SBC, GCB & the De Facto Name Change Charade

As Yogi Berra would say, “This is like deja vu all over again.” Or, as Ronald Reagan quipped to the second-worst President of the modern-era, Jimmy Carter, There you go again.” At least that’s what came to mind as I began reading the 2012 Pre-Convention Special Issue of SBC Life that I received in the mail on Tuesday of this week. Published by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, this “communication piece” is distributed five times a year “to pastors, ministers of education, ministers of music, full-time denominational workers, chaplains, missionaries, and vocational evangelists of the Southern Baptist Convention.”

This slick publication usually has several articles that I find particularly beneficial. I would say that it is a good use of Cooperative Program funds to publish this magazine, but after reading the next-to-the last article (not to mention the one-sided article on the Lord’s Supper, which I’ll address in a future post), I’m beginning to have my doubts. The article in question was written by Marshall Blalock, the Pastor of the historic FBC Charleston, SC and a member of the unofficial official Name Change Task Force appointed by SBC President Bryant Wright to “settle the question of whether such a change is feasible and whether it serves the mission of the Convention as a whole.” I have written previously why I believe that the formation of this Task Force, and the subsequent approval of its unauthorized recommendations by the Executive Committee, blatantly disregards the last stated will of the messengers of the Convention and possibly contravenes the Constitution and ByLaws of the SBC (here, here, here, and here).

Pastor Blalock’s article, entitled “SBC Name: A Case for “Great Commission Baptists,” was originally published “on his church’s Web site on February 23, 2012,” shortly after the “historic” announcement of the proposed nickname for the Convention. In making his case, Rev. Blalock actually undercuts the legitimacy and the stated reasons for the Task Force. The Name Change Task Force was asked to answer two questions, the first of which would have been dispositive of the entire exercise had it been answered in the negative, which it was. We would therefore not be having this discussion nor would we be voting on a proposal that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of our Convention’s governing documents.

Of course, the first question, “Is such a change feasible?” was answered early on. The clear answer, which everyone on the Task Force had to know or have reason to know going in — given the extensive legal work that had already been done on this issue –was a resounding NO! But, why let that stop you from pressing forward to come up with a new name instead? If it cannot be done de jure (according to the law), then why not do it de facto (in fact). And, that’s exactly what the Task Force has done.

Perhaps they did not envision this at the outset, but at some point, the idea of a new, less bigoted moniker, started to sound pretty good. Why wouldn’t it? After all, Pastor Blalock contends that there was “a significant portion of Baptists outside of the South (who) made a compelling case that a non-regional name would benefit the cause of missions.” The logical question would be, “Who?” Was a survey commissioned by Lifeway Research to determine this? Have the results been kept under lock and key like the GCRTF records? Inquiring minds (as opposed to “yes men” ) would really like to know.

What makes the Task Force’s nickname proposal all the more ludicrous is the explanation given by Pastor Blalock. In what surely is an unintended nonsensical statement, he writes:

“The task force was faced with two competing conclusions: a name change would create legal problems that could potentially harm our mission; and the name change would eliminate barriers and stimulate greater focus on the Gospel and the mission to reach lost people.”

How can one have two competing conclusions when it was clear from the stated purpose of the Task Force that the feasibility of a name change was a central element in determining whether to proceed forward with a name change? It makes one think that the unofficial official Name Change Task Force was not designed to study the feasibility of a name change at all. Rather, this whole exercise was designed to come up with a new name for the Southern Baptist Convention. Why do we even have the pretense of impartiality? When the Task Force did not get the answer that they already knew they would get, they then came up with the brilliant and unifying idea for the new descriptor or nick name or moniker or whatever.

