Its exact origin is uncertain, but spin doctor is often used to describe public relations experts as well as political or corporate representatives (emphasis added) whose job it is to put a ‘positive spin’ on events or situations. (“What is a Spin Doctor?”)
Before most grassroots Southern Baptists (including me) became aware of SBC President Bryant Wright’s un-constitutional end-run around the messengers and churches that he was elected to serve, Twitter was all abuzz Monday night with tweets about the “unofficial” Name Change Task Force that Dr. Wright unilaterally appointed. In the days following this unprecedented power play, there have been many articles — both pro and con — regarding the name change issue. For those who may not feel like searching the internet for all the pertinent posts related to the proposed name change study, I would direct you to a new webpage (here) compiled by Peter Lumpkins at SBC Tomorrow.
As I wrote yesterday, silence is no longer an option for grassroots Southern Baptists who do not buy into the vision for a radical redefinition of the Southern Baptist Convention that establishment elites are trying to impose — from the top down — on the churches of the SBC. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all grassroots Southern Baptists to understand the language that is being used to spin the debate that has now started. In the information age, knowledge is power. Armed with knowledge of the tactics that were used effectively in the Great Commission Resurgence (which many of us saw too late) and which will continue to be used in the Great Name Change Debate, cooperating conservative Southern Baptists can more effectively stop the power plays that are about to be run up the gut of the Convention.
The name change study proponents have already begun to spin what is clearly an unprecedented and un-constitutional action by the sitting President of the Southern Baptist Convention. The spin doctors want Southern Baptists to believe that President Wright either had the authority to do what he did or, in the alternative, that the Task Force is only “unofficial” and has no power to bind the Convention.
There are several problems with this particular spin. First, there is absolutely no language in the Constitution or ByLaws of the Convention which would remotely authorize the President to appoint an ad hoc committee. In fact, as I was re-reading the ByLaws on Thursday, I came across section 19, Committee on Committees, which states:
This committee shall nominate all special committees authorized during the sessions of the Convention (emphasis added) not otherwise provided for. All special Convention committees shall transfer, upon their discharge, all official files to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. (SBC ByLaws, Section 19, Committee on Committees)
What does this mean exactly? First, that all special committees, which would include ad hoc committees or task forces, must be authorized during the sessions of the Convention. Secondly, unless the authorization also contains language which specifically provides for how the special committee members will be nominated or appointed (in the case of the GCRTF, by the President, which was entirely constitutional), then all such special committee members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees and approved by the messengers in session. This was obviously not done. Therefore, any spin which says that what President Wright did was constitutional is wrong. There are some who have unknowingly bought into the line of thinking that President Wright was within his constitutional authority to appoint a special committee, even though he himself has referred to it as “unofficial.” Of course, there are most likely those who are spinning who know full well what the President did was not authorized, but also a clear violation of the ByLaws of the SBC. As an aside, the GCRTF had no authority to seal their records. In fact, the ByLaws clearly state that all records of special committees shall be turned over to the Executive Committee. The EC could decide if, and when, the records would be released. You would think that SBC parliamentarians would be aware of this, but given the parliamentary shenanigans that occurred in Orlando, we should not be surprised.
Someone on SBC Voices recently asked me whether or not I believed in a strict constructionist interpretation of the SBC Constitution and ByLaws and whether or not I believed that an SBC President was prohibited from doing anything not explicitly authorized in the language of our governing documents. My short answer was and is YES. I wouldn’t go so far as to say “anything,” because that is fairly broad. However, as to the appointment of special committees or task forces, there is no ambiguity, which is perhaps why President Wright is calling this an “unoffical” task force. I would say that I find it passing strange that some conservative Southern Baptists, who would otherwise be staunchly conservative in their judicial philosophy regarding strict construction, are taking what is a well-known liberal position when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and ByLaws of the SBC. Consistency no longer becomes such a high priority for some Baptists who appear to have abandoned historic Baptist principles in favor of an “ends justify the means” mentality.
