12 Witnesses

Wade Burleson revealed today, in an article entitled The “Good Ol’ Boy System” of Control, Exposed and Condemned by Judge Paul Pressler, that a “very reliable source” tells him that there will be another move to censure him at the upcoming IMB Trustee meeting in New Mexico.

Again? Why would they do such a thing, now? I have read every post on Wade’s blog since January and he has been extremely scrupulous in an effort to abide with every policy whether or not he, or anybody else, agrees with it.

I see a couple of possible thoughts.

First, the meeting is in New Mexico, removed from the South where many Southern Baptists can easily attend. Perhaps they feel that the discerning eyes that were in Tampa will not be in New Mexico.

Secondly, it comes on the heels of a public calling for Wade to be nominated as President of the SBC. Perhaps they think they can further besmirch Wade’s character a month prior to the voters’ arrival in Greensboro. This may be the standard practice; an attempt to smear the opposition to prevent them from gaining political momentum and then power. Tried and true - thus far.

I say, in response to this idea, that they will need evidence this time, though they never produced any last time. If they thought the reaction was bad from January’s meeting, let them do it again, and do it so poorly. I think they would most likely move to executive session again, so as not to have to produce any for the media at hand - be they bloggers or the ABP. (We all know the BP would not be critical of the Trustee move.)

If they level this accusation against Wade, it will be a double motivation fro YSBC to get to Greensboro. Some who think that the issue is resolved because of the rescinding of the previous motion, will see this as the call to action.

Tim Sweatman commented that he knew of several Younger Leaders who were inclined to leave the SBC if the “Good Ole Boy” network continued to run things as they do now. I think some of the “Good Ole Boy” network see this as a positive thing. Get rid of the dissenters and move on with a controlled convention.

Again, they are short sighted who believe this. If the Younger Leaders leave, they will take their churches and Cooperative Program giving with them. Right now there are several discussions among Younger Leaders in how to move past the CP and network together, excluding the politics of the convention from controlling their money. You can find such a discussion at one of Steve McCoy’s blogs, Missional Baptist Blog.

This discussion is from people who want to STAY in the convention.

What must the people who are more inclined to go be saying? If they all decide to leave, the SBC is done. The “Good Ole Boys” will be left in control - of a declining, ineffective denomination who has alienated it’s legacy and has nowhere to go.

Is it more important to be in charge or to be effective in spreading the Gospel?

There are competing proverbs about those who are vocal in their criticism of the establishment. The two that come to my mind have distinctively different cultural backgrounds that color the wisdom they profess.

The first is the old proverb, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” This comes from the western mind and tells us that if we complain loudly enough, we will get our way. I have never liked this saying. It seems to encourage people to complain and I am flooded with complaints most of the time. I walked in to the Sanctuary Sunday and was immediately and loudly accosted by some people who were personally too cold. Now, some of you might be sympathetic, being cold natured yourselves. I am hot natured, but try to sympathize with everyone. The temperature in the Sanctuary was 74 degrees, and they wanted it warmer. *sigh* I smiled sympathetically and nodded.

The next proverb I heard comes from China. It says, “It is the nail whose head sticks up that gets hammered down.” Wow. What a different culture. The oppression in China is very evident in this quote. I don’t like this saying any more than I like the other one. It tells us to keep quiet about what we believe, because it will cost us dearly to speak up.

The Bible is replete with the admonitions to submit to various authorities. Paul even says that secular authorities are over us in Romans 13:1-5.

Peter and John refuse to submit to earthly authority when they tell the Sanhedrin that they will have to judge for themselves if submission to them takes priority over submission to God.

How does all of this fit together for the SBC?

As you might surmise, I have a few thoughts.

1. If you believe that a certain conviction is from the Lord, then you must stand for it. He is THE authority.

2. God never promises that standing for His calling will be painless for you. In fact, just the opposite is true. You may expect more kindness from fellow Christians, but you will be disappointed. Mostly because they, like you, are imperfect.

