First of all, let me define my terms. I’m glad that people who are not able to attend the Annual Meeting of the SBC are able to live stream the proceedings and share their opinions on blogs and tweets and Facebook – that is great.
But there has been a big push in recent years to decentralize the SBC, either by having regional sites or by allowing people to be messengers and participate from their homes and offices via computer. I can understand why people say that.
It costs a lot of money to attend the convention and offsite participation would allow more people to be a part. If we simply want more people to attend, online and offsite electronic means are certainly the way.
I have some questions about the wisdom of that. It seems to me that regional or computer participation would have some drawbacks – opening the door to some registration and voting abuses. Hate to think that might happen, but it could.
But there is one primary reason I think the way we do it now is the better way. Of course, one of the reasons I love the SBC is the chance to fellowship with some folks I don’t get to see any other time. But there is another reason that is more important to me than that. It crystallized in my mind when someone asked me a question after having observed the way people tend to interact on blogs.
“When people get together at the SBC, do they behave better than they do on the blogs?”
The answer to that is generally yes. People simply behave better when they are face to face, in the same room, with flesh and blood people around them than they do when they are interacting on computers. I am afraid that if we gave up the face to face, in-the-same-room concept of SBC participation, we might regret it.
Do we want the general behavior of the blogs to become the standard of behavior for the SBC Annual Meeting? If the general tone of interaction on blogs is an indicator, then face to face is the way to go.
By the way, just for the record, the vast majority of bloggers and commenters are godly, restrained folks under self-control. Just wanted to make it clear I’m not indicting everyone. But there is enough trouble on blogs to make me wary.
I know there are some good arguments on the other side on this, and my argument will certainly not convince those committed to regional or online messenger participation, but I think we do better at seeking God’s will together when we are in the same room at the same place.
You are free to disagree. This is certainly not an issue I’m going to go to war about, but with all its problems and possibilities of abuse, I like the current system and hope it does not change.
Oh, when I’m in the nursing home, you young whippersnappers can change everything. But not now, okay?
I first heard this idea the other day and while a novel approach to improve participation, it is still a bad idea. To anyone in support of this, I would propose they make their own church business meetings available in the same way (shudder) I’m convinced that a group of disgruntled deacons are floating this revolutionary idea.
I would have absolutely no problem if my church decided to make our business meetings available online. Then again we have a very open and transparent church that does not try to limit participation to only a select few.
If a local church had only annual business meetings, then they should do whatever is possible to maximize participation. They certainly should not require long-distance travel and overnight hotel costs to participate in them.
If your church is building that high of a barrier to participate, then there are more than just disgruntled deacons to deal with.
That might not be a bad idea. Greater representation within the local church. Or if not greater representation, at least a greater representation of where the congregation actually stands.
Such a mechanism would also provide a filter. Only members of good standing in the church have electronic clearance to vote.
I disagree. As a bivo pastor of a small church my motivation for this idea is simply to allow myself and others in my position to be able to participate. I can not afford to pay (or take time off) to go to Houston and my church can not afford to send me. Also, if done correctly, I don’t think the participation would be like a blog (or blog comments) but rather closer to the interaction at the convention. I don’t think participation should be done form home or office (viewing only) but I see nothing wrong with allowing messengers… Read more »
I think I would be opposed, now, to individual online setups, but I think regional sites should be considered. After all, we’ve come to embrace that a local church does not have to be all in one place but can have “satellite” locations. Why cannot the Convention do the same? Again, I think the face-to-face element should occur, and it would be good to see some regional gatherings just to keep up with what is happening, but I think if you could bundle the livestream with just a few spots of input–voting on ballot-counted issues or something of that sort,… Read more »
…”Again, I think the face-to-face element should occur, and it would be good to see some regional gatherings just to keep up with what is happening, but I think if you could bundle the livestream with just a few spots of input–voting on ballot-counted issues or something of that sort, no “let’s go to microphone #143 in Tuscaloosa…” or any of that, you would get greater participation.” Exactly, and I like the idea of meeting regionally. Maybe meeting at the association level would create too many small groups (logistically speaking) but meeting at the state level would most likely not… Read more »
Dave, I would be in favor of allowing online voting. We could stream the conference to churches all across this nation who could tally the votes there and submit them online. Maybe this could be coordinated through the state conventions and/or the local baptist associations? We could still have the national convention. All the documents needed to make an informed vote could be uploaded to a server accessible by these associations or churches who would then distribute these documents to the messengers at their location. Also, with the current messenger registration process, one only needs the SBC ID # of… Read more »
Whereas online voting would require a person’s full name, church name, church’s verification of said person, ID number, address, couple of phone numbers, security codes, log in ID, password, security questions and you could even require more information.