As to the alternative spin which has been proffered to defend the un-constitutional process that was allowed to occur, this spin can be summarily dismissed. You can call a task force “unofficial” all you want, but this is the most official “unofficial” task force in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention. What other “unofficial” task force will have the opportunity to present both an interim report and a final report to the Executive Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and possibly to the messengers assembled in New Orleans? What other “unofficial” task force would be given what amounts to official recognition by the Executive Committee by virtue of not one, but two official votes regarding an “unofficial” Presidential advisory council? Could any rank-and-file Southern Baptist establish their own “unofficial” task force to study changing the name of the SBC and be allowed to present an interim report to the EC in February 2012 or to the messengers next June? The answers to these questions are painfully obvious.
To make matters even worse, we have entity Presidents and the Chairman of the Trustees of the Executive Committee who have agreed to serve on this task force. A similar task force was rejected by the messengers in session in 2004 and would almost certainly (especially this close to the GCR fiasco) be rejected by the messengers just seven years later. What does this say about those who are willing to serve on such a task force? Maybe there are some members who were blissfully unaware of the constitutional problems with a task force unilaterally appointed by the President of the Convention. However, there are surely some members of the task force who know the SBC Constitution and Bylaws like the back of their hand and realize the un-constitutional nature of this special committee.
I wish I could tell you that the spin will stop, but it will only increase between now and next June in New Orleans. In the next week, I will continue to analyze the spin coming from name change proponents. The more information that the grassroots have, the more effective in preventing the radical redefinition of the SBC. If the CR taught us anything, it was the power of grassroots Southern Baptists to bring the Convention back to its conservative roots before it was too late. Too bad that some now in power have forgotten from whence they came. Maybe it’s time to stop the spin and remind them!
Howell,
You’ve made an excellent case that (1) sealing the GCR records was unconstitutional, and (2) appointing a special committee without convention approval was unconstitutional.
Now, what can be done to challenge these abuses since we do not have a Judicial branch? There is no SBC Supreme Court. May I appoint you as the unofficial SBC Supreme Court justice? Will you report your ruling to the convention in New Orleans? Must the appeal be on the convention floor? What is the procedure for holding SBC leaders accountable to the SBC constitution?
Rick,
I wish I had done my homework two years ago when the GCR started. As we are seeing in this current name change mess, it really doesn’t matter how few years ago that the messengers voted down the name change task force. The ruling elites will keep going to that well, this time unconstitutionally. I have no doubt that some in the establishment, perhaps including the parliamentarians (one of whom is now serving on the “unofficial” official task force), knew what the ByLaws said regarding the records of special committees. There is nothing to stop any messenger from bringing a motion to the floor to transfer the records of the GCRTF to the Executive Committee. If memory serves, the records were sent to the SBC Historical Library and Archives, which is in violation of the clear language of the SBC ByLaws, which state that all such records shall be turned over to the Executive Committee. The EC could, I suppose, deem these records off limits, but the Task Force had no authority to do what they did. I do not know for certain, but I would find it hard to believe that at least a ffew of the members of that Task Force knew what they were doing was not only unprecedented, but unconstitutional. Perhaps a motion in New Orleans would be in order, but it would not surprise me if the Chair, in consultation with the Parliamentarians, ruled that motion out of order. This abuse of power has got to end or we will see the division of the SBC. Thanks and have a great day. God bless,
Howell
When Bellevue was going through it’s pedophile minister scandal, they decided to bring in the SBC parliamentarian to run the church wide meeting they put on to try and contain the scandal. What ensued was that the victim of the pedophile minister (his own son) took his turn at one of the mic’s set up for members to ask questions or make statements. When his turn came, his mic was shut off. The meeting was shut down.
Why do I bring this up? Because when you are dealing with people who will use such tactics to control the message and direction of an organiztion, the only recourse is making truth known and withholding support. It is always so disheartening to find out how many people will go along with such things and make excuses for such actions.