3. The bottom-up structure of the SBC tells us that we, the member churches of the Convention, are the authorities within the SBC, and our officers, et. al., are to submit to us as a whole.

4. We are not whole, but divided, over many of the issues within the convention: inclusion and exclusion; Cooperative Program and Missional mindset; traditional, contemporary and emergent church structures; charismatic backgrounds and non-charismatic backgrounds; missionary service policies; Calvanism and anti-calvinistic dispositions. No one in leadership can answer to all of us simultaneously.

I am of the mind that we need to elect leadership that will serve the Lord in a trustworthy manner and bear judiciously the weight of the office to which we elect them.

For the most part, I think we have exactly that. Anyone who thinks I am anti-establishment needs to read the full context of my writings. I am not.

I am for something, though. I am for the highest standards of character and service. This is not an implication that others are people of flawed character. It is simply a statement that I believe we should find the highest we can possibly find, and, under the Lord’s direction, ask them to bear the burden of leadership within the convention.

They must be people who recognize the proper authority and submit to it.

Kevin Bussey revealed the form of this resolution last week when he posted a mock resolution to make Starbuck’s coffee the official coffee of the SBC.

I had sent it to him and others to get some feedback as to the wording. If you have yet to send me back your feed, hurry. I am about to submit it.

I post it now for the general population of the convention and give you the opportunity to comment.

By the way, after this, I am taking a few days off of blogging. The Primer was exhausting and I have full plate this week. See you soon - probably by the end of the week.

WHEREAS the people of the Southern Baptist Convention commonly hold the Bible as God’s Word; inerrant, infallible and inspired; having affirmed that it has authority over our lives as expressed in the Baptist Faith and Message adopted in the year 2000; and

WHEREAS the Bible records, in Matthew 20:24-28 and Mark 10:4-45, Jesus teaching His disciples that leaders in the Kingdom of God are marked as different than worldly leaders in that they are servants rather than masters; and

WHEREAS our culture has shown a marked inclination to distrust the leadership of all religious entities, often citing self serving motives; and

WHEREAS the greatest testimony to our culture of God’s nature, goodness and mercy is to mirror the self sacrifice of Christ’s submission to the Cross; and

WHEREAS those Southern Baptists that bear responsibility of any nature, including but not limited to, local church Sunday School teachers, Volunteer Nursery Workers, Trustees, Committee Members, Deacons, Ministers; Associational Directors of Missions, Officers, Entity Trustees, Committee Members and employees; State Convention Officers, Entity Trustees, Committee Members and employees; Southern Baptist Convention Officers, Entity Trustees, Committee Members and employees; are all considered to be leaders in the Kingdom of God; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED that the Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, do affirm the servant nature of leadership in the Kingdom of God; and be it further

RESOLVED that the Southern Baptist leaders at every level and of every calling are now urged to exemplify the greatest servant nature, seen in Christ’s example of self sacrifice, by laying aside any personal gratification or aspiration while seeking to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every gender, age, culture, tribe, tongue and nation.

Early on in the Wade Burleson controversy with the Board of Trustees of the IMB, I was a frequent poster on Wade’s blog: Grace and Truth to You. As time has worn on, I have progressively posted most of my ideas here at 12 Witnesses. Maybe I am bitter for losing out to Dorcas Hawker for the autographed copy of Wade’s book in the contest he ran seeking advice concerning his actions. Nah. It just seemed like a natural progression as my blog began to grow in readership. I still read every post Wade writes and most of the comments. Occasionally, I still post a comment or two on his site about various things.

In the midst of the heated debate, one of the ideas floated was that Wade should run for President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Not one to keep my opinion to myself, and also not fearing the tide of others’ sentiments, I posted my thoughts on the subject on Wade’s blog. My comments were in response to the comments of others. My opinion was that Wade should not run.

I advised that to allow himself to be put forward would look like a grab for power. I was afraid that it would appear opportunistic and would hurt his credibility in dealing with the IMB BOT at a point when his character was being called into question. Much has changed since that time.