You’ll find real fast that online voting is far more secure and more difficult to fake than real life voting.
Online voting will likely never be implemented but regional meetings may. There are some logistical issues and constitutional hurdles but it looks like a workable idea to me. How many? Where? What’s the savings for someone who has to travel 250 miles instead of 1000 miles? If you needed a number that would put half of the population in the southern states within 150 miles, a day trip, that would still require at least 8-10 locations, a pretty good task to set up a venue, personnel, technology, security, credentials, tellers, local arrangements, etc. My wild conjecture is that a manageable… Read more »
The day trip versus the 3-day or more trip is much more manageable, cost-wise. For example, if the Tuesday business was regionally allowed and was based at the ABSC office in Little Rock: Tuesday: get up early, drive to LR. Spend all day, drive home late Tuesday night. Cost: $50 gas, no more than $50 food. Total to participate: $100. To be in Houston: Drive down on Monday, spend Monday night, attend meeting Tuesday, spend Tuesday night, drive home Wednesday. Gas: $300, hotel nights $100 (if I found someone to split with or stayed really cheap), food $100 at least.… Read more »
All that, but the reality is that this will likely never happen for the SBC. It would take the votes of the people who go to allow those of us who do not go to participate, so….not going to happen.
“The answer to that is generally yes. People simply behave better when they are face to face, in the same room, with flesh and blood people around them than they do when they are interacting on computers. I am afraid that if we gave up the face to face, in-the-same-room concept of SBC participation, we might regret it.” That makes makes me think of a situation and a question…If a person (let’s say a denominational executive) were to, let’s say “yell” at a SBC blogger in the hallway (maybe “dress down” is a better term) of the SBC in front… Read more »
An executive yelling at a blogger? That would never happen in real life, would it?
LOL
At first I thought it was not really happening, that is how shocked I was to witness that event. If felt like it was not real life. Yet…it happened, and that person continues to make a name for himself…for better or worse.
What was he yelling about?
Having watched the livestream and the twitter stream side-by-side, I’m not convinced that the behavior improvement of attending is much.
Either that, or some people that go would be absolutely hideous if they were remote attenders.
I will be needling you from afar again this year. Be glad I don’t have your cell number, Dave, or I’d be a textin’ you on the platform 🙂
Most of the reasons I have seen for opposing distance-type participation in the SBC is that the people who regularly attend the SBC enjoy it and don’t want to see it change. Understandable but not compelling. Threats of somehow gaming the voting through fraudulent means is very probably much overblown. If it isn’t, then we have got far bigger problems than we thought. Can someone please articulate how greater participation in the SBC is a bad thing? What is the down side? Distance participation would probably go much farther towards the perception that we are no longer a Southern US… Read more »
Very good analysis, bill mac
The technology exists to conduct secure interactions with satellite locations and with people watching from their own homes or offices. In fact, the argument can be easily made that the votes being cast at satellite locations via the internet are more secure than the votes being cast at the central location. The real problem of opening up Pandora’s Box with offsite voting is that you cannot truly gauge how a vote is going to come down because you don’t have experts mingling in the crowds vetting reactions to the proposed item about to be voted on soon. And if you… Read more »
And instead of duly registered messengers having to meet “regionally” at an associational office or something, they could uplink to the vote from their home church.
I’m not in favor of online participation, or remote sites.
If a church cannot afford to send their pastor, seeing that God is the church’s source of supply, then it must be true that God doesn’t want the pastor to go. Ditto for the pastor.
But I think, more likely, it’s reflective of the relative importance of the Annual Meeting attendance, to the local church.
Bob, I would have concerns with online voting, but that is not among them. There are lots and lots of small churches that could not afford to pay travel, food, and housing for the days of the convention. Even if they could, many of those pastors would be bi-vocational, unable to attend without using precious vacation days for a trip that is no vacation. What’s more, in the coming years we are likely to see the SBC grow increasingly decentralized by necessity as the nation keeps changing, making it useful to have in place some mechanism for internet participation. My… Read more »
Except that the church is not the Convention, and the Convention is not a church. The rules are not the same–we affiliate as a convention for the purpose of achieving business and not as a Bible-mandated organization. So opening up participation in the business meeting is aligned with the purpose. And as above–if the local church required overnight travel and heavy expense to participate in its only business meeting of the year, then you’ve got a comparison. We don’t: we have monthly meeting that are held in the same location that is accessible to all members of the church. The… Read more »
Doug,
All valid points, but there is a related principle: there are those in SBC with a very low level of denominational interest and cooperation who might nonetheless participate in denominational decisions if it were made easy.