I must admit that I did not see this coming. In a way to maneuver around the Constitutional provision that a name change must be approved by a 2/3 vote at two consecutive Annual Meetings, the Task Force believes that it can adopt an unofficial designation by a simple majority vote. Let’s read the words of Rev. Blalock to determine for ourselves if what the Task Force, and by extension, the Executive Committee of the SBC, proposes is just an unofficial, totally optional nickname or in fact a name change in all but the formal legal documents:

“The beauty of this plan is that none of the legal documents of any of our institutions or agencies will be affected or changed. The task force members are recommending that we adopt the name “Great Commission Baptists” in all of our work as we identify ourselves. The individual agencies and institutions would have to make the decision, just as individual churches would do as well. . . . Do we think, if the motion passes in New Orleans, that the name will be commonly used? We hope so, and we believe it will occur over time, but there is no guarantee. We are suggesting that we describe ourselves in all of our publications and communications as Great Commission Baptists. . . . ” (emphasis added)

It cannot be stated any clearer than what Pastor Blalock has stated. The end game is for the Southern Baptist Convention to no longer be known by that name, but instead by the new, less offensive name, “Great Commission Baptists” (GCB for short, not to be confused with the recently cancelled ABC television show of the same initials). Let me be clear. This is a name change proposal. It clearly violates both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and ByLaws of our Convention. This name change proposal — from the unauthorized creation of the Task Force to the final recommendation acquiesced to by all but a few of our Executive Committee Trustees who would not be forced into agreeing to such a blatant usurpation of power — has been and will continue to be divisive. I would urge every Southern Baptist messenger to vote NO when this proposal is brought to the floor of the Convention in NOLA. Only with a resounding defeat will those in power realize that the Southern Baptist Convention continues to be a Convention of cooperating conservatives who disdain heavy-handed politics and top-down edicts!

22 comments for “SBC, GCB & the De Facto Name Change Charade

  1. May 17, 2012 at 5:43 AM

    I’d be curious to see what would happen if someone made a motion at NOSBC to reject the nickname on the grounds that if we’re going to change the name, then let’s do it–after all, if people really are not coming to Jesus because of the name, what cost is too high to pay to change it? Why keep sending missionaries and spending on missions and evangelism when the name is thwarting those efforts? Take the one-time cost, pay it, and then rebuild the missions budget afterwards.

    If it really is that important, then we should do that. Not take a half-measure but insist that no cost is too high when seeking to penetrate the lostness.

    • May 17, 2012 at 8:55 AM


      I think you make some good points. One of the main reasons why, I believe, the unofficial official Task Force took this half-measure is because they know they do not have the votes to pass a real name change amendment. If anyone does not think that there is politics of the highest order involved in this, they are either naive or willfully deluded. There were several astute political types on the Task Force that know how to count votes. Just like the GCRTF, they believe they have a majority that will support this recommendation. I am hopeful that a strong majority (the silent majority up to this point) will make their voices heard in NOLA and soundly defeat this unconstitutional maneuver The cost is too high for the full measure, but it is not the legal cost that the elites are worried about. Hope you have a great day. God bless,


  2. Rick Patrick
    May 17, 2012 at 8:23 AM


    Nicely put. Karen and I will join you in voting “NO” in NOLA.

    • May 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM


      Thanks. I look forward to meeting you and your wife in NOLA. At least our votes won’t cancel each other out 🙂 Have a great day and God bless,


  3. May 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

    Were I able to travel all the way down from the northern Border of the US to the Gulf of Mexico, I would be happy to vote No as well on the measure. I haven’t been terribly thrilled with this name change stuff from the outset. I know that some people don’t like to question the motives of those who were in the task force, but I think your questions and criticisms of the process are pretty fair.

    P.S. I played golf with Fred earlier today and we were talking about your recent notoriety. Blessings to you brother.

    • May 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM


      Thanks for the observations. I am definitely pointed in my analysis of this whole name change fiasco, but I hope that I am arguing my points fairly. I’m sure there are many who would disagree with how I have approached this. As Pastor Blalock’s piece was published in SBC Life, the EC has opened the door for a critique of the case that both Blalock, and by extension, the EC, are trying to make in advance of the Annual Meeting. I just hope that the Pastor’s Conference does not turn into a cheerleading session for the Name Change like the 2010 Conference turned into a cheerleading session for passage of the GCR.

      Tell Bro. Fred I said hello. I’ll be playing golf tomorrow morning. As for my notoriety, I didn’t think that a former lawyer could become more notorious 🙂 Have a great rest of your week and God bless,


  4. Max
    May 17, 2012 at 3:35 PM

    Thank you Howell for your humble (but accurate) opinion on the name change issue. I would say you could rest your case on this, but I don’t see rest – on this and other SBC issues – on the horizon anytime soon.