The IMB BOT has vindicated Wade by completely failing to produce any evidence of any of the various charges laid against him. This was expressed by their action in Tampa to rescind the motion to remove Wade. I encourage you to read my words at the time the idea of withdrawing the motion was first made public by reading my article, A Clumsy Retreat.

Wade has, since that time, humbly discouraged people from nominating him to the Presidency. Nevertheless, they have continued to ask him to serve. The aforementioned Dorcas Hawker recently wrote a piece on her blog entitled, “To the Hesitant Candidate” where she playfully teased me, Tim Sweatman and Wade Burleson for all declining nominations to the presidency. Yet, in the end, she said something quite poignant:

So to whomever may be a potential candidate out there, that may be hesitating out of true humility to accept such a nomination, I exhort you to step forth and accept the challenge of leadership to which God is calling you. Meekness is strength bridled … be strong in the Lord, while continually humble in spirit … this is the type of leader we need.

Stand. This is the hour. Someone has to be “It”. Is it you?

Perhaps such a call was part of what Wade considered when he decided to remove himself from the slate of speakers at the Young Leaders Summit II.

The obstacles I once saw to Wade’s candidacy for President of the SBC are now gone. His credibility is affirmed by BOT’s action to withdraw its previous motion - voted for unanimously. Still, not surprising to any regular reader of this blog, I have more to say.

Not only is this my own recension, of advice to stay away from the office of President, but I now offer these thoughts as to why Wade would make an excellent candidate, and why he has my full support.

There has never been a candidate who has more clearly shared his mind and heart with the entire convention than Wade Burleson has through his blog. He has expressed his ideals, motives and passions. Moreover, he has shown a scholars mind in thouroughly supporting his arguments through excellent exegesis of the Word, the marking of history and the judicious application of contemporary theological writings.

There has never been a candidate who more clearly showed a sterling character under pressure than Wade Burleson has since January of this year. He has been gracious to those who oppose him. He has hosted comments of disagreement on his own blog. This action did not just allow for dissent not afforded him on several occasions, but he actually provided the opportunity for the dissent of others on his own website. Still, he has never wavered in expressing his love for those with whom he disagrees.

In fact, Wade has not only expressed a desire to work with those who are of different minds on non-essentials, his desire to work within the system is further testimony to his character and ability to practice what he says he believes. He has never complained that he has been removed from practical service within the IMB BOT by not allowing him to serve on the committees to which he was previously assigned. He merely accepted the Board’s decision to keep him and the decision of its chairman, Tom Hatley, to restrict him.

God often uses the fire of controversy and the testing of our character to both refine character and reveal character. I sense that He has done that for the Southern Baptist Convention at this time.

I have written that the IMB BOT, by rescinding its motion to remove Wade from its midst, has robbed many of the rally point to which they were most drawn, as it relates to attending the Convention in Greensboro. Brothers and Sisters, you have a new rally point.

In the end, I suppose, it is the IMB BOT who has given us this rally point, after all. They did so by proving to us what a man Wade Burleson is. I suppose we should say, “Thanks.”

As you may have noted, there are a few By Laws that I have left unaddressed for several reasons. I am afraid that, while important, they were not the highest priority when preparing for the Convention in Greensboro. There is another By Law that I might have passed over were it not relevant. Mind you, it is not necessarily relevant to an item that will come before the Convention. It was to come before the convention, in fact, but was withdrawn. Nevertheless, because it was slated to come before us, it becomes relevant.

The By Law is 36: Trustee Absenteeism. I reproduce it here in its entirety.

A. Upon the request of any entity, the Convention may remove from office any trustee/director of that entity who has excessive unexcused absences. Following such removal, the Convention shall elect a successor to complete the term of office of the person removed.

B. An entity shall give written notice of any request to remove a trustee/director for absenteeism at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the meeting of the Convention which shall consider the removal. The notice shall be given to the president of the Convention, the president/chief executive officer of the Executive Committee, the chairman of the Committee on Nominations, and the individual trustee/director whose removal shall be considered.

