ABCUSA Reorganization Report January 2008

The General Executive Council (GEC) met December 2-4 as it continued its work on reorganization. The official report of this meeting has already been released (http://www.abc-usa.org/news/2007/20071206a.htm). This is my personal report and brief analysis as part of my continuing effort to keep churches of the Great Rivers Region informed.

My earlier report (August 2007) was extensive and I see no need to repeat it. In that report I identified seven key points in the reorganization work at that time:

1. We have accepted “federation” as the best way to understand a national denomination, and are intentionally seeking to organize ourselves accordingly.

2. The interlocking boards created by SCOR/SCODS 40 years ago would be undone. BIM, BNM and MMBB would once again become self-sustaining boards.

3. The General Board would become the Board of General Ministries (BGM). It also would be much smaller (probably less than 30)—it would no longer be proportionately representative.
These four legally independent boards (BIM, BNM, MMBB, and BGM) would draw their members from a National Leader Development Pool. Every ABC entity would have the privilege to submit names to this pool.

4. The National Staff Leadership Council would consist of regional executive ministers and the executive directors of the boards (about 50 people). It is essentially the present General Executive Council. Its key task would be to facilitate implementation of ideas that come from the Missional Table.

5. The Missional Table is a new concept. This large gathering would consist of local church, denominational, and organizational leaders. It might meet only every two or three years for the purpose of identifying national goals and priorities. These become recommendations or challenges to the covenanting partners. The Missional Table would have no authority to implement, legislate, or create policy. It would be the main connection between the national denomination and local congregations.

7. The Biennial would continue to be a “family” gathering, primarily for worship, education, and celebration. Certain governance tasks would continue to reside with the Biennial, such as the election of officers, and changes to the bylaws.

During this most recent meeting, our work focused on the Missional Table (point 6). We also began discussions on the structure and role of the Board of General Ministries (point 3), and the work of the National Staff Leadership Council (point 5). While there is still much work to be done, we also formed a representative Transition Team to work with legal counsel in formulating documents and process in anticipation of the General Board meeting in June 2008.

I think we did good work in clarifying the role of the Missional Table. Uncertainty remains about the appropriate name for this group. Some have suggested “Mission Consultation, Gathering, Exploration, or Summit,” but I will continue to refer to it as the Missional Table (MT) in these reports for the sake of consistency. Tentative agreements (at least as I understand them) regarding the Missional Table include:

1. The MT has no governance role in the life of ABCUSA (the Board of General Ministries remains the corporate “home” for denominational life). It cannot raise money, it cannot spend money, it has no staff, it cannot speak for the denomination, and it cannot direct anyone to do anything.

2. The MT is a periodic gathering (every two or three years) of the “family” (American Baptist leaders, pastors, laypersons, and organizations) for the purpose of discerning and prioritizing missional concerns for consideration by the entire family (national program boards, region boards, organizations, and churches).

3. The MT is technically a function of the Board of General Ministries and is convened and led by the General Secretary.

4. While the MT will have a “core” of identified membership drawn from national and regional leadership, it will be open to anyone willing to commit the time and money necessary to attend.
There was discussion about the possibility of making the MT gathering an activity during the Biennial.

There are still aspects of the proposed Missional Table which remain unresolved for me. My primary question has been: “Is the configuration and authority of the MT consistent with its stated purpose?” While there is appropriate concern for accountability in the overall mission of the denomination, I don’t see how that can reside with this group. One GEC member has said that “this model assumes good will and collegiality.” That will require a significant change from our present environment. Further, given the limitations of authority (which I believe are essential since this is not a proportionately representative group) it will take considerable effort to attract sustained participation. At the same time, for a congregationally-based denomination like we claim to be, it is essential that we find a way for mission concerns to “bubble up” from our churches.

Regarding the Board of General Ministries (BGM) we discussed:

1. BGM is the legal board of the corporation known as ABCUSA. In other words, it functions as the General Board now does.

2, BGM will be much smaller than the present General Board (probably less than 30), and will no longer be proportionately representative.

3. Because BGM will no longer be representative, it will have limited moral authority to speak and do things in the name of the churches that comprise ABCUSA. Greater discernment and restraint, as well as more modest expectations will be essential.