    • May 17, 2012 at 4:28 PM


      Thanks for the kind words. I’m afraid that you are right — I don’t see any rest on the horizon anytime soon, either. Depending on what happens with the name change proposal, we will either see a slow-down (if it’s defeated) or even faster, more radical changes (if it passes). I sincerely hope that this name change charade goes down in flames. Thanks and God bless,


  5. May 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM

    If this “nickname” is in fact formally proposed, and I can get to the microphone, I will state what I posted on my blog;

    1) I queried, in 15 Northern cities, from Denver to NYC and 13 other places between. I found 3,038 businesses with “Southern” in their name. I’m afraid we’re going to have to find something else to blame for any failure to penetrate the Northern states.

    2) If we confess the truth of Jesus’ statement that He’d draw all men unto Himself if we’d lift Him up, and if we’ve been lifting Him up, then we must also believe He drew the 16 or 17 million people down our aisles. Including the 10 or 11 million people who are not in church any more, but we still call “members”. Conclusion: we’ve failed to disciple the vast majority of those He’s sent us, and we cannot in truth claim to be “Great Commission Baptists”.

    If we are unwilling as churches and as a denomination, to deal with that fact, it won’t make any difference what we call ourselves.

  6. Lydia
    May 17, 2012 at 8:38 PM

    “Only with a resounding defeat will those in power realize that the Southern Baptist Convention continues to be a Convention of cooperating conservatives who disdain heavy-handed politics and top-down edicts!”

    I think the deck is stacked or they would not dare test it. And the convention is getting full of followers instead of independent thinkers. I think it will pass because the “unity” card will be played. Have you noticed that theme a lot lately? As if going along with heavy handed top down edicts and politics is spiritual unity.

    Boggles the mind the political tactics of the last few years. I would never have believed that Southern Baptists would go along with sealing records of something they were asked to vote on and not balking louder over the unoffical official task force on something they had already voted down. Amazing. This is not the same group of independent minded thinkers I grew up around in the SBC who disdained this top down authoritarian religion and embraced a true Priesthood.

    • Max
      May 18, 2012 at 7:54 AM

      “This is not the same group of independent minded thinkers I grew up around in the SBC … who embraced a true Priesthood.”

      Lydia – You speak of a former time when Southern Baptist doctrines of soul competency and priesthood of the believer (singular) flowed naturally in our ranks. Don’t you know?! Everything must change now!! Theology, identity, and mission must adapt for the sake of unity … a card that will indeed be played at NOLA. Note: I say this reluctantly, because I know that God commands the blessing to be where there is unity. But before we get there again (if we get there), divisive beliefs and practices must be dealt with effectively.

      This ain’t no social club whose members are acting up … this is the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. and we’ve lost our way. Changing our name won’t help until we’ve changed our hearts … and only God can do that IF we humble ourselves, pray and turn from our wicked ways. I would like to see a task force assembled at NOLA on that front!

    • May 18, 2012 at 8:06 AM


      You maybe right that the deck is stacked. In one way it is. Much like an incumbent President has certain perks and privileges that give him certain advantages in a re-election campaign, those in power within the SBC also have advantages going into NOLA. However, those advantages — hopefully in the case of President Obama and the current SBC leadership — can be muted so that the opponents can win the day. As I wrote in the post, I believe that those on the Task Force (and perhaps others outside the TF) knew full well that they would not have the votes to win a supermajority at two consecutive Conventions. Notwithstanding the legal challenges, the vote count would never have been favorable. That is one reason why I believe that they came up with the nick name proposal, which is a de facto name change. As such, it should still require a 2/3 majority vote at two consecutive Conventions. This will not be required and only a simple majority will be needed to pass the recommendation.

