{"id":169,"date":"2010-07-16T04:00:22","date_gmt":"2010-07-16T10:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/?p=169"},"modified":"2010-07-16T04:00:22","modified_gmt":"2010-07-16T10:00:22","slug":"radically-redefining-transparency-in-the-sbc-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/?p=169","title":{"rendered":"Radically Redefining Transparency in the SBC: Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\"\"<\/a>Component Two:\u00a0 Making Our Values Transparent:<\/strong>\u00a0 We must also work toward the creation of a new and healthy culture within the Southern Baptist Convention.\u00a0 If we are to grow together and work together in faithfulness to the command of Christ, we must establish a culture of trust, transparency, and truth among all Southern Baptists. . . .\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (Quoted from Penetrating The Lostness:\u00a0 Embracing A Vision For A Great Commission Resurgence Among Southern Baptists, <\/strong>Page 8, The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Report and Recommendations to the Southern Baptist Convention in Orlando, Florida June 15-16, 2010)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Transparency sure ain’t what it used to be!\u00a0 After a 20 minute debate, messengers at this year’s Orlando Convention,\u00a0with the urging\u00a0of the GCRTF, voted to redefine transparency within the Southern Baptist Convention.\u00a0\u00a0No,\u00a0a literal motion to change the definition of transparency was not acted upon by the messengers.\u00a0 But by affirming the Task Force’s after-the-fact decision to seal their own\u00a0records, the practical definition of transparency has been radically changed — at least for now.\u00a0 The unilateral decision to seal ALL records of their proceedings and to oppose even the partial release of records set the table for the redefinition of transparency within the Southern Baptist Convention.\u00a0 For that, every Southern Baptist should be saddened.\u00a0<\/p>\n

However, not all are saddened.\u00a0 In fact, many rejoiced in the\u00a0convention hall.\u00a0 And many within the leadership class of the Convention are evidently quite comfortable without so much as a window of transparency into proceedings — not deliberations (this was not a jury) — which have the very real potential to radically redefine what it means to be a Cooperating Southern Baptist.\u00a0 In order for grass-roots Southern Baptists to understand and comprehend the radical reprioritizing and redefining of\u00a0our convention\u00a0envisioned by certain leaders, I believe it is vital to start with the Task Force’s unilateral move to seal their records and the subsequent arguments advanced by Task Force members and others\u00a0to support this decision.\u00a0 There were four main arguments advanced by the Task Force members or supporters to defend sealing the records.\u00a0 In the first part of a two-part post, I will address\u00a0points\u00a01 and 2\u00a0and in my next post will address points 3 and 4:<\/p>\n

    \n
    \n
  1. Time and Money would make it prohibitive to release even partial records of the Task Force Proceedings<\/li>\n
  2. Past Precedent of committees and\/or individuals where records were sealed<\/li>\n
  3. Promises of Confidentiality made by GCRTF\u00a0that would be broken if required to unseal records<\/li>\n
  4. Future Committees would not make recordings of their proceedings if GCRTF records were unsealed<\/li>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/ol>\n

    Toward the end of the debate on the main motion to unseal all the records of the Task Force, an amended motion was offered by Doug Hibbard.\u00a0 He moved that the<\/p>\n

    President of the Executive Committee, in consultation with a representative of Baptist Press, Legal Counsel, and the Historical Archives, release selected portions of the committee record to provide a window of transparency while preserving the promised confidentiality.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Dr. Daniel Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Task Force, spoke against this amendment to the main motion.\u00a0 In response, Dr. Akin presented four problems with even a release of selected portions of the\u00a0records:<\/p>\n

      \n
      \n
    1. Release of even selected portions would require massive man hours to do<\/li>\n
    2. Release of even selected portions would be an enormous cost, with fees for attorneys and other staff<\/li>\n
    3. Release of even selected portions would lead to an arbitrariousness as to who would decide what is released and what is not<\/li>\n
    4. Release of even selected portions would\u00a0force the Task Force to break their word\u00a0regarding confidentiality promised to certain individuals<\/li>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/ol>\n

      I’ll include #4 in\u00a0part two of this post when I analyze\u00a0the confidentiality\/broken promises\u00a0argument.\u00a0\u00a0When\u00a0reviewing\u00a0documents and recordings of the GCRTF, there is no question that this endeavor will take time and money, although I know of at least one attorney (and I’m sure there are others)\u00a0who would be willing\u00a0to\u00a0offer their services pro bono to\u00a0review any materials related to the GCRTF proceedings.\u00a0 Will a review of\u00a0all the materials take time?\u00a0 Yes.\u00a0 Will this review\u00a0involve at least some financial\u00a0outlay?\u00a0 Most assuredly.\u00a0 However,\u00a0concerns about time and money should never prevent any of us, including our convention, from taking the right action.\u00a0 As to the arbitrary nature of who decides what is released\u00a0and what is not,\u00a0start with the minutes\u00a0of the Task Force’s meetings.\u00a0 Surely there was a recording secretary for this group.\u00a0 Are\u00a0we now being told that no written minutes of the Task Force’s proceedings exist or in the alternative, that if written minutes do exist, that NONE of the minutes can be released before the end of fifteen years?\u00a0 Our dysfunctional federal government releases portions of their proceedings, even\u00a0though national security or other exigent circumstances necessitate some records remaining classified.\u00a0 Surely the SBC can do better than the U.S. government.<\/p>\n