4. The General Secretary will be the chief employee of BGM and will have legal functions as the corporate secretary.

5. BGM is the “parent” organization for events like the Biennial and the Missional Table.

Unresolved expectations and tensions with regard to BGM and the General Secretary remain. In addition to the legal functions of the General Secretary, we seem to want visionary leadership, care and projection of ABC identity, power to convene groups for a variety of purposes, resourcing regions, resourcing ministry, coordinating funding, and building relationships (both within and outside the family). While these may all be desirable, I don’t know that this shopping list is either workable or affordable.

Regarding the National Staff Leadership Council (NSLC), which is essentially the present General Executive Council, we discussed:

1. The work of the NSLC will be governed by covenant (i.e. a new Covenant of Relationships) not bylaws.

2. The composition of the NSLC should then be related to those organizations that are party to the Covenant of Relationships.

3. The agenda of NSLC should be driven primarily by the implementation of mission priorities identified by the Missional Table.

I support all this, even while there are many points of uncertainty. The present reorganization work was birthed out of a discussion in GEC regarding covenant two years ago. But a new Covenant of Relationships is easier said than done. Based on past experience, it could take five years to hammer out a new set of covenants that define and govern our life together—assuming we don’t get distracted by some other crisis. We must acknowledge that much of the contention for the last 10 years really comes to focus in covenant content, implementation, and discipline. While I agree with point 3, I wonder how accountability will work with legally-independent boards setting their own goals and priorities.

The timeline for organizational change is as follows:

· The GEC will meet again in April 2008, with the goal of finalizing its report to the General Board.
· The General Board will officially receive the report as a “first reading” at its meeting in June 2008.
· There may be a Fall 2008 GEC meeting to respond to suggestions that arise from the General Board.
· The General Board will vote on Bylaw changes at its November 2008 meeting.
· The Biennial in June 2009 will vote on the proposed Bylaws.

In my August 2007 report, I raised two general concerns: funding and covenant. During the December meeting we studied projected costs of the organization under consideration. I am satisfied that the organization we are envisioning will cost about 35% less than our present governance structure.

However, that does not include the operational costs of the Office of the General Secretary. That figure is about $2.7 million. It is unsustainable with current income streams. We looked at a business plan that included three elements. First, the responsible use of endowment (created from about $11 million immediately from the sale of the building, and another $7-10 million in five years) at a 5% draw yielding $550,000. Second, the commitment to a balanced budget through cost containment (OGS operating budget has been reduced about $1 million in the last five years). Third, the development of a new funding plan. It is unrealistic to expect United Mission to fund OGS and BGM operations at a sustainable level. Unfortunately, attractive alternatives have not yet been formulated. Obviously, this will be a major topic for future discussion.

As I said in the comments about the National Staff Leadership Council above, covenant issues remain. I will not repeat what I said in my August 2007 report. While the covenant issues absolutely must be addressed, that cannot happen until after the Bylaws are considered at the 2009 Biennial. And then it will take several years of negotiation. Clearly, we are in this for the long haul.

I have never wavered in my conviction that the church is essential to God’s plan for the total redemption of creation. I continue to believe that denominations can play an important, but subsidiary role in that. However, today we must make the case for denominations in a way that was not necessary 50 years ago.

I covet your prayers for discernment and perseverance.

The Treasure of Our Life Together as American Baptists

Recently I was privileged to speak at the annual meeting of the American Baptist Churches of New Jersey. This was my message.
Dwight Stinnett

Listen, dear friends, to God's truth,
bend your ears to what I tell you.

'm chewing on the morsel of a proverb;

I'll let you in on the sweet old truths,

stories we heard from our fathers,

counsel we learned at our mother's knee.

We're not keeping this to ourselves,

we're passing it along to the next generation—

God's fame and fortune,

the marvelous things God has done.
Psalm 78:1-4 The Message

Have you ever “Googled” the word “treasure?” There are over 66 million entries on the Web (I expect there are more by now). Technorati found nearly 350,000 blogs by the same, simple search.

The number 1 result from a Google search is the Wikipedia entry for “treasure.” That entry defines “treasure” as “a concentration of riches, often one which is considered lost or forgotten until being rediscovered.” This may not be a proper dictionary definition of the word, but I think it is a fair explanation of the popular understanding of “treasure.” There are two main points to this definition: first, it involves materially valuable things; secondly, it was lost or forgotten, but now found or remembered.

