Hoodwinked
Jun 14th, 2006 | By art rogers | Category: Greensboro '06, Live Blogging, SBCIn my last post concerning the amendment of SBC by-law 15, I said the SBC was “hoodwinked.” In my immediate absence (I went to visit with some of the folks from today and just finished at just after 1:00 am Eastern) several good questions were raised about this.
The Executive Committee showed fortitude in dealing with a difficult situation about which I have often written. In section F, the committee was asking the SBC to amend the by law to exclude from service to boards people who were formerly employed by the entity on whose board they might otherwise serve.
The specific instance at hand is the new chairman of the Board of Trustees of the IMB. Dr. John Floyd is a former missionary and it is widely reported that he has issues with certain staff at the IMB. He now serves as their supervisor, in a sense.
As a missionary, I readily concede that his insight would be valuable to us, but to have him serve at an agency where the friction of daily stressful work with personalities creates problems, such a role reversal is a huge conflict of interest.
If he were to be nominated to serve on the North American Mission Board, no such conflict would exist.
The Executive Committee exercised the responsibility of leadership and dealt with a very touchy situation that would have removed Floyd next year after his term ran out because he would have been ineligible for appointment to yet another term (this is his umpteenth).
The implication that this by law amendment’s primary effect would be to limit seminary students is misdirection of its real intent.
Unfortunately, the Ex. Com. was not ready for the argument and did not defend it well. It would have required carefully chosen words to relate the substance of the article without calling Dr. Floyd into question. I would have done it, to the best of my ability (having advocated this exact policy numerous times) but I was sandwiched in a crowd between mics and unable to get near one within at least 90 seconds. That is an eternity in this situation. Secondly, the chair called the question on the Sanderson amendment without it being asked for and without discussion – which are both out of order. I earnestly believe that this – taking the vote with no “call” and no discussion – was not deliberate. The leaders of the Convention believed in this ammendment and wanted it to pass as originally presented.
The SBC was “hoodwinked” because it was made to believe that the amendment was a poorly thought out article that hurt Seminary students.
If all things were able to be replayed, I would move to table the Exec. Comm. amendment until such time as the Committee on Order of Business could reschedule it during this convention. This would give the EC time enough to reword the amendment and report it in a new way. The EC could have withdrawn its original motion, making the Sanderson motion moot. It could then have submitted a new motion to amend and published the new, more precise, wording.
It is now a done deal and will not be revisited this year.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
You know, there is some disappointment that this amendment didn’t go through, however, it can be worked on over the next year and be brought up again next year. Also, who’s to say that John Floyd will even be elected to another term as an IMB BoT? If the plan is not to recycle people, then he should be out after this year….IMHO.
Unless there is an exceptional reason a trustee is always given a second term. John Floyd will be elected to a second term and even if this policy is put in place next year it will be too late to change his status for another 4 years.
No, Art, not hoodwinked. I think this was God and I’ll tell you why.
It’s fine to have that restriction for boards like Lifeway or the seminaries, but that would really not be a good idea for the IMB. As a career missionary, I have a better perspective on how to make strategic missiological (or even just practical) decisions dealing with our situations overseas than your average pastor or SBC layman. I think that you guys must think you know a lot more about the experience of being a full-time missionary than you actually do. I know of many pastors who’ve taken a vacation overseas (a “mission trip”) and then come home and call themselves a missionary and proport to be an expert. Frankly, I want those making the decisions for my life and ministry to be those who understand what it means to sell all you own, move 5000 miles away from everything and everyone you know to a place you cannot talk or understand anyone, trust God with the very lives of your small children where there are no doctors, and plan to plant yourself for 30+ years. UNLESS YOU HAVE DONE ALL THAT, YOU HAVE NO UTTER IDEA WHAT THE MISSIONARY FACES. TWO WEEKS OF YOUR SUMMER VACATION DOES NOT EQUIP YOU TO RELATE TO THAT. A two-year tour better equips you, but it’s no comparison to the experience of knowing that you’re in it for life.