Chris:
What then should be the benchmarks for unacceptable levels of “denominational interest” or “cooperation” among contributing SBC churches?
Levels of “denominational interest” and “cooperation” are subjective standards that would have to be written into the SBCs definition of a cooperating church.
Until such a thing occurs, “denominational interest” and “level of cooperation” have no bearing on on the ability of a Baptist church to appoint and send messengers to the SBC.
Nor should they in the future. IMO
Meanwhile, there are those with a high level of cooperation who are cut out of any meaningful participation because of the difficulty of attending the annual meeting. That sword cuts both ways. If a church does not have an interest in participation, then why would they bother? Again, I’m in favor of setting regional-type sites, not “vote from your laptop” setups, where you would still have a level to commit of your time to be there. Here is my reality: the budget committee offered to decrease the CP giving to cover my expenses to attend the SBC. I declined–but is… Read more »
I admitted there were some good counterpoints to my point. You made some, Doug. I’m still right, of course!!
Doug:
Do you suspect there might be sentiment among your budget committee in which they would prefer to give you the money to travel to the SBC as opposed to give the money to the SBC to use?
That would speak highly of you and less highly of their confidence in the SBC.
“Precious vacation days…”. Yup, that pretty well explains it.
Remembering when I was bi-vo and could take one 5-day week and 5 1-days from my job, and giving the 5-day week to VBS and saving the 5 1-days for church emergencies, yes, those were precious vacation days. Especially if I got to October and had a 1-day left for my family so that we could go someplace Friday night, come home Saturday, and be back to the church on Sunday, since my time off from church went to the busy season at work that required 2 Sundays a year. Now, for me, these days it’s a choice like I… Read more »
I take it that you’re making a point here Bob?
Applying that logic, then, God does not want missionaries sent by the IMB because they lack in funds to send them.
Or any other time the issue is lack of funds, then it’s just that God does not want it to happen?
Really?
Then shall we all stop promoting any special offerings or the CP in our churches and trust that God’s sovereignty will provide, regardless of whether or not there is a human element in the planning and implementation?
Bob, So by that logic we should make the convention as hard as possible for anyone to attend so that God can choose who to be there? Why not hold it in Antarctica then? Or how about this In Exodus 17:12 “When Moses’ hands grew heavy, they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat down on it. Then Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other so that his hands remained steady until the sun went down. ” So obviously Moses had been given a task by God and… Read more »
“If a church cannot afford to send their pastor, seeing that God is the church’s source of supply, then it must be true that God doesn’t want the pastor to go. Ditto for the pastor.” this time, I disagree with you, BOB CLEVELAND the poverty that exists among some in the SBC never was something ‘sent from God’, but it reflects a situation where the ‘haves’ count and the ‘lesser folk’ are not ‘as blessed by God’ do not count as needed . . . in the Church, there is no one who is not needed . . . there… Read more »
I like the idea of internet voting. Perhaps to limit ‘fraud’ – registration must be done by a representative of the local church. Those local church members members who are interested in voting and participating will submit their names to their church office. The church office will then register them by their name, church name, messenger email address, and maybe other reasonable identifiers…the SBC responds to the registration by sending back to the church a “registration key” of some type..one that is unique to that particular messenger. Then the messenger can go and register themselves using the key. This way… Read more »
I like Regional sites. What about international SBC churches? How about west coast, South, East and midwest? I think that would be incredibly doable! Just think! Then the ‘traditionalists could go to the left coast and the Calvinists could be in the South!
Ummm… maybe not such a great idea after all…
“I could have added 9 fake messengers and hired folks off the street to vote for New Salem Baptist Church this year, if I wanted to.”
How do I alert the Credentials comm.
Chris, You siad; “My primary concern is more along the lines of what it would do for the local church if you opened up business meetings to internet participation: church members who have little interest and no participation would then be able to participate in the business of the church, adding a voice to the conversation that has no real right to be part of the conversation.” Did you see my suggestion above regarding online voting? I think this would allow the church to determine who gets to register as an online messenger as they would have to ask the… Read more »
Of course my suggestion for online voting is for the SBC – not for the local church.