That “lost riches” understanding of “treasure” is reflected in the websites identified by the search. The first page includes TreasureNet (The Original Treasure Hunting website), Lost Treasure OnLine (a magazine for treasure hunters; did you know there was such a thing?); Mel Fisher’s Treasures (the story of the recovery of famous sunken treasure ships); and several websites for metal-detecting gear. I didn’t bother to check them all, but you get the point.

We find both elements of lost, forgotten or unrecognized riches in Antiques Roadshow. I hate network broadcasting, and Antiques Roadshow has become one of my few staple TV shows. For those of you who may not be familiar with the show, it travels around the country. Local residents are invited to bring their treasures (both real and imagined) to the show, where professional appraisers can tell them something about their treasure and put a dollar value on it.

I love watching the surprises. Like the story of the man who stopped to pick up a chair on the side of the road, and learned it was an original Chippendale worth thousands. Or the story of the woman who brought an antique Chinese vase for which she had paid $10,000, only to discover that it was a fake, probably worth $500 as a decorator’s piece.

But the real fun stories are the persons who bring in a family heirloom, merely out of curiosity. It has been handed down from generation to generation. Sometimes the story of its origin or significance has been lost. The article has not been cared for. Children have played with it. It may appear modest and simple. It has not been insured or protected in any way. I remember such a story in which a family quilt was valued at $70,000. These people did not understand what treasures they had.

I am talking about “treasure” today. Not material treasure, but treasure like a family heirloom that may have been forgotten, neglected or ignored.

While I grew up Baptist, I did not grow up American Baptist. Coming from outside 25 years ago, my perspective may be different from those who have always been here. Because they are so familiar, you may not see or recognize the treasures among us. I have discovered four “treasures” in American Baptist life. I will not presume to give them any kind of relative value, but will talk about them in the order in which I became conscious of them.

Women in Ministry

The first treasure I discovered was women in ministry. American Baptists are unapologetic in their support and encouragement of women in ministry. I know this is not true in every place. And I also know this is an anomaly among Baptists in general. It is a debate I find puzzling.

One of my very earliest memories is sitting in a rocking chair with an elderly woman while she read a child’s storybook about Daniel in the lion’s den. I know in retrospect that this must have been the church nursery on a Wednesday night while my parents were in choir practice. Was this a woman in ministry?

The New Testament tells us that women were the first witnesses to the Resurrection. They evangelized the 11 Disciples with the Gospel of the Risen Christ.

The New Testament tells us that the four daughters of Philip were known to “prophesy,” which is one of the Greek words for “preach.”

The New Testament tells us that it was Priscilla and Aquila who corrected Apollos’ in his preaching. It is not irrelevant that Priscilla is named first.

As the Apostle Paul concluded his letter to the Romans, he gave a roll call of twenty-five persons by name. Eight of those names are very clearly women—including the first and last in the list. Paul commended these women as deacons, ministers, and co-workers for the sake of the Kingdom.

John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, commonly identified as the first Baptists, commended women as church leaders, specifically deacons, in 1609.

But something happened in the 1700’s and women faded from leadership in Baptist churches. The Spirit broke through in the 1800’s.

Joanna P. Moore was commissioned as a missionary by the American Baptist Home Mission Society during the Civil War.

As far as we know, May Jones was the first woman ordained by a Baptist church in the North. That happened in 1882.

About the same time, Lulu Flemming was appointed as a medical missionary to the Congo by the Women’s American Baptist Foreign Mission Society.

Helen Barrett Montgomery, was born in 1861. She went on to be a biblical scholar and licensed minister. She served as President of the Women’s American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. She was finally honored as President of the Northern Baptist Convention in 1921.

Historically, Baptist women have served as church teachers and leaders, deacons, missionaries, and pastors. Some were ordained, others were licensed, still others were commissioned. Too many more had no such recognition at all. This treasure is more valued in some places than others. Still, I celebrate because the treasure of divine calling to ministry--including both women and men--remains intact among American Baptists.

Ethnic Diversity

The second treasure I discovered was ethnic diversity. My experience with ethnic diversity in the church was quite unlike my experience with women in ministry, which was positive from the very beginning. I grew up in a racially segregated society and a racially segregated church.