You guys have so much wisdom in so many areas, I can’t believe you don’t see that you can’t make a DENOMINATIONAL WIDE policy because ONE person with a burr in his saddle got a trusteeship. You also pointed out he would likely be grandfathered in anyway. So, this doesn’t solve the problem of John Floyd and it saddles us with a policy that prohibits almost every SBCer who knows about missions from ever serving on the IMB.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of John Floyd. I’m praying hard that God would change his heart or remove him from this service, but I’m also praying that we don’t stick ourselves with a counterproductive policy that would be in effect long after both Floyd and Rankin are gone.
Forgive me if I’ve been condescending.
Let me take this opportunity to tell you how very proud I am of you all (bloggers) this week. You’ve worked hard. Ýou’ve all determined not to let things slide through the cracks. You’ve come alongside us missionaries, defending us in a way that we aren’t in a position to defend ourselves. You’ve worked not just hard, but smart. You all were heard. You made an impact when it looked like you were up against impossible odds. You’re wise enough to know that there will be counter attacks next convention. You’ve ‘(We’ve) struggled to stay humble and Godly in your speech and you’ve won that struggle, too.
I’m so very proud of you all. Congratulations, great job.
YTTWOYP
(Young tongue talkin wife of young plumber)
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Care to share why you deleted my comment. Not upset just curious.
I think Jenni offers a good point, but even restricting former employees from serving on LifeWay, Guidestone, Seminaries, etc. would also be a bad idea. Who is better than a former employee to recognize a “smoke screen” or “lumps” under the carpet. Those unfamiliar with the workings of an institution are usually blinded by the “illusion” of what is presented and have no idea of what is truly happening or needed.
Brian,
Jenni’s tone dances close to the line of personal attack, but she moderates it at the end of her post. I felt your post went over the line in dealing with her. I was on the road and could not deal with it in any other way than to call Marty Duren and ask him to log on as me and delete it. If I could have I would have explained this sooner. Sorry.
I will deal with the substance of your post here:
Jenni and Phillips,
First, I said that the Convention was hoodwinked because I believe it was misled. It was made to believe that this clause was about Seminary students and not about the real target.
Second, John Floyd was not the specific target of the ammendment, but is its best example. The Executive Committee would not ammend a by law in order to chase down one man. The situation in general is a problem.
The problem is a conflict of interest. When someone serves under the authority of another, good and bad things begin to stress that relationship. This also happens with people in the organization who serve at peer levels and in subordinate roles.
In short, if you then take that person and put them on that entities Board of Trustees, they bring baggage that others would not, and the baggage they bring is significant. Again, John Floyd is the best example of that.
I understand the desire to have folks with your perspective on the Board. I think that the desire you have is outweighed by the conflict of interest.
Now, Jenni, as to your argument. You make a straw man out of us with the whole “vacation mission trips.” When did I, or any of my peers, claim to undertstand your perspective? We didn’t and never would. Much less would we use brief trips as an excuse to do so.
I don’t claim to know your perspective or know what you might think is best.
I do claim to know what things affect the dynamics of interpersonal relationships within an organization.
I have said before and will say agian now, if you want missionaries from NAMB to serve the IMB, and vice versa, then I am all for it.
I know it is not the same, but it is the best way to compromise so that we achieve the most effective working of an organization.
By the way, I was asked about Floyd being grandfathered in anyway. This would have kept him at the IMB this year, but not allowed him to be reappointed next year, for yet another four year term.
As it now stands, Floyd will serve this and, in all likelihood serve another term, even if this is reworded and brought back up next year.
I understand i was just a little frustrated. we are in the process of leading our church through some major changes towards missions. I guess it just hit home. Thanks for your understanding.
Brian
Bryan,
I am sorry. Apparently I offended you. I didn’t see your comment, so I don’t know in exactly what way, but I do apologize.
Art,
In response to your question about your peers claiming to know how best to do missions: If “your peers” are pastors and churchgoers in the states, then the answer is “constantly.” You wouldn’t believe the stories I could tell you.
The board makes decisions every meeting that affect our lives, our families, our ministries. I do think that to exclude the vast, vast majority of missions experts from the pool of candidates is not a good idea.
I really don’t want to say too much about NAMB and their compentency or effectiveness of their methods. In addition, you may want to refer to my (personal) definition of “missionary” above.
