12 Witnesses

The Committee on Nominations is the second part of the Conservative strategy during the resurgence. The Committee on Nominations is appointed by the President. This committee then proposes a slate of officers to the convention to fill various SBC roles. The plan was that the President picked nominators who were conservative and they filled vacancies with fellow conservatives. Over the span of ten years, all of the vacancies had come open in all of the institutions and were then filled with conservatives.

When entities of the convention began to have boards that were populated with a decided majority of conservatives, the boards began to overhaul the staff of the various entities. This is what really split the convention.

It wasn’t that conservatives were on the committees and boards. They were already represented to some degree or another. The thing that got people mad was when certain people got fired. I have a close friend who was a graduate of SBTS in Louisville. He is a good guy and I would say as conservative in his beliefs about the Bible and practice as most Southern Baptists today. However, he was furious when he perceived that some of the professors at Southern were moved out politically. These men had a great impact on him, but they weren’t part of the “inner circle,” or so his perception runs.

His perception may or may not be true, or may even be true to some degree or in some instances. Perception is reality, though, and for many conservative, non-political Southern Baptists, this is where they really burned. Many left; many just dropped out of the convention in everything except donations and name.

Again, you have not heard too much about this committee lately. I have not heard anybody espousing a plan to utilize this committee or its slate in an effort to take over the convention again. It seems to be the mood of Southern Baptists, now that “the war is over,” to quit utilizing this plan altogether and quit filtering the servants of the denomination by loyalties. We are now a pool of conservative believers; we ought to be able to work together, shouldn’t we?

There are a few things that first timers need to know. One is that there are various sub points to this by law that direct the committee against nepotism and cronyism. Another is that the committee must release the slate of nominees to the Baptist Press by April 28. There have been a few accusations concerning the skirting of the aforementioned sub points and they have led to accusations of cronyism and nepotism after the fact. No doubt the release of this slate, 45 days before the convention, will allow the opportunity to highlight potential irregularities. I am assured that the slate will be scoured for possible offenses in this area.

The schedule for this particular business has not yet been released, but the fixed business schedule is set to be released any day now. I will alert you when it is released.

If you would like to recommend someone else for a specific position, substitute nominations may be made, and they must be one at a time. This will be done as an amendment to the slate, and, I believe, each amendment will have its own vote. When the amendment process is done, the adoption of the amended slate will be the new officers.

This means that no one will be allowed to substitute an alternate slate as a whole. In essence, it keeps a person or a small group of people from undoing the work of the entire committee, which is a good thing.

If one seeks to substitute a name on the slate, you will be saying something to the effect of, “Because of [well thought out, concise reason for the substitution], I move that the motion from the Committee on Nominations be amended to include [Name] as the nominee for [certain post].” There will need to be a second and then discussion and a vote on whether or not that person becomes the new nominee.

Obviously, this will take some thinking out and should be done with great trepidation. Anyone seeking to simply remove the entire slate will begin an extremely tedious process that will likely raise the ire of the convention. On top of this, there is a time limit of ten minutes for this business. If there is a need to go beyond the ten minutes, it can be handled from the floor with a motion, a second and a vote in favor to extend the time for this business. The Committee on Order of Business can also choose to extend the time if they see the need. If neither of these are done, the President will call for the vote after the ten minutes is up and the slate will be adopted “as is.”

In previous years, the Committee on Order of Business has instituted a rule limiting comments to 2-3 minutes for the duration of the convention. At the end of the set time the mic will be cut off. If your motion does not make sense, that is if it is incomplete, it will be ruled out of order. The 2-3 minute rule may or may not be in effect this year. The Committee on Order of Business will decide the week before the convention. The President may simply ask for this, and that is just as good as a rule from the committee.

In any event, be prepared to be short. The fact that only one substitute can be made at a time and the need to vote on each amendment will gobble up the ten minutes quickly.

My recommendation is that you look over the list carefully when it comes out in a couple of weeks. If you have no real objections, then you shouldn’t mess with it.

On the other hand, if there are violations of the nepotism and cronyism rules, or there are nominees whose nomination flirts with such rules, or there are nominees who have documented instances of historical actions inappropriate to the leadership of the convention appearing on the slate, then prepare and amend. Do NOT bring spurious charges against nominees, either. We are talking about a documented “arrest for fraud,” as an example.