C. If required by state law, an entity shall incorporate this procedure in its charter or bylaws prior to requesting the Convention to remove any trustee.

It is under this By Law that the Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board sought to remove Wade Burleson. I have several observations.

First, the authority and procedure to remove a trustee is clearly given to the entities of the SBC. There is no doubt they can and no doubt as to the method.

Second, the sole reason for such a removal given in the By Law is absenteeism. As I understand it, Wade Burleson has been extremely dedicated in his service to Southern Baptists at the local and state levels. His service to the IMB was appearing to take the same shape.

Third, the accusations of “gossip” and “slander” were serious charges, and if they were able to be substantiated, I think that a broad reading of this By Law would have been allowed by all Southern Baptists. This would have given the IMB BOT the opportunity have Wade removed. As I have said before, the charges were removed because they were unsustainable.

Fourth, the charges against Wade now, which keep him from service on any committee, forbidding him from bearing the load to which he was appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention, are that he is unable to get along with fellow trustees. This accusation is accompanied by several trustees who say that they are frequent dissenters themselves. Since when does the disagreement with others on the Board of Trustees result in being put in reserve without the ability to serve as appointed? Never before.

I submit that Wade Burleson should serve in the capacity to which he was appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention and that the Board of Trustees, and its chairman, stop seeking to thwart the expressed will of the Convention when it appointed him to his post.

I daresay that when the question time comes during the IMB report, my question to the Board of Trustees will be concerning why the Board of Trustees is violating the commission of the SBC by refusing to allow Wade to serve fully the post to which it has appointed him.

Of course, they can avoid such a question by reinstating him immediately. I recommend they do so.

[update]

Wade Burleson, citing frequent requests by many Southern Baptists to run for President of the SBC, has withdrawn his name from the slate of speakers at the Younger Leaders Summit II. You can find the full story at SBC Outpost.

[/update]

[update #2]

I was forwarded the relevant governing document for the removal of a Trustee from within the Board - its Trustee Manual. This is NOT the Blue Book, and it was approved by the Convention. Because the authority to govern the IMB rests with the Trustees and because the manual of the Trustees has been approved by the convention, it would seem that this document is primary for the BOT and does give authority to do exactly as they did. Mind you, I did not approve their actions, but merely said they had the right to the process they followed.

Here is 4 (E) in the IMB Trustee Manual:

The convention as Member of this coproration, in any meeting of the member and without regard to the call of the meeting, may remove a trustee prior to the expiration of the trustee’s term for any reason deemed sufficient to the convention, the election and removal of trustees by the Convention being religious acts within the scope of the free exercise of the Convention’s religion under the Constitution of the United States. A motion in an annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention to remove a trustee may be made only after the following prerequesites have been accomplished:

1. Written notice by the proponent of the motion shall have been given to the board, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (referred to hereafter as the “Executive Committee”), and to the trustee whose removal is sought (which trustee shall be referred to hereafter as “the Subject”) at least ninety days prior to the convening of the next meeting of the Convention.

2. Either the Executive Committee or the Board shall have approved a motion recommending or opposing removal of a single trustee.

3. Written notice of the result of any vote by either the Executive Committee or Board whether recommending or opposing removal shall have been sent to the Subject and released to Baptist Press at least thirty days prior to any vote by the Member to remove the Subject as a trustee. There shall be no requirement that such notices be sent simultaneously.

The motions to remove a trustee shall be made to the messengers at an annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention by the Executive Committee or the Board, whichever has recommended the removal, or by the proponent of the motion if neither the Executive Committee nor the Board recommends removal. The motion may be brought as a joint recommendation if both the Executive Committee and the Board have recommended removal. No single motion may undertake to remove more than one trustee. The motion to remove shall be adopted if it receives the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the messengers present and voting. If the motion to remove a trustee is adopted, the removal shall be effective immediately upon delivery to the Board’s secretary of a written notice of removal signed by the president or the recording secretary of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Any vote by the member in favor of the removal of a trustee shall be deemed as having conclusively established the sufficiency of any reason for removal. There shall be no right of judicial review concerning the removal of a trustee before, during, or after consideration of the matter by anybody referred to above.