I want to stress that I’m not concerned about our board making decisions based on my personal perspective. I am concerned about a board of folks who don’t understand the realities of overseas life and ministry in general.
Again, I want to apologize if my expressions of disagreement have been disagreeable. I looked up “straw man” in the dictionary but didn’t understand what you meant. Like I said, you guys are so wise in so many things, I don’t understand your stance on this one. But, it’s clear I’m not going to convince you.
I really do support you all in what you’re doing and this is the only point on which I disagree with your agenda.
I also realize that, in my attempts to convince you of my arguement, I probably came across as one who sees a missionary as somehow superior to those who aren’t. The truth is I don’t and find it strange when other people do–until someone who isn’t wants to tell me how to do my job. It’s just like my degree. I have a master’s in developmental psych. I feel personally like I know almost nothing about psychology–UNTIL someone starts giving me child-rearing advice.
For some reason, blogger isn’t letting me delete and reword my own comment above.
So, after a conviction-filled night, I ask you to please re-read my fourth paragraph above as:
“I understand your point about former Nambers, but I don’t think that someone who has served with NAMB is any more equipped to understand the realities of overseas life and ministry than anyone else living and serving in the states.” I hope that better expresses what I’m trying to communicate.
It’s not that I think that our board should be composed entirely of former missionaries, but I do think they bring something valuable to the table. I think that most former Ms who would seek to serve on the board would not do it to bring vengence upon former employers, but would see it as a way to continue to impact a lost world.
One amazing reality of life in this organization is that ANYONE at ANY TIME could be your supervisor. People aren’t necessarily bumped up the chain of command — someone you supervise could be your supervisor tomorrow. Happens all the time.
Note to Brian,
If my apology to you above doesn’t suffice, or if you want to point my errors out further directly to me–I’m setting up a post at my blog to give you a comments section to do that. I really don’t want to cause anyone frustration without giving them a satisfactory apology and/or explanation. Click on my name to go to my profile and then to my blog.
thanks,
Jenni
Jenni,
It’s a complex issue and I appreciate your perspective. It does seem to me that you have some previous experiences triggering strong emotions on this subject, though.
No, by “my peers,” I mean people who are publicly advocating the substance of the proposed amendment. Not two week Mission Trippers.
Art,
Thanks for addressing this resolution. I don’t disagree that a conflict of interest or even personal agendas and vendettas resulting from past employment with an agency could create extremely difficult situations for current employees if the nomination process fails to address those concerns and inappropriate candidates are presented to fill trustee positions. However, I believe that the potential for those occurrences are far less likely than the blessing that can come when an individual has served the Lord effectively in one role for a season in their life and later has the honor and privilege to use the skills, knowledge, and wisdom gleaned from that previous affiliation to help shape and guide the future of that same agency as a trustee.
Admittedly, I do have a personal motive in opposing the resolution as it was presented. Having served the IMB for several years, now on staff at SWBTS, and having been in full-time employment at two other SBC seminaries as a student, I have a great passion for global missions and the equipping ministries of our seminaries. I would count it a real blessing if in retirement (if for some reason I am unable to return to the international mission field in the Master’s program someday) God would allow me the blessing of continuing to serve Him through the SBC as a trustee of one the agencies I have grown to love.
Regarding Jenni’s comments, I do understand and appreciate her viewpoint. I often felt that we had some wonderful, passionate, and well-meaning volunteers, pastors, and even trustees that did not wholly grasp the difficulties of third-world, cross-cultural living. The dynamics of providing for a family, developing relationships among people of a different language and faith practice, working with hostile governments, spending a whole day or longer completing simple tasks such as cashing a check, gathering groceries, or getting a phone, among a multitude of other challenges on the field cannot be completely appreciated in short visits. As such, I do believe that having former mission personnel serving alongside other trustees who are pastors and laymen that bring to the table the needs and expectations of partner churches, is the most effective formula for giving direction and support to our mission endeavors.
Greg
I repeatedly said “resolution” instead of “amendment” – I’m going to blame that slip on the loss of sleep due to the various psychological and physiological effects of jet lag caused by the great travel distance between Greensboro and Fort Worth.