While my family had African-American friends and I played with African-American children, we lived in, internalized, and uncritically contributed to a culture of segregationism. I attended a “whites only” public school. I drank from “white” public water fountains. I watched the grotesque racial caricature of Amos and Andy on television and saw only a harmless comedy. And my church was lily white.

We were social segregationists, not theological segregationists. By that I mean there were no Sunday School lessons or sermons advocating the superiority of the white race. Violence against anyone was rejected as sub-Christian. There was no attempt to provide a biblical or theological underpinning for the racially segregated, discriminating, and, consequently, unjust society in which we lived. There truly was a spirit of charity and care for all persons.

The issue was not even theologically considered or biblically examined. Segregation was simply and uncritically accepted from the culture as the norm. And that was our failing. Our culture was not adequately critiqued on the basis of the Bible that we claimed to believe. Some have called this “soft segregationism” or “velvet glove racism.”

I listened to preachers like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I did not know at the time that he was associated with American Baptists, or had attended an American Baptist seminary. Still, the words he spoke, loaded with powerful biblical images, were consistent with what I had heard in my own church. But he applied the Word in a way that had not been considered by my own pastor. He drew consequences from theological reflection that had remained undeveloped in my own church. It sounded right. It moved me.

Ultimately, the inconsistency between what was preached in our pulpits and what was actually practiced in our lives drove me away from the church. There is not time, and this is not the place, to outline my rehabilitation. Simply suffice it to say I returned to the church—but I was not the same as when I left.

I tell this story not because I want to defend the South of my childhood, or because I deny the reality of vicious and violent racism, but because we need to understand the complexity of the issue and the ways in which it has wounded all of us.

Today I can celebrate the fact—the treasure—that no other denomination in America today even comes close to our ethnic diversity. Numerically, there is no ethnic majority among us. We truly are a reflection of the Kingdom of God. Praise the Lord!

At the same time, I know that we cannot rest on self-congratulation.

I grew up in an era of “social segregationism” that included the church. Today I fear American Baptists are at risk of believing our “social ethnic diversity” is a satisfactory answer to the very real, deep-seated, heart-poisoning problem of racism.

What do I mean by “social ethnic diversity?” I mean we diligently put a public face on our ethnic diversity. We can be obsessive and legalistic in presenting a platform of rainbow faces. We carefully scrub and purge our public language. We look good and we sound good.

But we resist doing the hard work of personal conversion. We rarely speak honestly with one another because it might undermine our public persona of openness. We are covered by a façade that often hides parentalism, condescension and mistrust. There is a public conversation--then there are the private conversations. Ironically, our public persona, our social ethnic diversity, actually prevents us from getting to the heart of bona fide ethnic diversity. Consequently, Sunday remains the most segregated hour in America—even in American Baptist churches. Yes, there are many “integrated” churches among us; I attend one. But I know that in most of those churches there is a dominant culture to which the minorities adapt. There are very few true multicultural churches among us.

If we are going to get past this superficial integration, then we must learn to talk about very real differences. Together we must also expose our differences and cultures to the penetrating light of the Gospel. We must learn to discern and speak to the good and true within one another, as well as the ugly and false. Until this is a fully engaged two-way (actually multiple-way) conversation we will remain stalled where we are—looking good, sounding good, but unconverted. The beloved community will come only through conversion.

American Baptists have taken the first step. And that makes me proud to be an American Baptist. We are positioned to teach the rest of the world something about how profound community can grow out of broad ethnic diversity. It is risky business, but I believe in my heart that there are many of us who are ready to take that next step.

The events of Jena, Louisiana break my heart. They take my mind back 40 years. What happened? Or, to be more precise, what didn’t happen? Can we take that next step together?

As much as I treasure what we have become, I long for the day in which “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Whole Gospel (evangelism, prophetic)

The third treasure I discovered among American Baptists was a commitment to the whole Gospel.

The Baptist churches I grew up in took the Sermon on the Mount seriously – they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and cared for the sick. Those very same churches were just as serious about Jesus’ command to “make disciples.” An “invitation” concluded every service, and we worshipped with the expectations that persons would respond in repentance or renewal. The heart of the Gospel is the story of the Cross, and each of us must personally confess Jesus Christ, no one can do it for us. It was never either/or; it is always both/and. It is bad enough when Baptists choose only one over the other, and inexcusable when one side identifies itself exclusively as the “real” heritage of Baptists.