You may think that you have a person whose character and leadership gifts would be of great benefit to the convention and want to nominate them for this reason. You could do so in similar manner, praising the service of the committee and not running down the current nominee. This would be accepted by many, I would think.

====================

There are a couple of other interesting issues within By Law 15. 15(E) states: “The committee shall recognize the principle that the persons it recommends shall represent the constituency of the Convention, rather than the staff of the entity.”

This causes Wade Burleson’s blogging concerning the IMB and its policies to be very defensible. While the governing documents for the convention do not govern the individual entities, a question might be raised after an entities’ report as to why they have rules that are in apparent contradiction to SBC By Laws - whose nomination and election to their positions came under these By Laws.

In my mind, this would be an appropriate question for the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the IMB concerning its newly adopted policy that, at certain times, prohibits the Trustees from expressing their full mind to the convention at large concerning the business of the IMB. The response may be that this By Law delineates accountability to the Convention as opposed to the Staff, so that policy is not in opposition to the By Law. This is a poor defense, as accountability to the convention is expressed clearly as the sole responsibility of the elected Trustees, regardless of any other entity claiming the Trustee’s allegiance.

In another application of this section of By Law 15, entity heads who hold sway over their entity’s Trustees are in complete defiance of this By Law. The question of specific, documented instances of such would be completely justified at that entity’s time of report.

OK, to heck with the schedule. I had extra time today, so I wrote up the officer election post ahead of my intended time. What can I say? I’m an over-achiever.

The election of officers is crucial for a unique reason. The Conservatives of the resurgence recognized just how crucial it was and marked it as the key to winning the “Battle for the Bible.” The President of the Convention appoints nominators who nominate key individuals to certain posts - such as Trustees, etc.

This is not that. You have noted, probably, the distinct lack of people clamoring or maneuvering to run an opposition candidate over these issues. I think this is because we are all conservatives and are willing to work together to move forward. Things are not now like they were in the 80’s.

There was some early flap about running an opposition candidate to Johnny Hunt, but political back room appointments were never the real problem, although many expressed distaste in the “Kingmakers” still picking the president. The first issue I saw raised was that Dr. Hunt has been openly critical of “Calvinists,” or “Reformed Theologians,” and there are a significant number of those holding to this theology within the convention. Mark what I said, here. Dr. Hunt was perceived as publicly critical of the people, not just the theology. The question was raised as to whether or not he could lead the convention after being so disparaging in his comments toward many Southern Baptists. This was discussed at length at Dr. Tom Ascol’s Founder’s Ministry blog. In fact, the brothers Cainer joined in the discussion and became quite disparaging themselves, which boggled the minds of many.

Several at Founder’s put forward the name of Dr. Mark Dever as a potential rival for the Presidency and it was picked up across the internet. Dr. Dever is known as a Reformed Theologian and was seen as a rebuttal to what was offensive to many in the Reformed camp. Peace seemed to be the mindset as Dr. Dever’s name was quickly added to the ballot, as 1st VP. Some, I think, felt robbed of their candidate, but others seemed to take it as an olive branch.

The other question raised was that FBC Woodstock, whose pastor is Dr. Hunt, had given an amount to the Cooperative Program that was much smaller than the 10% for which the leadership of the convention has been asking. Some have speculated that this may be somewhat embarrassing to Dr. Hunt. I recently read in the comment section of a post at Founder’s that the speculation had reached the point of thinking that Dr. Hunt will withdraw his name over it.

While Dr. Hunt may or may not be on the ballot, the question of additional nominees is still looming. If the ballot is swamped with nominees, most will rally to the identifiable name that was endorsed by the “Kingmakers” of old - at this point Johnny Hunt, or their next appointment should he withdraw. If the ballot has two names, there could be some degree of uncertainty as to the outcome of the vote before the tally is reported. I think the SBC is somewhat divided culturally and generationally. This could be evidenced in a split ballot, but I hope not.

We should prayerfully approach this issue over the next two months. This president will not begin to serve until we adjourn the convention, so will not have any say as to the business in the front of most of our minds at Greensboro. However, we also need to wisely discern if the man for whom we vote is a “political appointment” who owes allegiances to his appointers, or if he is a fair minded and independent visionary leader like Bobby Welch has been. (I know not everyone has been head over heels for Dr. Welch’s leadership - but I am going to defend him here. He has attempted to focus us outward toward the lost - off the petty cultural bickering in which we have often been mired - and he has been fair in moderating the convention. He should be set apart as a fine President in the annuls of our Convention.)