Somewhat off-topic–but WHO actually attends these annual events?
What percentage of the attendees are lay-people with no current attachment to an entity of the convention? Not employees, not current seminary students, not married to one of the above…just the people in our pews week after week supporting our ministries.
What percentage are pastors?
Who has what to lose if we meet once every two years?
TRB
I have been working on a proposal to allow associations to host registered messengers allowing them to participate on a local level. I believe the messengers need to be registered just as they are today at the convention level. They could indicate that they plan to attend the local associational meeting. A list could be sent to each association and only those individuals could vote while anyone could attend and listen to the convention. The local association is the best source for avoiding fraud. For that matter, at the annual meeting who is to say that I could not have… Read more »
Bob,
Overall good suggestions, your misquote of me notwithstanding. Some sort of participation at the association level would have a lot going for it and would address most of the concerns I would have with opening up participation to any messenger anywhere with a computer.
Chris, I cut and pasted your statement word for word. If I misquoted you, I would certainly apologize; that was not my intention. Care to explain HOW I misquoted you?
Bob, You got the words right but apparently missed the meaning. You say my quote is very sad and then follow with a comment about financial constraints, apparently ignoring the fact that my comment had more to say about those with financial constraints. I agree that there are many who simply cannot afford to attend and I would like to figure out some way to help them take part. On the other hand, I would not want to make it easier for people to participate who are otherwise absent from Baptist life. Churches that have little or nothing to do… Read more »
Chris:
I may have already mentioned this previously.
But the concerns you raise (personal) can only be addressed by placing constraints on the eligibility for participation of SBC churches that do not currently exist.
Are you proposing that the existing criteria for eligibility of messenger status by participating SBC churches be changed?
Chris, Listen, own your words. You wrote them. You wrote,,, “there are those in SBC with a very low level of denominational interest and cooperation who might nonetheless participate in denominational decisions if it were made easy” You THEN wrote… I would not want to make it easier for people to participate who are otherwise absent from Baptist life. Churches that have little or nothing to do with their association; churches which give little or nothing to the CP; churches with little or no participation in missions causes; etc, etc. Here is the deal: if a church gives $250 they… Read more »
Chris: As you know messengers must be in good standing within the church. A document stating this and signed by the minister or administrator in the church is sent with each messenger in order to register. That would not change.
Chris, he used your exact words. Hard to misquote you in doing so–
Doug,
It’s amazing what a person can be made to say through the proper application of his own words.
I don’t think the associational idea is workable, Bob, but I would be interested in the details of your proposal.
I’m not convinced that lack of attendance at annual meetings is an indication of disinterest or that increasing attendance would increase support for SBC stuff.
My experience is that the meetings are extremely boring and a good chunk of messengers skip many sessions. It is a chance to get away and meet folks you haven’t seen for a while.
William,
Your own comment is reason enough to make the voting much broader. A schedule of votes can be published for remote areas. I can tell you this; making the meetings more accessible will not hurt the support for the CP…. and can most certainly be beneficial. One thing is pretty much a given; when people take ownership of anything their financial participation almost always increases. By bring the meeting to the associational level, it can bring a better sense of ownership back to the churches.
I will get this out hopefully early next week.
Im all for getting as many people to participate as possible. However I don’t really think regional sites would work. As a matter of fact I think it would cause less participation. My guess is that no more than 15% really care about the business stuff. They go for the overall experience. Mess with the experience and you’ll lose the people. They won’t go to regional sites if the experience is not there. It would cost so much to recreate the experience in multiple locations.
Adam: From my viewpoint I believe more people are interested in the business stuff. It is a business meeting that convenes once a year. Not to knock the experience. Regional sites is a good idea. Many want to participate, many care about the business but for many of the reasons already mentioned, and I do agree with Bob Hadley’s comment, I hope it is something that will happen in the future. It costs a lot to put on one of these Conventions and it costs a lot to go. We have been discussing this for 6 years. It has been… Read more »
BTW: I was one of the first people to prove we could watch online and accurately blog about the Convention as if we were there. It was very easy to follow. It was the first year we began streaming the Convention online. Others followed suit year after year for the next 5 years. I don’t know how much more proof there can be. Kinks can be worked out, but I don’t know that it’s even been attempted. It would be interesting to find out. No one to my knowledge has even attempted to find out the cost. We need to… Read more »
Debbie,
I think you have a point also. I think many, probably most, attendees have at least some interest in most of the business of the Convention.