Baptists were born out of the very concrete practice of believers’ baptism, not by following a script of principles someone had penned. We all know, don’t we, that “believers’ baptism” means a public act of baptism following a personal repentance and confession of Jesus Christ.

We are the heirs of late 19th and early 20th Century “evangelicals,” who not only practiced believers’ baptism, they had a profound sense of social responsibility that was rooted in and sustained by the Bible. They cared for the down and out and forgot about because it was an essential part of the Gospel.

The modern debate over personal Gospel versus social Gospel, “evangelical” (typically meaning an emphasis on witness and conversion) versus “prophetic” (typically meaning an emphasis on the peace and justice issues) would be foolish to early evangelicals. American Baptist history is full of evidences that we have struggled to keep the Gospel whole, with all its implications.

John Mason Peck and his wife Sarah Payne were the first American Baptist home missionaries. They served in what is now the Great Rivers Region. John Mason Peck was a tireless traveler and preacher, determined to bring Christianity to the Wild West. He started and strengthened churches. He built Sunday Schools. He vigorously promoted cooperative missions and Baptist associations. But Peck also started one of the very first colleges in Illinois. Peck was among the Baptists who fought slave-holding as a practice inconsistent with Christianity. He has been credited as one of the persons responsible for Illinois being a “free” state.

In our history I see persons like Walter Rauschenbusch, Martin Luther King, Jr., Howard Thurman, Jitsuo Morikawa and Harold Stassen who worked to help us see the far-reaching, institutional aspects of sin and the imperative that Christians must address social sin. And I am aware of the large collection of resolutions and statements of concern directed toward a variety of both social and personal concerns.

Even while we addressed social sin, American Baptists sent out the first colporters to do evangelism work, beginning in 1843. The first railroad chapel car, the “Evangel,” was commissioned in 1891 to provide preaching stations in far-flung communities along the railroad network. American Baptists declared 1926 as the “Year of Evangelism.” We launched the “Evangelistic Lifestyle” emphasis in 1973. And held a national convocation on evangelism in St. Louis in 1981. Our 10 Facts You Should Know About American Baptists, (published in 2000) still lists as #1: “American Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior … the events of the first Easter week are the cornerstones of our faith.”

I treasure the fact that, by and large, American Baptists as a group have tried to be faithful to both the personal and the social demands of the Gospel. The division and antithesis between so-called “evangelical” and “prophetic” ministries is unbiblical and ultimately undermines Christianity. They are like two sides of the same coin—one without the other is unthinkable. Each informs and corrects the other. In my opinion, the continued emphasis on the whole Gospel is potentially one of the greatest contributions that American Baptists can make to Christianity in 21st Century America.

Missiology

The fourth treasure I discovered was our partnership missiology. “Missiology” is just a 50-cent word that means the science of, or the study of missions. American Baptist missiology—our approach to missions—may be the hardest to explain, but also may be our most valuable treasure.

The emergence of the world-wide missionary movement in the 19th Century left its mark on Baptists. We were not especially “missionary” before the Judsons went to Burma in 1812. In fact, you could say the first American Baptist missionaries were adopted after they were already on the field, because we did not begin supporting them until 1814 at the instigation of Luther Rice.

But something about world-wide mission work resonated with the very nature of Baptists. I think it is related to that emphasis on the whole Gospel that I just talked about. Baptists have been shaped forever by international missions. Most of us, regardless of which peculiar Baptist family we claim, have survived to this point in history as missionary churches—some are cooperative, others are not so cooperative.

American Baptist missionaries preached the Gospel, translated the Bible, baptized believers, strengthened disciples, brought medicine, improved agriculture, built schools, and helped emerging countries in all kinds of ways.

At the same time, there was something unsavory about world-wide missions as it was rooted in the 19th Century. Intended or not, we quickly became parental if not down-right colonial. Missionaries from America—regardless of their denomination--were unwitting captives of Euro-culturalism and its sense of superiority, and “mission” was often justifiably identified with Western imperialism. Anyone who has seen or read Michenor’s Hawaii knows that.

But American Baptist missiology matured—and that is the real treasure. We have not escaped all cultural bonds, but we are much more sensitive to them than our 19th Century forebears. The arrogant days of missionaries arriving to take control are over. All around the world, American Baptist missionaries are in countries because they have been invited by local Baptists. Our growing partnership approach to missions invites our hosts to tell us what they need and how best we may serve them. We respect local leaders as the real experts of their own culture.