Here is a breakdown of the By Laws #8 - the election of officers.

The President, the 2 VP’s and the secretaries are elected at the convention and start their service after we adjourn. The President is the key elected official.

When you register, you get a book of ballots and this election is by ballot. Not all elections are by ballot, but this is a crucial vote. Don’t lose your ballots! If there is one nominee, the chair can declare the election of that nominee without messing with the ballots. I’m betting somebody will nominate more than one candidate. I hope we don’t have more than two, or at the most three, but the way things are spinning now, who knows? If officers do not receive 50% or more of the votes, we have a run off. Been a while since that happened, huh?

A nominee can only be put forward by one person. The speech given in that nomination is limited to 3 minutes. You have a brief time to convince the convention your man is THE MAN, and you will be the only one allowed to speak on his behalf.

The ballots are tabulated by tellers who are appointed by the current President. This is a pretty trusted deal and I think there is a lot of accountability there. Remember, the resurgence really put this to the test with huge conventions and closely contested elections. It has been a while since they needed to do much of this, but I think Dr. Welch has his eye on it and will appoint capable people.

Please remember to put, “Primer - Officer Election” at the top of your comments so I will know where they are when I get the email notice. I can respond more quickly that way. Thanks!

First off, the Southern Baptist Convention does not have “delegates” and if you call yourself or anyone else that, you will be known immediately as a “newbie.”

The secular press makes this mistake every year. Sometimes they even condescendingly say something to the effect of, “their delegates, which they call ‘messengers’…” This tells us that someone has tried to explain the difference to them and they clearly thought that it was a nuisance to be bothered with the subtleties and therefore glossed over the whole thing.

Here is the difference as I understand it. A delegate is given a specific task for which they are responsible. There is a sense of obligation to do a certain thing. A messenger has no such obligation, but is simply a representative of the congregation, endorsed to handle things as they see fit and with no duty to answer back to the congregation for any particular issue.

During the resurgence, I knew of several groups from certain churches whose messengers would sit in different places so that no one could see them vote. Usually, this was because they were splitting the vote.

Anyway, each Southern Baptist church gets messengers, up to ten, depending on how much they give to the Cooperative Program. No, it is not according to the size of the church. Yes, that means “Mega Churches” get ten votes, as does FBC, Russellville, KY. I won’t bother to explain what some have called the “buy a vote” plan that allows you to get up to ten messengers, but most churches qualify for ten. If anyone wants to flesh that out in the comments, feel free, but for the sake of keeping this readable, I will move on.

If you are to be a messenger, you must be voted as such by your church. The church will then send you to the convention with credentials that identify you as their messenger. This is a standard form, but if the church doesn’t give it to you, or you lose it, a fax, letter or email to that effect will still get you your packet of information, ballots, etc. when you register at the convention site. It is not really a big deal and they do a good job of getting everyone settled.

The total number of messengers who are registered are the “convention.” It is this total number that percentages will be based on when deciding a quorum. I am going to discuss quorums later, but since it relates here, I will define it for you now.

A quorum is the minimum number of registered messengers necessary to say that the convention is adequately represented and therefore can conduct business. For us, 25% of registered messengers must be present.

Here is the fallout of that deal.

IF, say 19% of the registered messengers at the convention are in support of the new IMB policies and 13% think that Wade Burleson should be removed from office as a Trustee to the IMB,

AND we assume that the rest of the convention disagrees with the policies and thinks Wade should be restored to full duty,

THEN, we can safely say that the particular views for the policies and against Wade are in the minority and by a wide margin,

BUT, if we have a quorum of 28% (just over 25% needed) and they are made up of all of the aforementioned minority, and just a few of the vast majority,

THEN, the convention will do business as if it is fairly represented, even though it is not.

Let’s say that all of those particular people know that the subject of the IMB is due to come up and, it being important to them, they show up. Meanwhile, all those new to the convention, thinking it is a little tedious, head for the local Starbucks, since hanging out is our thing, we leave the business in the hands of those with whom we vastly disagree. We then will end up not doing what we came to do, right?

My point is…

1 Be properly voted as a messenger by your church.

2 Keep up with your credentials.

3 Arrive in plenty of time to register.

4 Keep up with the ballots and schedule given to you at registration.

5 Do not faint, and do not grow weary. You will be needed to vote and you can only do that if you are there.

Also, you will get a schedule of set business at the Young Leaders Summitt II and the daily bulletin will give you an updated schedule.

