Many of you have asked me to post further about the new policy forbidding public dissent. As you know, this is a pressing issue for me and you can catch a “reader” of my thoughts at The Policy of Conformity. There I took a very hard line, but many seem to think that I softened it with my subsequent post. Let me assure you that my stance concerning this policy is unchanged. I thought we needed to say that we appreciated being taken seriously as evidenced by the removal of the recommendation concerning Wade and that this policy is not what it was. I have yet to see the original version side-by-side with the current version, but I am told by people who were there that it is positively changed.
The problem with the policy, on a practical level, is that it does not allow public dissent after a vote has been taken. Several supporting the policy have argued that dissent is allowed before the vote, but after the Board should be unified before the convention, pointing out that dissent is still allowed within the Board. That creates a negative situation when issues arise and are voted on before the Trustees can dissent to the SBC.
The adoption of the “Policy of Conformity” itself is the best example of why this is impractical. The policy was still being printed Wednesday morning as Trustees were opening the Plenary Session. There were 60 copies for the entire room full of people. It was voted into policy during that session, effectively silencing dissent before any could get out to the SBC. As this issue has been a great concern to me, and I suspected that it was on the agenda – despite being told by several Trustees that it was not – I would have liked to have been there. Unfortunately, I couldn’t because I had an appointment this week that I couldn’t miss.
There has been much discussion today between those who were there and those who weren’t as a result of this policy being adopted. On the blogs today, mine in particular, there has been a call for openness and transparency within the Board. Emails and phone calls have been exchanged and one thought, passed on to me by Ben Cole, was to webcast the Plenary Sessions of the BOT. Since the BOT says they have never tried to hide anything from the SBC, there should be no problem with this idea. Also, there would be no need for staffing at the IMB for such a position as it is a reasonably inexpensive and simple thing to do, if one knows what they are doing. The SBC is now webcasting the sessions of the convention, why not the BOT?
Webcasting would allow anyone who is interested, including – if not especially – our Missionaries, to see for themselves what is going on. Any Trustee dissent can be easily voiced for whomever is listening at that time. Jerry Corbaley has called for openness and I think he is just the man to take this idea to the Board for us.
If the Board wants us to trust them and see them as not hiding things or trying to slip things by us, then they should have no problem letting us in on sessions that are public anyway.
I think this would be excellent policy for all our major entities public meetings. It would engender an air of openness that is clearly lacking. The trust of YSBC (Young SBC) is not high right now. In fact, the lack of trust of the IMB BOT is rubbing off on the SBC as a whole. The entire convention needs to rise to the challenge and let communication flow. The very appearance that our leaders might be hiding things incenses us. The move to open communication would draw us in.
Remember, I am still against “The Policy of Conformity,” but webcasting would not violate this policy and is a step further in the right direction.
Tomorrow morning I will post the contents of a paper handed out to the Trustees as they were getting ready to vote on the “Policy of Conformity.” I think you will be very interested in it.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
steve w
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 9:15 pm:
I think the webcasting idea is tremendous. I think some of the older trustees are slow to accept some technological changes because they are not familiar with it (like the blogging = pornography statements). But I think if we can let them warm up to it, they likely would have no problem with it.
I also think the board might find, as days go by, that the newly adopted “Trustee Responsibilities” policy is hamstringing some things, and they might just decide to revise it.
You mention Jerry Corbaley. I think there are some other trustees that are seeing possibilities for communication and dialogue, both with us and with missionaries, that perhaps they were not fully aware of previously.
For all the potential downside of “the policy of conformity,” I think some of the trustees have become genuinely interested in moving toward the openness we desire (remember the board is people not policies). I don’t think they or we know how we’re going to get there now, but like Marty said, “All is not lost.” Tampa certainly didn’t shut down our communication to the trustees, and I don’t think they want us to disengage. I think there is some genuine optimism on the part of many of the trustees that a younger generation is getting involved.
Hey, with one fell swoop they got rid of the long-standing blue book, and adopted a new policy. We may not like that particular change, and we may not be satisfied with the process of change right now, but we have to agree change did occur, and it can continue to occur…even if continued change involves correcting some mistakes or working some bugs out. Come on YSBC, we understand the need to debug new releases. :)
Let’s not forget, we never had our sights set on Tampa. We’ve had our sights set on Greensboro. And I hope we’ll continue beyond Greensboro, because not all the needed changes will occur there.
Tom Hatley says we’re fearless. I say we can be as relentless as we need to be, too. Let’s stay the course.
Wes Kenney
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 9:31 pm:
Hey Art,
This is a great suggestion, and it should be embraced readily.
I’m looking forward to hearing more in your next post, you tease…. ;-)
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 9:40 pm:
YES!!!!!!!!!
Dorcas
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 9:55 pm:
Webcasting … hmmm … I think we are going to need to have a special “get Dorcas a better computer” offering. ;)
I am sitting here with dial-up access on a 1998 Gateway computer with Windows 98 and no speakers. Webcasting is a great idea … I’ll be posting my comments to the next trustee’s meeting three days after everyone else … when I finally finish watching the slow-mo version. Ha!
Seriously I do think it is a great idea and it would keep us all from wondering what is going on because we will be able to see what is going on.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 10:10 pm:
Dorcas,
What kind of attorney are you? A public defender? Dial up? Windows 98? Do you drive an AMC Pacer? :)
Dorcas
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 10:43 pm:
Kevin,
I know your comment was in jest, and though I fear we are diverting this comment string … the title of the post is a move toward transparency … so …
It is a common misconception that all attorneys are wealthy. I am still at the bottom of the corporate ladder. Ford truck, one bedroom apartment, student loans … etc. I am just normal people. What kind of attorney? Mostly banking type stuff – creditor collections / loan drafting, that sort of thing. Not too glamorous, but the job pays the bills. Everyone has to start somewhere after all.
But don’t worry about me … if we can make this webcasting idea a reality, I am sure I can find a friend with a better computer than that which I own. :)
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 10:46 pm:
Dorcas,
I was attempting humor.
I do like the webcast idea! Anything to keep us informed.
Benjamin S. Cole
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 11:12 pm:
Dorcas –
If you stopped buying everybody Starbucks gift certificates you’d probably be able to buy a computer.
Keep tithing.
YLP
BSC
steve w
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 9:02 am:
If all of our board members had the kind of relationship with each other Ben and Dorcas have, we wouldn’t be in this mess. (For those that don’t know, Ben is Dorcas’ pastor.)
Thanks Ben & Dorcas for modeling true Christian fellowship.