I posted some of these thoughts in the comment section in a previous post, but thought they might be well suited for the front page.

There is some celebration about the Policy of Conformity because it protects Staff and Trustees from disparaging remarks from Trustees. It is telling, isn’t it, that we need a policy to govern what God’s Word leads us to do anyway. More telling that we celebrate it.

As it specifically concerns Dr. Rankin, who was the target of some disparaging conversation DURING THE MEETING this week, the policy cuts both ways for him. He is protected from public verbal assault, again, something that shouldn’t require a policy to govern. However, any subgroup within the trustees that might seek his removal, if they have the votes, can walk in, put it on the table, and vote it through without the SBC being able to intervene. Moreover, any trustee that stands opposed to such an action will be muted from talking about it to the SBC afterward, unless they were to resign. The problem with them resigning is that it strengthens the party opposed to Dr. Rankin. There will be little accountability for any who choose this action.

In the last week, you have heard several trustees remark that if someone can’t abide within such and such expectations, they can resign. Why would certain trustees want this? It strengthens their position when their opposition removes themselves.

This is why I think it is imperative that Wade and other must NOT resign under any circumstances. We will do the dissenting and they can do the voting.

Posts with related content

• No Related Post

TAGS: None