Don’t be overwhelmed. This is just the beginning, but it is easier than you think. I promise.

Oh, yeah, one last thing. I was reading over on Wade’s blog about a pastor who told Wade that he would move to have Wade removed as a Trustee for the IMB. You want to know what there will be to vote on? He just gave you one - and it’s a big one.

I would like to thank this pastor for giving us the rally point the IMB took away when they rescinded their motion. Some people just don’t know how to follow leadership, and in this case, I am glad.

If that vote makes it to the floor, I am thinking that the overwhelming vote against it may help people who are in the minority understand that working with others is better than trying to force people to do what you want them to do.

Please remember to put “Primer - Messengers” at the top of your comments so I will know where to find it when I get the email notice. Thanks.

It has been intimated and overtly questioned as to whether or not the convention leadership will be “fair” during the upcoming Convention in Greensboro. I have many reasons to believe that everyone, no matter what their convictions, will be treated fairly.

I want to publicly affirm my trust in Bobby Welch as the moderator of our convention. I think that he is a fair person and will be fair while fulfilling his duties. Why do I think that?

In previous years, when some Entity Heads gave their report, it would last for about 22 of their allotted 25 minutes and then open the floor for questions in the final three minutes. Last year, Bobby asked them to open the floor for questions early in their report so there would be plenty of time for interaction with the messengers. Some did not exactly follow the wishes of the President. Occasionally, our President would use the prerogative of his office to extend the time of the report to give the floor the ability to ask questions they felt necessary.

This sounds fair to me. How about you?

I understand that he is more committed to making sure that this accountability happens this year.

For those of you never having been to the convention, you might like to see what it is like and what matters. Did you know that the convention has live video streaming? Did you know you can still access last year’s video?

Click on this link to the ‘05 annual meeting and then click the link entitled, “Watch the 2005 SBC Annual Meeting.”

Pay close attention to the reports on the Committee on Order of Business reports on Tuesday. There are two. This will show you how some of what has been explained above is fleshed out.

Tomorrow it is time to start in on the bylaws.

I know, what a title. It is reflective of what has become a lot more than I thought it was going to be when I first started down this path. The first two posts I wrote last week. Then so many had more questions and there was so much more to say, we have ended up with a two week series. No kidding.

Well, let’s get it on.

Ok, Young ‘uns. It is time to get your head straight about Greensboro. I have been contacted by several longtime SBC participants who have served and led our Convention for many years. They are concerned that you are mistaken in several assumptions and that might influence you to mistrust people who are on your side or to not come to the Greensboro at all.

Specifically, they are concerned, and I think rightly so, that you mistrust anyone over 40 in the convention and you mistrust the power structure completely. Now, don’t get me wrong, not everyone is trustworthy in the convention. My posts over the last three months are plenty of evidence of that. Still, we can’t fail to work with everyone. I believe there are many more allies in the “older” generation than there are people who are not.

Their other concern is that we think the leadership on the platform is in control of the content of our business. This is not true. I believe many among the leadership are sympathetic to much of what we are doing and saying, but they do not control what is said either way. The rules that govern business do that. In other words, nobody will rule you out of order just because they don’t like what you say.

In combination, these two paragraphs lead us to understand that you have a voice and it will be heard, but like everyone else, you must adhere to the rules of the convention.

In order to help everyone understand the process, and how to avail themselves of it, I was sent this description by a concerned Southern Baptist who is desirous of us working well within the Convention. Pastor Allan Blume is the Chairman of the Committee on Order of Business for this year, and he confirmed the accuracy of this description to me after it was forwarded to him. He also gave me permission to say that the leadership of the convention was extremely interested in being fair. I am going to post about the fairness of the leadership this afternoon, and you should definitely tune in.

Emphasis is mine.