And it all happened with the help of a paid parliamentarian.
Lydia,
I am not surprised in the least by the story you shared. Cooperating conservative Southern Baptists need to “wake up” and see what is happening right in front of them. The story you share, unfortunately, is not unique. The names and circumstances may change, but the tactics that those in power use to keep their power and oppress dissent are in play throughout the SBC. The ruling elites have learned the political tactics well. When those who have used these tactics, including one of the chief architects of the CR (and a member of the unconstitutional task force), tell us we just need to be quiet and let the committee do its work, I say “No this time.” There’s a reason why the establishment does whatever it wants. Rick is exactly right in that there is no accountability. The grassroots have allowed this to get out of control. Before it’s too late, we need to reign in those who think the rules no longer apply to them. Perhaps New Orleans, 200 years after the first battle, will be the place. Thanks for sharing. God bless and have a great day,
Howell
I would just like to see one person try to justify why it’s ok for the President to do the unprecedented in this instance. To admit that this has never been done before, to admit that the convention has very clearly spoken on this matter, but to refuse to see this as nothing more than a blatent attempt to go around the convention in a way that has never been done before is just so much double talk. Why are Wright and the others doing something that has never been done before? Forget all the double speak about whether it’s “legal”, answer the question WHY? Why do that which has never been done before on such a contentious issue. If people were actually honest with themselves they would understand what’s going on here. This had to be done in the non traditional, unconventional way because it wouldn’t work had it gone down the historical accepted route. but then how dare we question motives? Really? What motive is behind doig that which is never been done?
Jenn,
It’s being done this way, sadly, because it can be done this way. Unless and until the grassroots Southern Baptists take a stand and say, “Enough is enough. The ends do not justify the means,” then we will continue to be run over by those who have the power. This scenario plays itself out in our government and it plays itself out in our Convention. It is both sad and scary to think that so many otherwise “conservative” Southern Baptists are bending backwards in an effort to defend what is clearly indefensible. While I would be skeptical still, if Wright came out and said that he made a mistake and was dissolving the task force and that the messengers in sessions (per Section 19) should authorize a study committee, then he would get major kudos from me and just about everyone. I dont’ expect for a New York minute for that to ever happen. If the task force brings a recommendation that removes “Southern” (which is a forgone conclusion) and removes “Baptist” (which is highly likely), things will get ugly. Particularly if certain arugments are advanced in favor of name change. I cannot see what’s inside a person’s heart or mind, but when they write words so clearly than any reasonable person could determine motivation, then the questions will keep coming. Thanks for stopping by again. God bless and have a great day,
Howell
BY THE NUMBERS[NAME CHANGE COMMITTEE]
TOTAL MEMBERS- 18
PASTORS- 8 (44%)
AGENCY HEAD/RELATED- 6 (33%)
WIFE OF PASTOR- 1 (5.5%)
WIFE OF AGENCY HEAD- 1 (5.5%)
STATE EXEC.- 2 (11%)
LAYMAN/LAYWOMEN- 0
Does this truly represent the SBC? Does the pastor profile(s) represent the bulk of SBC churches? Looks like a ‘pre-conceived committee’…especially when he says one day “I just want seek advice”(paraphrased…then the next day posts a website that wants to hear the ‘new name(s)’ you have in mind. Baptist hate inconsistency and spin-doctors. If not resolved by the leadership of the SBC…then the rest of Southern Baptists will bring it to their own resolution. Typically Southern Baptists ‘vote with their feet and money’.
We simply ask the leadership, “DON’T PUT US IN THIS POSITION.”