As a consequence, American Baptist missionaries are respected all around the world in ways that almost no other Western missionaries are. The treasure of American Baptist missions is not the number of missionaries on the field, the number of countries in which we have missionaries, or the number of dollars we raise and spend on international missions. The real treasure of American Baptist missions is the way we participate in God’s world-wide mission. We are poised, like no other denomination, to face the mission challenges of the 21st Century. More than that, I believe our international experience will prove invaluable as we consider the United States as one of the most important mission fields in the 21st Century.

I am proud of American Baptist missions.

In conclusion, I believe these four specific practices within American Baptist churches more accurately describe who we are than any academic study of so-called “Baptist principles.” These are the practices that I have come to treasure.

The Apostle Paul said we “have this treasure in jars of clay.” I know he was talking specifically about the ministry of reconciliation, but it is a good image for us to remember.

We don’t want to confuse the pot with the treasure! The clay pot remains a clay pot. It is common. It is earthy. It is fragile. This clay pot we call American Baptists is especially earthy and fragile right now.

At the same time, we do not want to forget the treasure that is held in this clay pot. It is not a treasure of our own manufacture. It is not one we have earned. It is not one we are free to hoard or hide. It is the gift of God.

Let’s remember, celebrate, and share the treasure that is within us.

Reorganization Concluding Comments, August 2007

This has already gotten much longer than I imagined when I began. Still, there are important issues that have not yet surfaced as part of the discussion above. These issues have not been gleaned from the GEC report to the General Board. They are entirely my personal observations and experiences from having ridden this horse a very long time.

What about funding?

Funding questions lie just beneath the surface of these discussions. But it is not just a question of funding for mission and ministry, it is a question of funding for the structure that was intended “to give general oversight and direction to the life and mission of the Denomination” and “set policy in the areas of program functions, planning, coordination, and evaluation….” In other words, the funding question focuses on the governance process—the work and staff of the General Board.

An elaborate proportionately representative process with a grand vision (i.e. the General Board) has proven to be unsustainable financially. The response to this reality in the plan under discussion is to radically reduce the size (and operating costs) of governing boards. But the price we pay for this is reduced representation and less engagement. At the same time, we must compensate for this reduced representation with a more modest vision for the denomination. Those who expect that we can reduce the size and costs of representation, then go on to continue business as usual will be disappointed.

Do we really want an oversight and direction structure? What do we expect from it? What are we willing to pay for it?

There are many “what ifs” that complicate projecting operating costs. But we all understand that we must come to some clarity about this very soon. Creating a structure that we cannot support will do no good for anyone. Merely shifting costs to other ABC entities will not be acceptable either. There must be a real reduction in the costs of operating the denomination. Most of all, the organization must prove itself worthy of the financial support of churches because declining finances is merely a symptom.

What about covenant?

There seems to be a general assumption that “covenant” will continue to be the mechanism for holding the denomination together in the new organization. Questions about the Covenant of Relationships started this ball rolling in the GEC. Eventually, we must get back to those questions. That conversation will prove more difficult than the work on reorganization, because covenant gets to the root issue of who we are together. The so-called “Tucson Covenant” that GEC members made with one another was not only absolutely essential for reorganization work to continue, it will reappear when we begin talking about covenant.

Do we want to be in covenant or not? What does that mean? What do partners voluntarily surrender in order to enter in to and maintain covenant? What do partners gain by being in covenant? How do covenant partners submit to one another in covenant? Where is the meeting of “covenant partners?” How will they govern themselves, attending to and caring for covenant?

In all this, I am troubled that the organizational plan so far has been driven by denominational staff. It is not that I don’t think we are competent or qualified. I wonder about energy. The creation of the Northern Baptist Convention 100 years ago was almost entirely the result grassroots insistence. SCOR/SCODS was carefully representative of the denomination. But more recent attempts at reorganization that tried to tap into grass roots and/or representational energies failed. Now this present effort is being sustained almost entirely by denominational staff. What does that mean? Why is the engagement so low? Whence the passivity?