All microphones at the convention are on a computerized system. There are buttons to indicate speaking for or against a subject, and to indicate a point of order. The computer sends the order and nature of the request to a control panel. Two people on the committee on order of business watch over that, along with two parliamentarians. The cameras may know which microphone is coming up even before the President does! Microphones are then activated in the proper sequence; for example there must be a “for” and “against” back and forth sequence, or a point of order that takes immediate precedence, and the committee members/parliamentarians let the president know who to recognize next, according to the order on the control panel. The business is conducted according to Roberts Rules of Order and not the whim of the president. The president does not “control” the meeting, he moderates it. He is bound by Roberts Rules of Order and also by the will of the House. The House can vote to either overrule or sustain the chair if it so desires. No one’s microphone is arbitrarily cut off, but there are rules such as no personal attacks, attempting to discuss something that is not germane to the current item on the floor, or going over the allotted time allowed for each individual. (With thousands of messengers in attendance, it would not be fair to allow someone to filibuster!) A person doing such would be called out of order by the President. Only then would a microphone be turned off to go to another person. There are also may be fixed items of business that cannot be changed, such as the convention sermon and the President’s address. Otherwise, there can be a motion made to extend debate for “x” number of minutes if time for business has been exceeded.

You are encouraged to come prepared, to study Roberts Rules of Order and be familiar with the terms and procedures therein. It would be good to also be familiar with SBC bylaws. In the daily bulletin published for all messengers, there will be a detailed explanation of the convention procedures. Those in leadership positions want to encourage participation in this process and do everything in their power to facilitate a messengers’ desire to address the convention and have their concerns heard and questions answered.

In his return email, Pastor Blume added this:

One additional comment on what happens “behind the scenes.” There are specific times on the program when motions can be presented. After motions are presented on the floor, they cannot be discussed at that moment. They are taken to our committee, where we have convention lawyers and parliamentarians working with our committee to decide the right way to deal with the motions. The committee is not dispensing with motions by means of personal opinion, but by very specific guidelines in the SBC bylaws.

Our committee will meet during each lunch and supper break (with the lawyers and parliamentarians) to deal with the motions. It will then be my responsibility to report to the convention at the next session on the way we recommend that each motion be handled. The floor can challenge our advice on the dispensing of any specific motion. Our recommendation is going to be (1) to rule it out of order, (2) to refer to a specific SBC institution, or (3) to bring the motion to the floor of the convention at a specific point in time (for example, I may say, “This motion will be presented to the convention for discussion at the Wednesday morning session at 9:10 am.”)

He sounds quite fair to me. Doesn’t he to you?

Apparently, the wording of a motion is very critical to the process, which is the reason why every motion should be carefully worded and sifted through wise consultation from someone “in the know” on convention policies and procedures.

Later today I will post the second “Introduction Post” on fairness and leadership (much shorter). Then we will follow several specific and important by-laws. You may look at the SBC bylaws online at sbc.net. I ask everyone to feel to ask questions in the comment sections and for our veterans to feel free to help us out with practical knowledge that they may have.

I ask you one favor! At the top of your comment, type the name of the post so that when I get an email notification I will know where to go to address it. With so much convention business, it would be very confusing to track all the various conversations that I anticipate happening simultaneously. You can simply put something like: “By Law 20 - Resolutions” and then the rest of your question or comment. Thanks for your help!

Here is our schedule:

By Law 8 is on Messenger Credentials and Registration - Tuesday, April 11
By Law 10 is on the Election of Officers - Wednesday, April 12
By Law 15 is on the Committee on Nominations - Thursday, April 13
By Law 20 is on the Committee on Resolutions - Friday, April 14 (morning)
By Law 21 is on the Committee on the Order of Business - Friday, April 14 (afternoon)
By Law 26 is on Procedures - Monday, April 17
By Law 31 is on the Adoption of Reports - Tuesday, April 18
By Law 34 is on Voting & 35 defines a Quorum - Wednesday, April 19
By Law 36 is on Trustee Absenteeism (about removing Trustees) - Thursday, April 20
General summary - Friday, April 21

SBC Dissenter, in a comment in a different post, revealed some interesting information about the Chairman of the Committee on Resolutions (a crucial position), Tommy French. Before I could turn around, blogging’s Queen of Generosity (thanks again for the gift card to Starbucks), attorney Dorcas Hawker, took up the challenge and posted on it. I mention that she is an attorney, because you will see some serious research in her post. The article is entitled, T.C. “Tommy” French, Jr. - a Chronology.

Don’t miss the Press Release for the Young Leaders’ Summit II.

The Primer for the convention is taking on a life of its own. I had planned a post or two, but then it stretched into a week’s worth. Now it looks like it may be a series of up to 10 with the original two just an introduction. Be sure to check it out starting on Monday.

Finally, I have some prayer requests. I have never done this before, but I am going to use my blog to direct my readers’ attention to myself. I take this very seriously, because it is important to me not to diffuse the focus on the current SBC issues.

