Recapping (again) Marty’s story, Dr. John Floyd has been elected chair of the IMB BOT.
Read Marty’s stuff at SBC Outpost:
Dr. John Floyd Elected as Chairman of IMB BOT
Here are a few hot button issues surrounding this election…
First, it was a close election, showing some division of support for Floyd’s leadership. I am sure many will support him as chair that did not vote for him, but there will just as surely will be some that will not do so. This is not the near unanimous votes that the BOT has been getting on certain issues.
Second, I have heard for months that Dr. Floyd is a Landmarker and proud of it. As chair, I am sure that he will do everything in his power to ensure that the qualifications for Missionaries passed in November, PPL and Administrator Baptism, will stay in place.
Third, Dr. Floyd is a former IMB missionary and draws a pension from the IMB. There is some speculation that this will force him to resign as a Trustee under SBC ByLaw 15F:
No person shall be eligible to serve on any one of the above entities from which he/she receives any part of his/her salary, directly or indirectly, or, which provides funds for which he/she has a duty of administration. When such conditions become applicable, that person shall be considered as having resigned and such vacancy shall be filled in accordance with established Convention procedure.
I doubt that the word “salary” in the above paragraph will be extended to mean “pension,” and so I doubt that will force a resignation; although the term “funds” in the succeeding phrase might raise a question. More specifically, I doubt he or his colleagues would have allowed him to be put into this situation without first assuring that he could survive it. I am confident that they will have looked into all potentialities.
I do have serious issues about the conflict of interest already shown by his being on the Board of Trustees at a place where he draws a pension in the first place. This alone gives the appearance that unethical connections could exist. When you add to it the fact that he has also been serving on the committee that decides the pension amounts – he has had a hand in deciding his own income – it becomes completely intolerable.
If former IMB missionaries were asked to serve as a Trustee at NAMB, and former NAMB missionaries asked to serve at the IMB, I would have no problem. Their experiences having educated them for the task, but distanced from anything that could be considered a conflict of interest, I would be willing to endorse that situation.
I have a feeling the IMB BOT is about to get a lot of attention. Again.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
annie
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 5:51 pm:
“Johnnie” and Ronnie related?
Since the IMBExC has recommended that a group from within and without the IMB trustees readdress the 2 new policies, I assume that with the election of J. Floyd, that will not happen. Too bad.
Was this possible complication not brought up prior to the election? of a new chair?
art rogers
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 6:01 pm:
annie,
If they were related, I would think we would have heard about it by now, though I don’t officially know.
I would think they would have looked through the process enough to be confident that he is secure. They may have been mistaken, however.
Alan Cross
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 6:23 pm:
From my perspective, I do not have a problem with Dr. Floyd having been an IMB missionary or receiving a pension – he could just recuse himself from anything that was connected to his current situation. It seems that having trustees who were once missionaries could be helpful – of course, I am not looking at this legally.
However, I have a major problem with the Landmark issue. I am looking for when the 2 new IMB policies will be settled finally or if there is any appeal. If there is appeal, then can we get on with it? If not, then can we know that so those of us who want to do missions can start praying about other alternatives? Those issues ARE NOT going away in my mind, and if the IMB is moving even closer to that position, then I am learning where I fit in our convention. This is serious stuff.
steve w
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 6:45 pm:
Art,
Maybe you should change the title of your Landmarkism Link [click here] post to Understanding Where Dr. Floyd Wants To Lead The IMB [click here].
Paul
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 7:34 pm:
Alan,
You are not alone, brother.
CB Scott
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 9:17 pm:
Art,
I may be wrong, but are not pensions protracted salaries? I know you have to pay taxes on them.
The actions of cooperations can have an impact on a person drawing a pension as well as on an individual drawing a salary.
There is always the possibility of a conflict when dealing with money.
I do not know the answer to the question I pose. Maybe a brother with a CPA could answer the question.
cb
art rogers
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 9:32 pm:
CB et al,
I just can’t imagine that they would walk in to that without knowing for sure. That is the base of my confidence.