      A parliamentary challenge could be made to this process, but the Chair (Bryant Wright) would not recognize the challenge or rule the challenge out of order. A motion to “appeal the ruling of the chair” could be made, which would need to carry by a simple majority. We would see at that point, as opposed to actually voting on the recommendation, how much support this thing has. I suspect that the TF believes they will have the votes to pass it. Even if it passes by a bare majority, what does that say about the unity that Max mentioned above? Just like churches which make changes based only on votes and without a clear consensus brought by the Holy Spirit, this vote may lead to “hope and change,” but it will not lead to unity within the Convention. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Have a great day and God bless,


  7. May 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM

    Brother Howell,

    Just a tidbit you may be interested in. Dr. Thom Rainer wrote a book entitled “Surprising Insights from the Unchurched”. It is an interesting read and the thesis of the book is that the “formerly unchurched provide us insights that we have not previously heard.” Dr Rainer studied churches over a six year period for his group. He found there were a number of myths we churched people had and it was debunked by these formerly unchurched. One of the myths we were buying into is the denominational name means something to the unchurhed. You need to read about this myth. It is found on page 38 n his book.When asked “Did the name of the church influence your decision to join?” the formerly unchurhed answered “No”, to the tune of 81%. What is even more interesting is the 19% that stated the name of the church did affect their decision they found that 12% said it affected their decision positively to know the name of the denominational affiliation in the name of the church.

    Thus, we have a huge discrepancy in the information about the people who we are trying to reach. I would place more stock on the Rainer research as he researched people that were once unchurched and made a decision to become a part of the church. All other research is based on people that have not made decisions to join a church.

    • May 18, 2012 at 8:52 PM

      Bro. Tim,

      As I was writing my post, I wanted to include the information that you quoted from Dr. Rainer’s “Surprising Insights from the Unchurch.” Unfortunately, I could not find my copy of the book when I needed it 🙂 The more that we hear about this “process,” the more that we understand that there was not really much of a “study” at all. If this nick name proposal passes, then I believe we will be more divided than ever after NOLA. But, I would be curious to know how many and who of the non-southern Southern Baptists that the Task Forced talked to. This proposal is too cute by half. I really hope that it is voted down by such a huge margin that there will be no question as to where the Convention stands. If it passes, even by one vote, the SBC Life will become GCB Life and SBTS should change its name to GCBTS. Hope all is well with you in NC. Look foward to seeing you in NOLA next month. Thanks and God bless,


  8. May 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    Many believers have left “The Religious System” of today – because… We also…
    “disdain heavy-handed politics and top-down edicts!” from those who taught they were our leaders…
    And only had our best interests at heart. Kinda like you’re experiencing with those with the Power.

    And – To be considered “Unchurched” is convenient for “Denominational Christiandumb”
    But – “Unchurched” is an incomplete and false description for those who have recognized that
    “heavy-handed politics and top-down edicts” is NOT biblical along with a host of other things.

    And left “The System” to find Jesus. We never did leave – The Body of Christ – the Church.
    We are NOT “Unchurched;” contrary to the beliefs of those in “Todays Religious System.”
    We are “Unsatisfied” with the ”The System.” We love Jesus and His body – The Church.
    We still belong to Jesus and His Body. We just recognized what the Bible said about The Church of God…
    and what “The Religious System” called church – were two different things. There is…

    1 – “The Church of God?” Where Jesus is the head of the body,
    (The ekklesia, the called out ones), The Church? 🙂

    2 – the church of man? Where the Gov’t gives you permission to be called “Church.”
    And you become a Gov’t approved, Gov’t inspected, 501 (c) 3, non-profit,
    tax $ deductible, Religious $ Corporation? A business – run like a business. 🙁

    Where, in my experience, man takes many “Titles” NOT found in the scriptures.
    To gain control, “Exercise Authority,” and “lord it over” God’s heritage.

    Reverend, Right Reverend, Most Holy Reverend, Pastor, Senior Pastor,
    Lead Pastor, Executive Pastor, Cardinal, Pope, etc.. Are any of these “Titles” in the Bible?

    Ever try talking to a Senior Pastor/Reverend about his “Title” NOT being in the Bible? 😉
    Go ahead, have some fun. After all – he taught you to be a Berean – and study the Bible.

    When a Religious Leaders – Power – Profit – Prestige – is challenged…
    You will learn quickly to “disdain heavy-handed politics and top-down edicts!”