A trustee shall be considered as having resigned when he/she ceases to be a resident member of a church either geographically within the state or affiliated with the convention of the state from which he/she has been elected as a representative.

I am seeking to find out whether this document governs the SBC, and it may. If it does, then the threat to remove any trustee that comes from the floor of the convention may be ruled “out of order” because the appropriate processes were not followed as prescribed here.

On the other hand, this document may describe only the process the BOT may take, but have no governance over the individual messengers or collective messengers of the Convention. Again, I am seeking for a definitave ruling. When I get one, I will make this a primary post of its own, so you won’t miss it.

[/update #2]

Today we are talking about voting and what that entails. The primary governance in voting is held in the two By Laws, 34 and 35. 34 deals with how we vote and 35 deals with whether or not we can officially vote as a convention.

As to how we vote, By Law 34 gives detail that votes are won by a simple majority except where provisions have been made for a greater than majority vote. An example of this is the 2/3 vote that is required to bring a resolution to the floor when it is not brought there by the Committee on Resolutions.

Also, the method of voting can be by ballot, the raising of hands, standing, by voice, by common consent or by another method that seems reasonable. This seems to be a clause that leaves open the method while giving a few options. Some may question the accuracy of such voting methods, other than by ballot. Generally, those counting the votes are able to get a pretty accurate picture and they don’t usually call for voice votes on crucial issues. It is usually reserved for stuff that seems obvious, like the motion to dismiss for lunch.

If you feel that a vote is not fair or balanced, you can always push the “Point of Order” button on the microphone and call for a ballot vote. I tried to verify this before posting, but was unable to reach anyone that could give me a definitive answer. I will continue to search and will update this post when I know.

Also, you must be present to vote. There are no absentee votes and no votes by proxy. This brings us to the subject of being present and how many present makes a quorum, which is described in By Law 35.

For those who do not know, a quorum is the minimum number of a body present that is required to ensure that the mind of the whole is represented fairly by those present. That’s pretty technical. Try this: Minimum number needed to conduct business.

It would not be fair to allow twenty people gathered in a room to represent 30,000 who are at lunch. That could potentially allow for a select small group to organize, call themselves to order and do things that the whole body would never allow. Having a quorum is a common part of organizations that govern themselves by Robert’s Rules of Order.

A quorum for us is 25% of the registered messengers. Usually, there are more than enough to make a quorum when the SBC does its business, so it should not be an issue.

What really matters here is that some messengers do not stay for the Convention. This is a sad statement, but true. When the Resurgence was underway, it was typical for some to make sure they were present to vote for President, and then go on a tour of the host city.

However, I think with the particular interest this Convention has accrued, there will be much less in the way of absenteeism. There had better be a dramatic drop in absenteeism. If I find out YSBC has gone to Starbucks when votes were being taken, you will be hearing from me.

Ok, I have made that threat more than enough for now. I’ll save it for awhile - at least until we get closer to Greensboro.

Oh, yes, speaking of Absenteeism… Did you know that they only reason given in the By Laws for a Trustee of an SBC entity to be removed is absenteeism?

Tomorrow’s post…

By Law 31 is merely one sentence, which gives us room for some consideration of it and other pertinent matters today.

The By Law governing the adoption of reports is a good follow up on yesterday’s By Law governing the giving of reports. Since it is so brief, I will post it in its entirety for you here:

The adoption of recommendations contained in reports to the Convention shall not bind the Convention on any other matters in the body of the reports; but the Convention reserves the right to consider and amend the body of all reports.

What does this mean? As I read it, the Convention may accept the recommendation of an entity, but the acceptance of that recommendation does not constitute the acceptance of the report as a whole. Rather, the convention may amend the reports of the agencies and entities if it so chooses.