Art
Benjamin S. Cole
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 9:54 pm:
Art,
You have much greater confidence in the IMB BOT than I do. You feel certain they would have examined all possibilities and thought through something before taking action?
Umm…*cough, cough*…have you read the policies on baptism and private prayer?
I’ve read the stuff this board has turned out. I’ve watched their plenary sessions.
It is, to be hyperbolic, a sad case of the inmates running the asylum.
CB Scott
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 9:55 pm:
Tim,
In the history of the SBC our institutions have walked into many things without knowing for sure, of that I am sure.
cb
art rogers
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 9:57 pm:
Ben,
Interesting observation. I have to give pause at that thought.
So, if they didn’t check it out and it does apply, Floyd is now resigned from the BOT.
Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser, as Tom Ascol was posted on my blog.
art rogers
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 9:59 pm:
CB,
My name is Art. Tim is my (long lost) cousin in NC.
You must be getting old, or something.
Art
Rzrbk
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 10:13 pm:
First, part of John Floyd’s retirement is drawn from the annuity board. For those of us who served with the FMB before 1981 when our retirement was administerd by the FMB and not the annuity board or Guidestone now, there is a portion of our retirement pre-1981 that comes from that defined fund. It may be that money was turned over to Guidestone to be administered.
Landmarkism and retirement funds are a minor issue in this drama. I hate to sound like deep throat but keep checking.
CB Scott
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 10:14 pm:
Art,
I am sorry. I was putting in a bid for a bobbed-tailed lion on Ebay and forgot which of the great Rogers to which I was speaking.
Examples of walking into something without knowing. (two, but not in anyway limited to that number there are many.)
CWT and EE
BSSB vs. Barnett
art rogers
on May 23rd, 2006
@ 10:26 pm:
CB,
I hear there is one on the loose. Keep a sharp eye out and you might catch one without having to pay shipping and handling.
Call me at home if you get this in time.
Art
tl
on May 24th, 2006
@ 2:49 am:
Art wrote:
So, if they didn’t check it out and it does apply, Floyd is now resigned from the BOT.
That absolutely assumes that the powers that be (in this instance it probably should be the executive committee, SBC) want to inforce our bylaws.
A 10-40 window missionary
on May 24th, 2006
@ 4:02 am:
Art,
I have said this on other blogs, the new chairman of the BoT was a political appointee in the interim between the “resignation” of Keith Parks (sometime in the early 1990s) and Jerry Rankin’s election as President of the FMB. A couple of years later, Dr. Rankin instituted New Directions and some area directors were replaced while others were pressured into early retirement. I would hope that those who could not embrace New Directions then could do it now, but it is very hard to “teach old dogs, new tricks.”
art rogers
on May 24th, 2006
@ 9:14 am:
tl,
You, of course, are right. With the current state of affairs in the SBC, however, I don’t know that they can get away with skirting the by-laws without being called on it at every turn.
10-40 M,
Thank you first for your service and secondly for the insight.
My heart is heavy with concern over this. I have a post that I will release this afternoon about our missions agencies and the future of the SBC.
tl
on May 24th, 2006
@ 10:05 am:
It is frightening to think that a president of the SBC would appoint John Floyd to the IMB BoT if his rejection of New Directions was so well known.
It is even more frightening to think that 39 of the current trustees, given the recent problems in West Africa region caused, in all likelihood, by the WA trustee committee (chaired by John Floyd), would then elect him to be the chair of the BoT.
The handwriting is getting clearer to see–a majority of the IMB’s BoT want to change directions, and if Floyd was the architect of the two policies past last fall (as is believed to be), then you can anticipate that extra-biblical beliefs will become policy at IMB in the future.
Unless there is a move of God, with great repentence, the days ahead of IMB look ominous.
PBill
on May 24th, 2006
@ 10:18 am:
John Floyd is a good man. If you dislike his theology or missiology, fine, but the pension business is a fat red herring, a waste of time, and little more than an opportunity for a cheap shot at Floyd apart from the issues of importance – Landmarkism, BFM2K.