    While you’re at it – check the scriptures for yourself – and ask a few questions…

    In the Bible…
    Did believers… Ever… *Join* “A Church?”
    Did believers… Ever… *Lead* “A Church?”
    Did believers… Ever… *Go To* “A Church?”
    Did believers… Ever… *Tithe* to “A Church?”
    Did believers… Ever… *Bring their friends* to “A Church?”
    Did believers… Ever… *Apply for Membership* to “A Church?”
    Did believers… Ever… *Give silver, gold, or money* to “A Church?”
    Did believers… Ever… *Go to a building with a steeple and cross* called “A Church?”
    Did believers… Ever… *Become a – Pastor – in a Pulpit – Preaching – to People – in Pews? 😉

    This is what “new believers” are asked to do in “Christiandumb,” and the church of man…
    But NOT found in the Bible. And become “Traditions of Men” that nullify “The Word of God.” Mark 7:13.

    Seems, In the Bible… Believers become “the Church of God.” 🙂

    Instead of asking your new converts to *Go To Church.” Why not ask them to “Become the Church of God.”
    To become – Kings and Priests unto God – sons of God – servants of God…
    Disciples of Christ – Ambassordors of Christ – A friend of Christ – the Church. 😉

    What is popular is not always “Truth.”
    What is “Truth” is not always popular.

  9. Volfan007
    May 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM

    A Amos,

    It sounds like you need to read the NT a little more closely, once again. The Church….a local, visible assembly of Believers….is seen thru out the NT. They have Pastors/Elders, Deacons, Church discipline, observed the 2 ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, brought thier offerings to the Church on the first day of the week, ate meals together, and the list goes on and on and on about the activity of the local Church.

    Let me ask you a question….are you involved in Armstrongism?


  10. May 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM

    Hi Volfan007
    Much agreement when you suggest that I – “need to read the NT a little more closely.” And the OT too. 😉
    There’s always lots and lots to learn about Jesus – The Word of God. Yes?
    Nope – I’m not involved in Armstrongism.
    And I’m familiar with the way you describe – the local church.
    I believed that at one time. – And taught that. When I was ordained. When I was leadership. 🙁
    BUT – As I kept reading the Bible – I noticed verses that didn’t seem to line up with what I was taught.
    AND – When searching the Bible for what I was taught – there was a bunch of stuff – NOT in the Bible.
    Seemed, lots of stuff taught in “The Religious System” is “Tradition” that Jesus warned us about in…
    Mark 7:13 NIV – Thus you “nullify” the word of God by your tradition…
    As a simple example – Who are the “Lost?”
    In “The Religious System” I was raised in, they taught it was “the unbeliever,”
    those who don’t know Jesus, they are the “lost.”
    I found some scriptures that seem to indicate it’s God’s people who are “lost.”
    Was wondering what you thought.
    Seems there are scriptures that say, before we come to Christ we are dead?
    And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins…
    Eph 2:1
    Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ,
    Eph 2:5
    And you, being dead in your sins… hath he quickened together with him…
    Col 2:13
    Don’t you have to have life, be alive, in order to be “lost?”
    1 – In Luke 15, there are two parables, that could be about “lost” believers.
    1a – A man had a hundred sheep – and one was “lost.”
    And, sheep in the scriptures often refers to believers. Yes?
    Then he says – “Rejoice with me; for I have found **my sheep** which was “lost.”
    1b – Then there is the prodigal son. He was both dead and “lost.”
    And, he was already a son. Yes?
    2 – The Psalmist, a lover of God, saw himself as a “lost” sheep.
    I have gone astray like a “lost” sheep…
    Psalm 119:176
    3 – Even though “the shepherds,” in Ezek 34:1-16, caused “God’s Flock”
    to be driven away and “lost” God Himself would be their shepherd.
    I will feed **my flock,** and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD.
    I will seek that which was “lost,” (My flock?) and bring again that which was driven away.
    and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick:
    Eze 34:15:16
    4 – Jeremiah, and Peter, seems to indicate it was God’s people who are “lost,” “led astray.”
    “lost sheep,” led astray by **their shepherds.** Seems similar to Ezek 34:1-16. Yes?
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **their shepherds** have caused them **to go astray**…
    Jer 50:6
    For ye were “as sheep going astray;”
    but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
    1 Peter 2:25
    I’ve been down a few paths that I thought was “Truth.” And had to turn around. How about you?
    So, could it be that we, the believers, God’s sheep, are also “Lost,” led astray by our shepherds?