      A reliance on past precedent was used by both Dr. Mohler and by Dr. Greg Wills, a professor at Southern Seminary, to argue for the sealing of all records.\u00a0 As a trained attorney, I have a passing acquaintance with the use — or misuse — of precedent.\u00a0 Simply put, precedents are historical cases\u00a0that contain\u00a0similar facts, rulings, or reasoning that can be used in a present case to argue in favor of a particular outcome.\u00a0 Precedents are controlling on lower courts if issued by a higher court (i.e., the Supreme Court’s precedents are controlling on all Federal Appellate or District Courts), although precedents are not binding on a court of equal stature.\u00a0 For instance, past Supreme Court precedents are never binding or controlling on future Supreme Courts.\u00a0 Drs. Mohler and Wills relied upon the following three precedents:<\/p>\n

        \n
        \n
      1. The sealing of records of the SBC’s Peace Committee in the 1980s<\/li>\n
      2. The sealing of the Diary of William Whittsett, former President of Southern Seminary<\/li>\n
      3. The sealing of transcripts from a 1958 Trustee Meeting<\/li>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/ol>\n

        I am unaware of the context of the 1958 Southern Seminary Trustee meeting transcripts that were sealed.\u00a0 The nature of the discussions that were recorded were obviously of a sensitive nature.\u00a0 However, contra to what Dr. wills says is customary, he could only cite one example of trustee transcripts being sealed.\u00a0 Perhaps there are others that he\u00a0failed to\u00a0mention.\u00a0 Regardless, this is neither a\u00a0persuasive much less controlling precedent.<\/p>\n

        The sealing for 100 years\u00a0of the private, personal diary of William Whitsitt,\u00a0who\u00a0served as the third\u00a0President of Southern Seminary, is\u00a0so\u00a0dissimilar to the sealing of records from a\u00a0messenger authorized Task Force that any reasonable and objective observer would\u00a0not give any\u00a0weight to this precedent.<\/p>\n

        That leaves the precedent of the Peace Committee.\u00a0 A first reading of this precedent would indicate some similarities between the Peace Committee and the GCRTF.\u00a0 However, on a closer reading, these two cases have less in common than what has been argued.\u00a0 First , the Peace Committee was dealing with known contentious issues that affected, not the methodology of the Convention, but the theology of the Convention.\u00a0 Second,\u00a0the Peace Committee\u00a0opened up all their meetings to a\u00a0reporter from Baptist Press.\u00a0 And lastly,\u00a0according to an article in North Carolina’s Biblical Recorder<\/a>,<\/p>\n

        SBC President Johnny Hunt originally promised that all meetings of the task force would be open to at least one representative of Southern Baptists\u2019 press, such as a newspaper editor or someone from Baptist Press. Instead, all meetings were closed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

        If\u00a0true, then\u00a0several\u00a0questions need to be asked and answered.\u00a0 Did Dr. Hunt change his mind about the transparency of the Task Force proceedings?\u00a0 If yes, when did this occur?\u00a0 If not, was he overruled by\u00a0the Chairman of the Task Force or by the entire Task Force?\u00a0 If so, when did this occur?\u00a0 Was it early in the process or at the end of the process?\u00a0 Why did the Task Force wait until the week before the\u00a0Orlando\u00a0Convention to disclose they were moving to seal all records?\u00a0 I am unaware of any of these questions being answered by Dr. Hunt or anyone on the Task Force.<\/p>\n

        Finally,\u00a0even if one could argue that the Peace Committee precedent was persuasive, it can in no way be considered controlling.\u00a0 And\u00a0for the Task Force to use the Peace Committee — some of\u00a0whom were well-known “moderates” — to now argue in favor of the sealing of the GCRTF records is a bit strange.\u00a0 Sort of like a conservative lawyer using the opinions of liberal Supreme Court Justices William Brennan or Harry Blackmun to\u00a0support\u00a0their case.\u00a0 You might have to resort to it, but\u00a0it would make for an awkward\u00a0situation.<\/p>\n

        The first two points that have been addressed are the weakest and least offensive of the arguments that were used to keep the records of the GCRTF sealed for\u00a0the\u00a0next fifteen years.\u00a0 Points 3 and 4, dealing with confidentiality and\u00a0how future committees\u00a0will operate, are distressing and revealing examples of a philosophy of leadership that calls for transparency, but does the opposite.\u00a0 In part two of this post, I will discuss how\u00a0each of these arguments, if\u00a0allowed to stand long-term, will lead to\u00a0a more radical redefinition, not just of transparency, but a radical redefinition of what it means to be a Cooperating Southern Baptist.\u00a0\u00a0Stay tuned and check back Monday for the second part of this post.\u00a0<\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/em>\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Component Two:\u00a0 Making Our Values Transparent:\u00a0 We must also work toward the creation of a new and healthy culture within the Southern Baptist Convention.\u00a0 If we are to grow together and work together in faithfulness to the command of Christ, we must establish a culture of trust, transparency, and truth among all Southern Baptists. ….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[37],"tags":[433,434,454,3393,996],"class_list":["post-169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-southern-baptist-convention","tag-gcr","tag-gcrtf","tag-grassroots","tag-southern-baptist-convention","tag-transparency"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1LP7G-2J","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fromlaw2grace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}