits of sealing “SBC” task force meeting notes/minutes/ records and why it does not matter to the big picture or direction instead of implying I am a bore? I know I am a bore about it! :o)
This is a great article, although I think a couple years late. I beleive the present leadership is moving us more toward a “God Centered” ministry than has happened in the past.
There has been times in the past, where becuase a person did a great job in the field, they were appointed to the HMB and after they got there they started trying to figure out what tehy would do.
One of the areas I am finding in associations and churches is that we fail to find people with qualifications in the committee or postition we are appointing them to. I have found a serious deficiency in members of both the office and finance committee. “Good Old Boys” that have been in the association or church for years who have no earthly idea of accounting practices. May God help us to balance professionalism with Holiness in our leadership. God Bless