Some may see an opportunity here that is not there. Do not assume that you might change the report of the IMB to reflect a shift in policy and that the IMB would then be governed by the wording therein. That would not affect the policies or procedures in any way.

You may, however, clarify something that you think is glossed over in a report. If there is a section that is not quite “transparent” in its dealings with a certain topic, you may move that the section be rephrased in a more accurate way. With a majority vote on the amendment, the report will be codified in the Book of Reports and the Annual as you may reword it.

Let me again urge temperance with such a thing. If you are considered rude or mean to the person giving the report, you will only invite the ire of the Convention body to be directed toward you and your position.

If you choose to do this, choose your words wisely and make them as kind as you can while still maintaining your point with integrity.

Having gone quickly through this point, roughly 2/3 through the entire Primer Presentation, I open the floor for questions and comments.

I will start with this question: Has anyone heard anything new about potential nominees for President? It was rumored that Johnny Hunt would be bowing out of the race, but since we have not heard any more, I think it may have been idle talk or wishful thinking. What do you think? Also, I am expecting at least one more nomination this year. Any ideas on who it may be?

If we follow the pattern of watching the Pastor’s Conference for “anointed” candidate, it might seem the candidate from YSBC is Tim Sweatman, since he is on the podium at the Young Leaders Summit II. Way to go, Tim!

In my understanding, the By Law governing Procedures (26) is about the reports of entities and is broken into three areas. The first section details the report that every entity regularly gives at every convention. The second section controls that reports that are in response to motions from messengers. The third area gives special limitation to all reports.

26 (A) “Standard Reporting” - my unofficial term for this section, which is broken into in three subsections.

A 1. All reports from boards, institutions, commissions and standing committees are compiled into a Book of Reports, which is distributed to all messengers when they register. This will give everyone time to read all of the reports in advance and think through any questions they may like to ask at the time of the official report when given on the convention floor.

A 2. Reports from special commissions and standing committees that have recommendations for action from the convention will be in the Book of Reports.

A 3. Recommendations for action of boards, institutions, commissions, committees should be included at the end of each individual report before the convention can take action on it. If the committee or entity is unable to print its recommendation for action in the Book of Reports then the recommendation must be distributed as a part of the convention Bulletin before the convention will be able to take action.

In other words, they must give messengers a look at their report before they give it to allow you the opportunity to formulate questions or in any other way think through what they are saying. Also, if they ask for the convention to take action in a certain area, then they must print the recommendation so you can read it, either in the Book of Reports or in the Bulletin.

26 (B) “Special Reporting” - my unofficial term for this section

As I mentioned in the Primer on Order of Business, motions coming from the messengers that concern the internal operations of an entity will be referred to the entity’s governing body. The entity must then report back AT THE NEXT CONVENTION how it was considered, how it was reported and any actions recommended to the convention.

There is one caveat, however. If the house votes by a 2/3 margin, they can direct the Committee on Order of Business to schedule a time DURING THE SAME CONVENTION for the report to be given.

So, if a motion concerning policies at the IMB were “in order” and therefore referred to the IMB’s BOT, the convention could then direct, by 2/3 vote, that the BOT answer back to the convention before we dismissed. Now, this does not give the convention the right to tell the IMB what to do concerning any policy, but it does give the convention the opportunity to express its mind clearly to the IMB’s governing body. Moreover, after the report is made, the convention can then vote to reject the report once given.

I know that many people are crying that changes be made to the policies and procedures of our institutions. Let me be clear: Unless you are on that entity’s governing body, you do not have that authority. As a messenger, you may require a report and you may accept or reject that report. You may make resolutions and then question any entity as to why its policies or procedures are out of step with the expressed mind of the convention.

Speaking of questions, it is time for the third section of By Law 26.

26 (C) Limitations - the official term for this section

When a report is given, 1/3 of the time scheduled for the report is to be scheduled for questions.