I think if it goes online, we may discover that more people are interested in the business of the convention than might be thought.
I’m on this side of it: I’ve been, and the “experience” was not all that thrilling. Perhaps if I had known such personages as Dave it would have been different–but I spent most of my time with people I already knew, who were people from my state, who I would see if we did this regionally.
My sole interest in attendance is to be involved in the business aspect. Too much of the “experience” was about bludgeoning the attendees into a certain point-of-view in the years I attended the meeting.
Adam, I think there is some truth to what you say. I personally have never gone to a national convention, but I have participated in the State Convention. Part of the reason I have not been to a national convention is that except for one time in 37 years, it was somewhere far away–one time in a foreign land–that would have been, Texas. Also, it is a bad time of year for me. Our school has just ended, VBS is close or in session–June just doesn’t seem to be a good time for me. Of course, that is not a… Read more »
The fellowship is crucial—and it’s why I go to the State Convention. I get the opportunity to meet and encourage people I did not know, and re-meet and encourage, or be encouraged by, people I did know.
But the smaller gathering, around 750 messengers, is more conducive to the idea. Getting into the thousands just makes it overwhelming.
Dave, Debbie, along with myself, in this comment stream provides an excellent example of the reason online SBC meeting do not work. While i am sure she,as I, read the previous comments we came into the comment stream late. Neither of us interacted from the start and, if past interaction is any indication, both already have our minds made up. This is how the online meetings would work. At the convention we go to the exhibit hall and, in the old days, would run across someone that would tell us about an important issue coming up for a vote at… Read more »
I think this is a good point, but I think regional events, in conjunction with the main annual meeting would mitigate this kind of thing. It would weed out the non-serious participants, while still making the annual meeting accessible to more people. People would still have to deliberately go somewhere, and be involved. In fact I suspect they might be more involved than many who go to the main event, who often skip out on many of the business items and only participate for the really big things.
Why is it less flippant if you’re physically at the convention to make up your mind in advance and have a friend/colleague tell you which votes are important?
This is an important part B to the point I was trying to make before. It is one thing to be removed from the meeting because finances and such do not permit; it is another to be removed from lack of interest, popping in only to vote about this or that issue.
Chris: I don’t even see a problem “popping in and out to vote about this or that issue.” Those at the convention do it all the time. I don’t see that as an issue at all. Even those at the Convention know what the issues to vote on are and how they are going to vote.
Tim: I disagree and I have been following this comment stream, I just don’t see a viable excuse why it can’t be done. Job applications are done online, my work schedule is accessed online as well as other important information pertaining to my job. I have no problem communicating about my job online through a secure site. It’s easy and convenient anytime I need to access it day or night. It makes my job a lot easier. I believe and always have that online voting and participation can be done at the annual meeting. It can done without the problems… Read more »
I haven’t come to this conclusion without proof. Glitches in technology would be one reason this may not work. I don’t know, but glitches can be worked out. Technology is great until it has a glitch, then admittedly it’s a nightmare.
Debbie,
Quick off topic. The other thread got closed before we could finish talking about Black & Tan. I just finished the book.
If you would like, please email me at Les@haitiorphanproject.org
I would like your thoughts on Wilsom and that book.
Thanks Debbie.
And just for the record, I didn’t come in and out when blogging and following the Convention, I sat for several hours following it meticulous. People who were physically at the Convention the year I did this commented on how accurate it was as if I were physically there. But…I wasn’t.
I saw the same thing those who attended saw, sometimes even more.
Men in suits and ladies in dresses and heels would run to get to the convention hall in order to vote. By the way, I totally agree with you about not doing convention business online and letting people vote via internet. I was just, well, confused about the above. Were you referring to dress as a way of saying “…back in the day…”? Not that it matters, I was just not sure what that was about. In any case, I don’t think it’s a good idea to handle the voting online although I’d love to see more people be able… Read more »
Joe, Can I ask if you use mobile banking? I now even take a picture of my checks and deposit them. I pay all my bills on line. I don’t think I am the only one so there are billions of dollars transferred daily by my accounting. If digital banking is safe and secure, why not digital voting? Is there something I don’t know about the technology–I count on my children to keep me up technologically Of course there are always glitches, but that’s true even if you do it the traditional way. Microphone problems, power outages, etc. What is… Read more »
Frank, I don’t know that I have a problem with it due to technology, but more due to the first person I ever saw suggest it on their blog. If that individual had not suggested it, I probably wouldn’t have had any objection but due to their desire to bring the SBC down from within I figure there can’t be any reason they would suggest it that would be helpful.