    • Volfan007
      May 22, 2012 at 5:55 AM


      I believe that you’re very wrong…tragically wrong. If you cant see the local Church in the NT, then you’re not reading the NT right. And, frankly, you’re heading down a path of heartache and headache. I hope you’ll turn from this….back to the sound teachings of the Bible.


  11. May 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM


    Thank you for your concern and warning. We are asked to “admonish one another.” Rom 5:14.
    And I’m certainly interested in – “the sound teachings of the Bible.” That’s why…
    I’ve printed out every verse that mentions “Church.” And read them, over and over again.
    I wanted to know what this word “Church” really means. From the Bible. From Jesus.
    NOT from a “mere fallible human” who has their “Traditions” to protect.
    And – I can’t seem to find “Local Church” in my antiquated KJV. I also noticed…
    NOT much of what goes on Sun morning – in a so-called “Local Church” – is in the Bible.
    Or, anyone saying, My Church, Your Church, Our Church, Go To Church…
    Thats why I asked those questions @ May 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM. about “Church.”
    Which you did NOT answer.
    I also asked you about – Who are the Lost? – And is it possible that we, believers, are also “the Lost?”
    Which you did NOT answer.
    You mentioned “Local Church and – “They have Pastors/Elders…”
    And this post is about the SBC changing names – And…
    Those in Power using “heavy-handed politics and top-down edicts!” To get their way.
    In my experience with having been in “Leadership.” And…
    In my experience with the “Title” and “Position” of **Today’s** “Pastor/Leader,”
    “Titles” become “Idols.” …..(Idols of the heart – Ezek 14:1-11.)
    An “Idol,” an addiction, difficult to lay down, hard to walk away from.
    Because, **Today’s** “Titles” come with something “A Little Bit Extra.”
    Power – Profit – Prestige – Honor – Glory – Reputation – Recognition, etc…
    All those things Jesus spoke against. All those things – highly esteemed among men – for Power.
    So they can “Exercise Authority” and “lord it over” God’s heritage. (Both a No. No, Mk 10:42-43, 1 Pet 5:3.)

    Luke 16:15
    …but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men
    is abomination in the sight of God.

    Here are a few questions, about Pastors, you might want to ask when searching the scriptures…
    For – “the sound teachings of the Bible.”

    In the Bible, How many people are… called pastor/reverend?
    In the Bible, How many people have… the “Title” pastor/reverend?
    In the Bible, How many people are… ordained as a pastor/reverend?
    In the Bible, How many people are… hired, or fired, as a pastor/reverend?
    In the Bible, How many congregations are… “led” by a pastor/reverend?

    Haven’t you ever wondered – Why… In the Bible…
    NOT one “Disciple of Christ” was called to be a “Pastor/Reverend” leading a church?

    And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
    and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
    John 10:16

    One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice
    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  12. May 26, 2012 at 7:08 AM

    Brother Howell,

    What if a motion were to come from the floor during the first open business session that read as follows? “I move that, we the gathered convention direct the Executive Committee to withdraw their motion concerning the name change recommendation.” Of course the motion would be ruled out of order, and we would have to over rule the decision of the chair. However, I believe we could garner enough votes to over rule that decision whether the convention could direct the Executive Committee or not.

    • May 27, 2012 at 10:13 PM

      Bro. Tim,

      Your idea has merit. It would certainly determine whether or not the Task Force/EC has the votes to pass the recommendation if it were to come to the floor. This parliamentary tactic could stop this recommendation in its tracks. I think trying to get the attention of the Chair will be difficult as they will be aware of this procedure. It would not at all surprise me if anyone trying to make this motion would not be recognized at all. This will be political from the get go. After the GCR, I have come to expect the unexpected. Looking forward to seeing you in NOLA in a few weeks. God bless,


  13. May 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM


    One other thought about this is the parliamentary tactic concerning the motion. The way the convention works is this would go first to the committee of order of business, then be referred back to the convention. Thus, they could not do anything with the recommendation from the EC until this motion was handled.

Leave a Reply