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

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.

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

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.

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.