I reported in the Introduction to this series of primers that some agency heads were reporting for about 22 of their allotted 25 minutes and then leaving a very brief time for questions to be answered. This is clearly in violation of By Law 26 (C). I would understand that if they are allotted 25 minutes and they are still reporting at the 16 minute and 40 second mark, the “Point of Order” button may be pressed at any microphone, which takes precedence and a messenger can call for the convention to enforce its by law at that time, thus opening the floor to questions.

Another option, of course, is to move that the convention extend the time of business so that sufficient questions may be asked and answered. The downside of this is that the motion may be voted down. As the by laws are approved, they must be enforced, although you may alienate the general population of the convention if they perceive you as rude to the speaker.

In the end, you must judge for yourself if the time for questions is so vital that you will risk being seen as insolate. Of course, the person reporting can always act with integrity and decorum by following the rules in the first place, which is appropriate to every godly man or woman, even in the face of adversity.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Part 1 of the introduction to this series provides a description of how business will be run during the convention. Since that is done, and you can reference it there, I want to focus on the details of the Committee on Order of Business and then some semi-random thoughts about business and business meetings.

The committee is made up of the President of the Convention and six other members. Two of the six rotate off the committee each year after having served three years. The committee is to have at least two people who are not full time ministers or denominational servants. When you rotate off, you may not rotate back on the next year. I presume this is to ensure a wider scope of servants on this vital committee and so that the controlling of business does not come down to six people who serve in perpetuity.

This committee sets the schedule for business. Such items of business that are able to be scheduled prior to the convention, the committee sets and releases the schedule well in advance of the convention. I understand the schedule for such business is due out any day now.

When a motion comes from the floor, with a second, the committee gets the motion and investigates it. If it is in conflict with a governing document of the convention or in conflict with the rules of the convention (speaking in a disparaging way, for instance) then it will be ruled “Out of Order.”

Demanding that an agency of the convention do such and such is out of order because the convention does not govern its agencies. The Boards of Trustees, or similar governing bodies, govern their individual agencies. If the motion refers to a particular agency, but is not in violation of this type of governing stipulation, the committee will refer it to that agency. The agency’s Board of Trustees, or similar governing body, can do what it pleases at this point.

If a motion is in order, and is the business of the convention and not an agency of the convention, then the committee will schedule it to be brought to the floor for a discussion and a vote. The committee will publish the substance of the motion and its schedule in the convention Bulletin. If they are to schedule the motion to be brought to the floor of the convention before the printing of the next Bulletin, then they will announce all the pertinent information on the floor of the convention.

There is only one time a motion can be discussed and voted on at the time of the motion instead of it being scheduled by the committee for a later time. If it is in order, and the convention UNANIMOUSLY votes to bring it to the floor immediately, it may be done. With all of those various minded folks gathered, though, it would have to be an overwhelmingly unifying motion to get a unanimous vote.

The committee is to schedule a time for all such motions to be brought. All motions to be considered must be brought before the close of the afternoon session on the first day of the convention. After that, I believe, they are ruled “Out of Order.”

SEMI-RANDOM THOUGHTS

The proper phrasing of a motion is of interest to some. The way to properly phrase the opening of a motion is,
“I move…,” and not, “I make a motion that…” This is just for those who care about such things. I think you could technically be ruled “Out of Order” for phrasing it that way, but I doubt that you would be - especially this year.

It is also this committee that selects the director of Music and the Convention Preacher. If you have suggestions or complaints about the music or the preaching, save them until after the convention. These people will have plenty on their plate. Literally. They meet to go over the business of the convention during lunch and supper breaks.

Over at SBC Outpost today, there is posted a letter that claims that there is some conspiracy to make the convention in Greensboro about Dr. Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS and one of the architects of the resurgence. The last time I checked, I thought the convention swell was about getting on with the business of reaching the world.