In conclusion (finally!), you may have the impression that I am resolutely against this plan-in-the-making and throwing every rock I can. That is not true. I have recognized the need for reorganization for 10 years. I am generally supportive of the plan as the outline is emerging. This is serious business. I take it seriously. I feel compelled to keep the churches of the Region I serve informed.

Please read this seeing that my colleagues and I are asking hard questions of one another and remembering that it is a point in time. Some of those questions don’t seem to have answers. Other answers cannot co-exist. Many “answers” come from compromise. Not political compromise between conflicting personalities, but compromises between irreconcilable expectations, values, finances and reality.

In any case, relationships need to be healed and rebuilt before any formal reorganization plan has a chance. It may pass—but that does not mean it will work.

I confess that I have not yet been given a vision by God. (But the denominational vision I had 10 years ago is gone.) If anyone else has such a vision, they are not sharing it with the rest of us. We need your prayers if there is to be any hope of creating a structure that captures the hearts and minds of American Baptists.

Seventh: Biennial

The annual gathering of American Baptists as a convention was scrapped by the SCOR/SCODS reorganization in favor of a Biennial. But more than timing changed, most of the governance work of the denomination was transferred to the General Board, which was being created as an intentional, proportionately representative body. This was a good move. It was the right thing. This is what SCODS said in their final report: “The unrepresentative nature of the annual meeting raises the question of ability and right of such meetings to take legislative action and to handle the business of the A.B.C.” Not only is the participation in national gatherings incredibly small (compared to the whole body), it is at the same time not representative (it is self-selected by those with the time and money to attend), and it is at the same time heavily impacted by geography (driving distance to the meeting). The top three functions for the revised Biennial are: celebration, inspiration, information (reporting on what the General Board had done).

At this point, the plan under discussion does not envision any significant changes in the role of the Biennial. We haven’t talked much about it. True, there are some who want the Biennial to become a stage for conflict and combat like the old Convention meetings—but I don’t think there are many. On the other hand, there are those who are troubled by the costs of the Biennial, and wonder if even less frequent meetings might be in order—but I don’t think there are many of those either.

In my opinion, every critique that SCOR/SCODS raised regarding the old Convention meetings is still true, and even more so. While it is necessary that certain governance functions (especially Bylaw changes) reside in a body larger than the General Board (or its successor) I think the time has come to think in a different way. If the governance functions of the Biennial remain very few (and I think they should), then there is no reason we cannot do a denomination-wide referendum at low cost in a reasonable length of time.

This would make the denomination truly a participative democracy. Yes, it would take a little work, but I don’t believe it would be that difficult. Churches could be assigned “votes” equivalent to a delegate calculation formula. Information would be prepared a distributed. Discussion sessions could be scheduled. Regions would be responsible for collecting and reporting the votes.

It would also take a little more time. But the Biennial deals with no issues that require immediate decision. So what if it takes four months of discussion across the denomination before a decision is registered? Spreading out the discussion, slowing down the decision, deliberately including everyone might actually keep us from saying and doing regrettable things. In particular, all public witness statements need to be done this way.

Keep the Biennial as a celebrative, inspirational, informational meeting. Elect officers. But keep everything else out of it.

Sixth: Missional Table

This is a radically new concept and raises lots of questions (or it should).

First, what it is not. The Missional Table is not a rehabilitated General Board. It has much more in common with the Seek It gathering from several years ago in terms of purpose and authority.

I am uneasy with the name “Missional Table” because I don’t know what we mean. “Missional” is a hot word in church circles. Strictly speaking, “missional” is an ecclesiology rooted in the work of Lesslie Newbigen (a former missionary to India) and Elton Trueblood (founder of Yokefellow). It has four main components: (1) “Mission” is fundamentally God’s work (missio dei), and we are invited to participate in it; (2) The inescapable nature of the church is to be sent by God into the world; (3) The church is called to be counter-cultural; and (4) Western society is now a mission field demanding the missiological insights of over 100 years of “foreign missions” experience.

However, “missional” has come to mean everything from evangelism to how we make coffee in church basements. A Google search turns up nearly 800,000 disparate entries. It has become the fashionable phrase as old mainline denominations rethink and restructure (!) who they are. Alan Roxburgh said that the phrase has moved “from obscurity to banality in eight short years and people still don’t know what it means.”