In light of my desire to maintain the focus on the SBC issues, I ask you not to comment on my prayer requests. If you want to speak to my prayer requests with a word of encouragement or something, then feel free to email me. However, I am not asking for this. I appreciate your prayers and they are enough.

Both requests are personal, but they are both related to ministry and the SBC. The first one is about my ministry. The second one relates to the Convention in Greensboro.

Thank you for your support, and remember to comment on the relevant SBC stuff. Let’s keep the focus of this blog where it is.

Second edition of Younger Leaders Summit set for Greensboro

What began in Nashville at the 2005 Southern Baptist Convention continues in Greensboro when the Younger Leaders Summit II commences Monday, June 12, following the annual pastors’ conference.

The event will be held at War Memorial Auditorium beginning at 10 pm. Marty Duren, Pastor of New Bethany Baptist Church in Buford, GA, the event’s principle organizer and author of the Weblog, SBC Outpost, said the intention is for the summit to conclude by 10:45.

“We really want this to be an interactive time,” Duren said. “We want those attending to have time to interact with the speakers as well as network with each other and hope that the fellowship following the meeting is as beneficial as the meeting itself. I think last year we saw the value of bringing younger leaders together. There were some beneficial relationships established.”

Last year’s Younger Leaders Summit was hosted by then-president of LifeWay Christian Resources James T. Draper Jr. Draper challenged the denomination during the 2004 SBC in Indianapolis to “pull a chair to the table” for younger leaders, allowing them to get more involved in the SBC. He then spent the next year encouraging cross-generational interaction through commentaries and personal appearances. The culmination of that effort was the Younger Leaders Summit in Nashville. Draper said at the time that the summit was an opportunity to give younger leaders a platform from which to speak.

Draper, who retired from LifeWay in February, will be one of the speakers at this year’s summit. Also appearing are Doug and Kiki Cherry, Mission Service Corps Campus Directors at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Jerry Rankin, president of the International Mission Board, Tim Sweatman, Pastor of Jackson Grove BC, Bowling Green, KY, Wade Burleson, Pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, OK, and IMB trustee, with the main address being given by Jeff Iorg, president, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

“We’ve seen a lot of positive things happen in the two years since Dr. Draper called the denomination to reach out to younger leaders,” Duren said. “It seems as things have accelerated in our denomination just since last year’s summit in Nashville and interest continues to build toward Greensboro. I appreciate that Dr. Draper expressed the leadership he did. It was timely and providential.

“I believe we have a great lineup. I believe each will bring a challenge for calling our denomination to focus its energies on reaching a lost world with the gospel. We wanted speakers who were relevant and could address the need for missional living in our churches.”

A praise team will lead in a time of worship. Registration is not necessary and updates will be provided between now and the convention.

Wade Burleson has a post up talking about the now public IMB minutes from January’s meeting. You will recall that there has been much speculation about what went on there.

This post gives you Wade’s version of it.

The minutes can be found at Scott Birdwell’s blog. Thanks to Scott for making them available to us all.

Several have asked why Wade is not restored to full responsibilities and others (most vocal of whom is Kevin Bussey) as why there was no apology made to Wade.

Here are a few of my thoughts as to why.

1 No Apology

No apology because that opens the door to criticism by admitting they were wrong. That is, criticism and possible consequences. If they hold to the story that it was just a misunderstanding, then they stand a good chance of not being held to account for the damage done to Wade Burleson’s reputation.

Well, the attempt to damage Wade’s reputation. By calling the blog to light, they basically invited everyone to read it for themselves. Most of my readers know I am a firm believer in letting the facts speak for themselves, and Wade’s own words are his best defense. Most who have read his blog have determined that he had not gossiped nor had he slandered there. I think Wade looks better because of it all.

Wade asserts, by the way, a fair reading of the minutes will reveal that the issue was the blog all along, and not, as some have asserted after the fact, separate issues of gossip or slander not related to the blog. As always, I invite you to read it for yourself.

2 Unanimous vote to rescind

The motion to remove Wade was rescinded unanimously for many reasons. Wade said not everyone was at the meeting where the original motion was made, nor did everyone vote and of those voting, not everyone voted in affirmation of the motion to remove him. This tells us that the Trustees were divided over the situation and that now all of them felt their particular loyalties were best served by rescinding of the motion to remove.