Here is another concern with spin doctoring. We are going to see this blurbed in the media about the name change. The clamor concerning “names” is going to increase and the PROCESS for how this came about is going to disappear from view. At that point, it will be a foregone conclusion there is a name change and people will never think about how it came about doing an end run around the messengers and a vote for the committee. Everyone is “expecting” a name change because it has been reported that the SBC (the royal we) are going in that direction. At that point, if the messengers vote down the recommendation of the committee, we are only country rubes who want slavery. But it won’t be voted down because the convention is mostly attended by church staff these days. And they do what they are told by the leaders. Except for a few brave souls.
This is exactly how the spin doctors get things done.
Lydia,
I think your analysis is spot on. You mentioned the slavery issue. I will have a post on this sometime next week, but it has not been lost on me (nor you either) the references by some of the elites regarding racial issues as it relates to the SBC’s founding and now potential name change. At first, you would think New Orleans, in the cradle of the Bible Belt, would be an unwise place to vote on changing the name of the SBC. But, I think there is a strategy which will be used that may work, but will end up splittng the Convention. I hope I am wrong, but the past is often a good predictor of the future. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
There was a folk song in the 60’s made famous by Peter, Paul and Mary and others, called “When Will We Ever Learn.” The words of that song are played over and over in my mind when I read about what is happening in the SBC. This “episode” is just one in a long line in the last 25-30 years.
We were IMB missionaries from 1986 to 2009. We saw the IMB change not by asking the missionaries what they saw could be improved in reaching people, but dictates coming down from regional leadership and Richmond leadership. Many, many on the field, trying their best to give a witness everyday were told that suddenly we are doing everything wrong. Change to do ONLY what we tell you to do, or there will be no place for you. The list of those who left just from our country is a very long one. It included some of the best missionaries the IMB has ever had on any field in the world. As those folks left, we wondered who would be next.
Then one day we were told we were not wanted anymore. We were devastated. However God told us very clearly there was life after the IMB. God provided a way for us to return to our former country as tent maker missionaries. We realized the IMB may not think much of us, but God still had confidence in our ability to share the gospel.
I say all of this to make this point, the SBC will be changing, not just a name, but in many other ways. However, the SBC is not the only organization though which a person can serve God. There are pastors and staff in SBC churches who would give their very lives for their church. The changes that have been made and will be made in the SBC should in no way deter these people from serving God as they have always served Him. There may be some churches that will leave the SBC. God will use them even more to reach their community, state and this nation for God.
I guess what I have been trying to say is let God lead and you will never be shut out as we and countless others have been from the IMB. Who knows life after SBC for some pastors, staff and churches may be the greatest experience in their lives. The best is yet to come and it may not be with the SBC.
Richard,
Thanks so much for reading and taking the time to comment. Peter, Paul, and Mary is one of my favorite groups. I’m afraid you might be right about your 25-30 year trajectory. The model that you describe during your later days with the IMB is the top-down approach that certain SBC leaders are trying to impose on the entire Convention. The tactics that have been used — some new and some revamped — during the GCR and now Name Change debates, are hardball politics at their worst. These tactics were perfected in churches where pastors would come in and try to impose their “vision.” You can lead people to buy into God’s vision (we just sang “Be Thou My Vision” at worship today), but it will be difficult to try to heavy handedly dictate the vision to Godly people who have served the church, in some cases longer than the new pastor has been alive. The problem with this approach is that the pastor doesn’t care if he runs off half the congregation, particularly the older folks, because he can (or thinks he can) replenish the church with younger families. Now we are seeing this repeated on a grand scale SBC wide. That’s why I think that the Name Change will not just take “Southern” out of the name, but “Baptist” as well. If the battle is lost there, then many will leave, which I’m not sure that the powers that be wouldn’t want to happen as a result. But, as you say, God is leading and He is ultimately in control. It is His church and His Convention of churches. Even though men might think they are in control, God will not share His glory with anyone else. In any event, we have a great ministry in NM and a great state convention which is at peace and moving on despite what Nashville is doing. And I wholeheartedly agree, “the best is still yet to come!” God’s blessings in your ministry,
Howell