#mytwocents
Interesting and honest. Typical Joe B
Have a good day, fella.
Why Joe, I consider that to be a great compliment. Thank you. 🙂 And yourtwocents is worth every bit of that two cents.
Why Joe, I consider that to be a great compliment. – Wasn’t talking to or about you.
The rural pastor or representative will not be able to make the trip ; but , the SBC State or National employee will have money and a place to stay available for him which in effect salts the vote taken at the convention . Having the ability to monitor and vote at home eliminates this prejudice of voters . Many won’t want to give up this advantage they have .
It has been a fun and interesting journey, on a regular basis opening the SBC Voices and reading a few of them. I simply reply with a question, not to indicate my position on a scale of 1 – 5. One is those are are most likely to go go hell or at least have a chance after they have choose to get a ticket to heaven fear they will lose it and Five being those who most definitely will be in heaven. Question: Is the high cost, heavily controlled event an attempt to keep the control under the few?… Read more »
I hesitate to ascribe the control motive. I think it’s more a case where the decision-makers on this are always able to go: they pastor big enough churches or work for SBC entities that are going to pay their way. End result being that they do not see a problem. Some of those folks made the sacrifice to make the trip back in the 80s, and perhaps now do not realize that travel costs have increased at a level that moves it from “sacrificial participation” for many of us to “sell a kidney on ebay to participate,” and so it’s… Read more »
The best way to ensure no monkey business with online voting during the business meeting portions is to have a safeguard in the servers. You have to be logged in before a certain time and to make sure that you don’t have buffoons logging in so they can come in from mowing is to put a inactive time limit. This ensures that people who log in to interact with convention business are prompt, active, engaged, and not “proxy” voting through dudes mowing their grass. Seriously guys, keep coming up with scenarios and I’ll shoot ’em down. Online participation technology is… Read more »
Bill. I follow your reasoning. There is no technical or procedural issue that cannot be solved.
I think the issue is one of control at worst and allegiance to status quo at best.
If the desire is broad input and participation then online is the key. If the desire is something else well that’s yet to be seen.
“Buffoons mowing their grass”?
How do you really feel about laypeople there Bill?
It’s okay. Most of us buffoons are used to it although it does harden a few souls.
Jim:
I served as a pastor for 20 years, secular vocation last 10. The change in perspective and attitude is amazing.
A lot of these guys should try it.
I was actually making a mockery of someone’s attempt to paint online participation and voting as something that would be incredibly easy where it would actually be easier to hack the vote in person were a group motivated enough to do so.
We’re all buffoons in someone’s eyes.
I would respectfully disagree as well. Basically, seeing and hearing everything that is going on is better on line than it is in the convention hall, unless you happen to be lucky enough to sit up front and close to the platform. There are a lot of ways now to make sure that registration and balloting, done electronically, is probably more accurate and less liable to tampering that that done at the convention. The last SBC I attended was in Indianapolis, not a particularly expensive convention city. We flew to Chicago and rented the car there because it was much… Read more »
Dave,
I’m not sure if your post is a response to my earlier post on this topic. If so, that’s fine. If not, that’s fine too. 🙂
In case anyone is interested, my original post “It’s Time For Regional Implementation of Remote Annual Meeting Attendance,” is at http://goo.gl/QUPeB.
Peace.
One historical note. In one of the years of the CR, the main convention hall was filled to capacity and hundreds of messengers had to be directed to an alternate arena where they could watch and hear what was happening in the main convention hall and ballots were collected as usual. When there was a hand vote, monitors in the alternate arena would observe and relay the estimate to the moderator who would factor that in the voting before he announced tha a motion was passed or failed. This worked fine but the two convention halls were physically close to… Read more »
American Idol uses smart phones. I cannot believe the problems are technological.
Touché.
There’s something to be said about non-verbal communication that tempers our verbal interactions. As one of the multitudes who isn’t any more important to the SBC than to be a statistic, I’m not that interested in the proceedings other than that we maintain our collective unwavering desire to remain theologically sound and devoted to Jesus Christ in all that entails. I can’t vote on that, but I pray the voting attendees share this desire.