3 Keeping Wade in the penalty box

Then why keep Wade off the committees? By removing Wade from the committees, the BOT leadership has come close to doing what it set out to do in January - remove Wade from serious impact on the Board. It is not the whole enchilada, but it is close and the SBC is not guaranteed a discussion and a vote on it. This makes holding them accountable a little more slippery.

Will you let them get away with it?

Coming soon…

A Young SBC Leader’s Primer on the Convention in Greensboro

& more investigation of various sorts.

Ok, if you haven’t read Marty Duren’s blog lately, crawl out from under your rock and get caught up. Along with two awesome articles from him, I list a few others that are worth your time.

SBC Outpost - Marty Duren

The Vision Thing

The Natural Outworking of Landmark Influence: The D’s

Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee - Kevin Bussey

I Witnessed to Bill Murray

The City Gates - Dorcas Hawker

My Soap Box
[for those of you looking for more SWBTS related stuff, check this out]

A Couple of Words - Christie & Rick Garrett

Tuesday, April 4, 2006
[the link takes you to their blog. find the post with the date above, written by christie]

Standing for Truth - Villa Rica

Coffee, Plumbers and Tort Lawyers
[I recommend this one to you IN SPITE of the lauditory things it has to say about me. It will bring a smile with a thoughtful aftertaste.]

Grace and Truth to You - Wade Burleson

It’s Christ’s Kingdom, Not a Denominational Fiefdom
[Wrapping up the full read with "the nexus" and some wise words from Dr. B.]

Oh, and remember that in Christ’s Kingdom, last is not least, but great.

In reference to Dr. Patterson’s claim that SWBTS was in a 20 year decline that was ending with his arrival, these numbers from the SBC annual:

1982-1983 3,543 Resurgence begins + 3 years

1983-1984 4,029

1984-1985 3,981 Art Graduates HS

1985-1986 3,929

1986-1987 3,797

1987-1988 3,665 Art’s parents beg him to graduate college

1988-1989 3,465

1989-1990 3,389 Art gets BA, enrolls at SWBTS, parents sigh - Art is paying for Seminary

1990-1991 3,134

1991-1992 3,141

1992-1993 3,129 Art gets married over Christmas break.

Paige Patterson assumes Presidency of Southeastern Seminary - begins changing the image of SEBTS among many Southern Baptists from “liberal” to “conservative.” Attendance there begins to rise.

1993-1994 3,034 In the fall of the year, Bonnie tells Art they are having a Seminary baby. Art gets serious about graduating and starts taking many classes and summer school.

Al Mohler assumes Presidency of Southern Seminary - begins changing the image of SBTS among many Southern Baptists from “liberal” to “conservative.” Attendance there begins to rise.

In the Spring, Dr. Dilday is fired hours after Trustees assure him, students and other interested Southern Baptists that his job is secure. SWBTS is put on academic probation.

Art’s son, Jimmy is born during the summer.

1994-1995 2,805 Dr. Hemphill wins the trust of the faculty, staff, students and the accrediting agency, SWBTS is removed from probation is astonishing time.

Art graduates and moves to Kentucky.

1995-1996 3,024

1996-1997 3,052

1997-1998 3,099

1998-1999 2,784

1999-2000 2,441

2000-2001 2,371

2001-2002 2,381

2002-2003 2,209 Dr. Hemphill pressed out, Dr. Patterson installed within 4 months

2003-2004 2,202

2004-2005 1,991

According to the FTE numbers, Dr. Patterson is more or less accurate in saying that SWBTS was in a gentle decline for about 20 years.

However, Dr. Patterson is refering to the FTE numbers and does not include the Bachelor’s degree program added in the late 90’s bringing in hundreds of students that are not reflected in these numbers. He does not include the D.Min. students that are not reflected in these numbers. He certainly did not include the PhD students that are not reflected in these numbers - when during this time the pre-requisite for admission to the PhD program dropped from a 3.7 GPA to a 3.5 GPA. This raised the number of candidates and admissions to that program.

Why does this matter? Because he certainly DOES include any and all such numbers in his reports to the Trustees now.

Apples — Oranges

Fruit, but not the same, and disengenuous to imply that they are.

One more thing for today: The reference to the housing being 95% full is misleading in many ways. For instance, there are still NOBTS students living there who were forced out by Katrina. SWBTS graciously offered them a place to live and continue their studies, but not all have been able to relocate back in New Orleans. At this point, many are in the housing, but not registered as students at SWBTS.

Right?