I cannot believe Burleson or the rest of you guys, with whom I share the same goals for the IMB, would waste time and credibility on the pension non-issue. The man has a lifetime record of unassailable integrity. Move on to the substance, please.
art rogers
on May 24th, 2006
@ 10:53 am:
PBill,
The issue of pension and governing committee is one that would have had many people shaking their heads – in the secular world.
The fact that he has served on this committeecalls his character into question. So, by definition, his character is NOT “unassailable.”
This issue is substance, and if you don’t agree, you are free to argue the merits – which you have not done. Tell me why this is not a conflict of interest, if you can.
As to what the subject for discussion is on my blog, I decide, not you. If you don’t like that, you are free to move on yourself.
CB Scott
on May 24th, 2006
@ 11:45 am:
Men have gone to prison yelling that the IRS was taking a cheap shot for similar (but not exactly)things. This is an example wherein a person should take the high ground and stand down to avoid the appearance of improper conduct even if he has done no wrong nor was there any intent to do so in his heart.
The goodness of Dr. Floyd is not in question. The wisdom of this one particular act by the trustees of the IMB is the issue at hand.
A precedent has been set by the IMB trustees related to certain decissions of late that would cause any loyal Southern Baptist to question their actions. To question does not mean to judge. It simply means to be responsible stewards in this particular case.
All Southern Baptist, not just the IMB trustees have a sacred trust relating to the mission efforts financed by CP money.
Therefore, to question is a responsibility and not a form of rebellion, gossip, or slander of any kind as long as it is done in a proper manner.
cb
PBill
on May 24th, 2006
@ 2:33 pm:
Hey, Art, I love you guys! Of course you don’t have to move on to any other subject as I suggest..and it IS your blog.
The substance of Floyd’s chairmanship does not include the pension matter, IMO. Can you point to anything other that an alleged conflict of interest? Any untoward actions? Any questionable decisions? What? None? I assume that if there were any one of you inveterate bloggers would have thrown that red meat out for the world to chew on.
What you, Burleson and others desire is to eliminate John Floyd as trustee chairman. I am disappointed in Burleson, an individual who has gained my admiration over the past few months, because in this he has revealed that he is not above poisoning the waters in Floyd’s case to accomplish the above. Too bad. Looks bad. Is bad, imo.
I may or may not like Floyd as trustee chm, but not for anthing to do with the fact that he is a retired missionary and receives a pension. If the man is a screaming Landmarker, then let’s hear it. I can join you all in that.
CB,and Burleson as well, please explain to me the propriety of the course of action you guys are taking with respect to “questions” about John Floyd and his pension? Looks to me like a simple case of deciding this may be an achilles heel so let’s toss it out there, raise questions, offer innuendo. We can get all the facts later and sort it out but maybe this will be enough to damage him. Sounds so…well, political…and what was that generational difference again between the present power structure and the emerging leaders?
I share with the many of you a desire to avoid Landmarkist policies and a desire to not exceed the BFM2K. I do not share in the approach you are taking towards a good man who has served Southern Baptists well.
Alan Cross, and Paul, – God bless you. You are a sensible voices on all this.
10-40, political appointees are in the eye of the beholder. If the appointee is a person, it is political.
art rogers
on May 24th, 2006
@ 5:08 pm:
PBill,
Sorry you feel that way.
I have known about Floyd as a vague reference for a month.
The details I have were posted along with my interpretation.
It is a fact that he served on a committee that oversaw his own pension. It is a fact that such a thing is a conflict of interests.
You have also ignored that I also said it was a conflict of interests for him to be on the BOT at the IMB at all. I stand by that statement for all former missionaries.
I am not trying to smear him. I made a statement and have spent more time defending it than I did writing the original statement – I still believe it, but it is not MY priority.
Actually, I think that Floyd may actually be more weak with the SBC ByLaw 15F. If I were out to “get him,” I would be hammering this hard.
BTW, I have changed my mind about this being a well thought out move.
I am terribly concerned that he is an avowed landmarker and the chief architect of the November initiatives. These are the things that I will be investigating.