I embrace the four-point understanding of “missional church” given above (but not everyone does). But, is this really what we mean by the “Missional Table?” Is the denomination implicitly endorsing an ecclesiology? Will it impose that ecclesiology on its churches? Will its services and programs exclude those churches that have chosen another ecclesiological focus? More than that, in what sense can a Baptist denomination, which is created by churches and accountable to churches and intended to serve churches, be truly “missional” without usurping the authority of those churches?

Honestly, I do not believe any of this is the case. “Missional” is being used because it is a fashionable word today, and it speaks to the Baptist heart for missions (which is not the same as missional). That is not a good enough reason. We need to be more accurate and descriptive in the title of this group.

The Missional Table (whatever we end up calling it), is a good idea, just as Seek It was a good idea. However, I still have questions. I worry about its composition, authority, costs, and participation.

I see no need for an elaborate nomination and election process that concludes with a “filtering” of candidates at the Biennial—especially since the Missional Table has no governance authority. Seek It was the most carefully, intentionally representative group of American Baptists that I have seen. Let’s simply use a formula for proportional representation and trust the partners choose their representatives.

I am uncertain about the authority of this group. Overall, it seems to be intended to function as a “think tank” for the denomination, producing recommended goals, etc., that the partners then pursue. It also apparently will review and evaluate what those partners actually do. Based on past experience, it does not seem likely to me that any program or region board is going to be compelled to pursue goals set by the Missional Table, and is going to be less than enthusiastic about any subsequent review. While I embrace the idea of such a group expressing the voice of the denomination when it comes to programming, I do not believe it is structured adequately to resolve our misalignment problem (and I am not sure that is possible). In the absence of clarity about what they can and cannot do, I believe there is strong possibility for frustration among those who commit their time and energy to the Mission Table.

If the work of the Missional Table is primarily advisory, I wonder about the necessity and costs of a rigid meeting schedule and a standing group. It seems to me that a carefully chosen, representative group could gather to do this work every three years or so.

Lastly, if the point I raised above about frustration is true, I wonder how long it will take members to decide that the Missional Table is not worthy of their time, effort, and money.

Having said all that, I need to be clear that I am not opposed to the concept of a missional table. I think it is a creative way for us to bring together denominational leaders, pastors, and lay leaders to discuss the role of the denomination. I am more concerned that there be a clear understanding of limits and that there really is appropriate authority for the task.

Fifth: National Staff Leadership Council

The composition of the proposed National Staff Leadership Council (NSLC) is essentially the present General Executive Council (GEC). We really haven’t worked much on this and it raises no particular concerns. The key question has to do with purpose (tasks) and whether the group actually has authority commensurate with its purpose. The GEC has a difficult time initiating or enforcing anything. Will that pattern continue? While I have always supported the principle that participating members should fund their own participation, I also know that this creates its own challenges. It opens the door for classism and elitism. Moreover, members must value participation, it cannot be presumed.

Fourth: National Leader Development Pool

Abandoning proportionate representation creates a practical problem: How will people be added to the boards since the total numbers on each board do not allow for even one representative from each ABC partner? Our civic experience as Americans has seeded deeply within us the idea of constituents functioning as an electorate—choosing from among themselves who will best represent them on the community body. I know this model is difficult to find in New Testament descriptions of the church, but I also know that it is part of the Baptist psyche.

The National Leader Development Pool emerged as an attempt to deal with the problem. It is not perfect. I do not particularly like it. But I don’t have a better idea. Consequently, I believe we will struggle to find ways to at least avoid dis-proportionate representation.

Ways to do this might include requiring that boards rotate the origin of their board members so that, over time, all partners get represented. Partners might be invited to group themselves as common interest groups to make nominations to the pool, and requiring that those common interest groups be represented on every board. We may also specify that no board may have two members from the same partner. An additional compensation is to radically limit the authority of those boards—even more so than now. The prospect of boards saying and doing things contrary or offensive to partners who feel disenfranchised by the process is fraught with danger for the body. The irony here is that boards which have been seeking greater independence and freedom may actually find themselves ending up with less freedom to speak and act than they have now!

However, regardless of the means we use or the language we wrap around it, we cannot escape the fact that someone else is choosing who will “represent” me. That might work in a high trust environment, but we do not have that luxury. We cannot underestimate the reaction against this. It will be a major “sell job” for those who have experienced oppression, exclusion, dismissal or alienation by the system (which seems to include almost everyone in American Baptist life today).