Besides that, Dr. Patterson is the President of an SBC agency, and his role within the convention is the per view of the Board of Trustees at SWBTS. Any motion regarding him in that role would be either out of order or referred to that institution’s trustees. I don’t see any way to make him the focus of the convention, even if anybody wanted to do so.

==========

Off - Topic - IMB and Dissent

The Biblical Recorder has weighed in, again, on the IMB BOT and their newest policy concerning public dissent. In the article, Baptists don’t wear muzzles, Tony Cartledge outlines how such a move is against the very history of being Baptist.

It seems I have heard this before. I like this guy.

art

The Committee on Resolutions (By Law 20) is actually easy and complicated at the same time. A lot of help, huh? It’s easy to understand the process, but can get complicated when submitting a resolution of your own. Because of this, I will break this post into these two areas.

GENERAL PROCESS

The President and VP’s appoint this committee and publish the names of its members at least 75 days before the convention. It consists of 10 people, 2 of whom have served this committee before and 3 of whom serve on the current Executive Committee. The chair, this year, is TC “Tommy” French, as has been noted by Dorcas Hawker.

The committee receives resolutions from April 15 until 15 days before the convention [Monday, May 29, 2006 - for this year's convention]. The committee sorts through the resolutions and recommends some of them to the convention.

The Titles of every Resolution properly submitted are printed in the convention Bulletin. This means that all of the convention will see every submitted resolution, whether the committee chooses to bring it to the floor or not. If the committee chooses not to bring a properly submitted resolution, the convention can, with a 2/3 vote, bring a resolution to the floor for discussion and a vote. I have heard it said that the only man ever to accomplish this is Wiley Drake - known by some as “Mr. Resolution.”

The fallout is this: Only properly submitted resolutions can be voted on by the convention. Any resolution brought from the floor of the convention will be ruled out of order. If you want a resolution brought to the floor that the committee didn’t want passed, then a motion, second and 2/3 vote will get it to the floor. Presumably, if you get it to the floor with 2/3 of the voting messengers, you will be able to get it passed unless a persuasive argument is made not to pass it. In other words, once you get it there, it is your vote to lose.

Resolutions are not binding. Nobody has to do anything that a resolution calls for, but they are supposedly a “snapshot” of the convention. Media picks up on the resolutions [remember Disney?] and so do the pastors and therefore the churches.

Moreover, if the convention passes a particular resolution and an entity of the convention has policy or procedure that is in conflict with that resolution, which supposedly expresses the “will and mind of the convention,” then during the question and answer time of that entity’s report to the convention, the entity may be asked to account for the discrepancy. Egg on the face does have an impact.

PROPERLY SUBMITTING A RESOLUTION

Resolutions must fit a certain formula to be properly submitted.

1. They must be submitted between April 15 and May 29 for this year’s convention.

2. They must be addressed to the Committee on Resolutions in care of the Executive Committee of the SBC at it’s Nashville address: 901 Commerce Street, Nashville, TN 37203 OR you can email your submission. In fact, sbc.net has an online submission form that you can use.

3. The resolution must be typewritten, titled and dated.

4. The resolution must be accompanied by specific contact information for the person submitting and the person’s church. This information is compiled into a form verifying the church’s credentials as qualifying to send a messenger to the convention. You do not have to use the credential form, but it makes it easier. This form can be found at sbc.net. If you choose to submit your resolution online, the credentials are part of the form.

5. The resolution must also be accompanied by a letter from your church validating that you are a member in good standing. If you submit the resolution online, you must send this letter in the mail following your online submission.

6. You can only submit 3 resolutions per year.

7. The committee will date the resolution when they receive it. Since they require you to date it also, this, apparently, is to validate that it was received within the appropriate window of time.

The wording of resolutions is also somewhat technical. How to Frame a Resolution is a helpful page found at sbc.net.

Again, while not binding, resolutions often reveal the heart of the convention to those at home and to the outside world. They also might shed some light on our hearts to those who are in certain leadership positions within the SBC, letting them know that we are paying close attention and are active. They also might reveal to us just how many leaders within the convention are in agreement with us.