ABC Views from the Middle

2009-08-28T08:27:00.000-07:00

Dwight,

There you go, digging at the sore spots.

What I’m referring to is the polar opposites within non-profit leadership. On the one side we find the negative . . . the part that creeps in when you are depressed and can’t seem to meet fundraising goals. You begin to wonder if it isn’t all about money. You ask, “when did I ever decide to be a fundraiser anyway?” and “Am I starting to be friendlier to people with money than without?” and “Am I just trying to raise money for me?”

At the other end, the good side, the realization the board hired you for leadership. To my way of thinking denomination staff is supposed to give leadership, just as local church staff is supposed to give leadership.

The church is better when we realize our leadership roles. When we realize it’s not about getting people to pay for what we want to do. Instead it’s about helping cast a vision that can mobilize a congregation or constituency to serve and give for the greater good.

I have a problem with your contention that a church defines mission more than the denomination. If you mean that the local church’s definition is arrived at after all the various influences of leadership have taken place, maybe. How did I become who I am? It was going to church when I was in college and hearing Roger Fredrikson preach me right out of my comfort zone. But it went beyond the local church. It was going to an NM conference on Laity when I was still in a secular job. I heard William Stringfellow challenge me to see my ministry where I was. It was a call to a new way of thinking and a new responsibility. And a few years later, attending another conference and hearing William Sloan Coffin jar my thinking again. I began to see the world differently.

Denomination staff should be helpful AND pushy and challenging. But they must be challenged themselves to excellence in leadership, which includes a balance of listening and leading. And this is hard. We don’t spend nearly enough time listening to the full breadth of the family. Maybe we don’t even know how. When the denomination (or a local church) believes leadership’s vision is the only vision, or their understanding of the church is superior to that of the pew sitter, they begin to lose their punch.

No single part of the family should be the sole determiner of mission. If they are, the risk of limited vision is high. Look at the churches that have decided to go it alone. Pretty soon the good ones begin to connect with new or old networks that push and challenge them. Whether we work at the national level, at the region, or at the local, we need folks with different perspectives.

Denominational leaders must be individuals who love the people and the churches and humbly understand that each day must have listening time in it. And the same is true of local church pastors and leaders.

At some time we may want to talk about what makes churches, regions and national organizations search out the best leaders they can find and then proceed to slowly tear them apart.

We have, at times, tried denomination-wide listening. SEEK IT is one example. But we may have been so driven to complete a process (driven by ourselves and others) that we didn’t spend enough time living-in-the-learning. Perhaps we should return to looking at the material from that process. Or, find a way to continue it.

What happened to "missions" ???

2009-08-25T07:28:00.000-07:00

Susan,

As usual, you open the door for me to say lots of things. I hope I can be more restrained!

First, let me say something in general about "being heard." This is a common plea -- even demand -- in current comunity life, whatever that community may be. While "not being heard" is a very real problem, the fundamental issue too often is found in the second part of the question you heard: "Is there a chance they will hear us AND CHANGE BACK?" "Will they change" is the real question. It is possible to hear clearly, to understand, and to refuse to change because one is operating with different values, concerns, or goals. Yes, we need to work to communicate clearly and to understand, but that does not guarantee agreement.

There are plenty of times in our denominational life together that I have not felt that I have been heard (often it is because I have not been clear). There have also been times when I did not feel I had permission to speak. But there have been other times when I worked very hard to be understood (and to understand); I believe I have been understood (and I understand); but to no avail.

Second, I share your difficulty in dealing confronting anger in others and dealing with my own. I have no problem with passion, but I am more likely than not just to disengage and walk away when my perception of the anger level rises. Unfortunately, the perspective of the other may be that it is only a spirited discussion. While I have strong feelings about the health care debate, there is no way I would stay in some of the meetings I have seen on tv, much less participate in the shouting match.

I think you were with us a few years ago when GEC did an exercise on "Wired for Conflict" during which we exposed our personality types and the ways we deal with conflict. It was interesting. I was especially intrigued by the way some of our colleagues identified themselves (I identified my self as a "compromiser" -- I also remember there were not many of us!). I especially remember some who identified themselves as "collaborators," and thought to myself "that is not the way I experience them." Unfortunately, we did not take the next step. There have been several meetings that the only reason I stayed was out of a sense of duty to the churches I serve and strive to represent.

Third, now back to the IM issue. I have had the same question you report. And my answer is "I do not believe IM is going to 'go back.' If you want to support IM through United Mission, World Mission Offering, and unrestricted gifts to IM you are free to do so. However, you are not going to be able to demand that everyone else do so."

I have made no one happy with that answer, but it is the truth. I don't like it, but I am moving on.

Fourth, the larger question of "mission." "Foreign missions" was one of the cornerstones of Baptist life as I grew up. I always thought it was a non-negotiable given. In the last year, I have begun to wonder.

I have had two group meetings with predominantly laypeople since Pasadena, trying to interpret and answer questions. In both settings we talked about denominational issues about fifteen minutes, then went on to over an hour discussion of the struggles and future of local congregations. The passion for "missions" (whether international or national) was not part of the discussion. The historic emphasis on "missions" is wavering because of the growing concerns of congregations for themselves. It is also wavering because the word "missions" has been robbed of clear meaning--even church people use "mission" when they mean nothing more than "purpose." We have known for years that "mission" has different meaning in different ethnic settings. We use "mission" to embrace and elicit financial support for any- and everything. We loosely throw around "missional" as if it were a trump card to make a position or program unassailable.

While IM and NM (and regions) have the ability to define their respective missions, I do not believe that translates into being able to define the meaning of "mission" for churches, let alone individuals. And the pragmatic problem is that we have little control over the value that churches place on our definition of "mission." Given our polity, it seems to me that the burden is on us hearing and responding to them -- not vice versa.

Who we are, what we do, and how we do it are equally important value questions. It seems the focus has become what I want to do and how I am going to get you to pay for it.

2009-08-24T13:04:00.001-07:00

Dwight,

I have a friend with whom I have difficulty discussing politics. We really see things from opposite perspectives. One of my problems is that she seems so angry. I am uncomfortable in a shouting match or even really heated discussions. The other day, she calmly said to me that the reason she and others get so angry is they think their perspectives are not being heard. I thought about how we seem to take turns in this country. You get to be mad for a presidential term or two while I am relatively happy and then we switch the party in power and we trade places.

My friend’s description of being angry when she doesn’t feel like she is heard made me think of things that occur in our denominational family. The current anger and frustration we are getting surrounding what I see as a shift in values in our system of sending overseas missionaries, represents people feeling unheard. After a long discussion in one church, a person quietly said, “Is there a chance they will hear us and change back?” It seemed like a plaintive cry. How was I supposed to answer? Should I have said, “not a chance?” I surely didn’t think I could say that I was sure people would give it every consideration and make adjustments as possible for the good of everyone.

I agree with your point #9 in your previous entry. We must be willing to change. But, as you wrote, “At some point we must talk about these value differences and determine if we can find a constellation of values with enough gravity to hold us together.”

And your final observation, “Despite what some may think, our polity is bent toward populism, not hierarchy.”

You were surprised that churches in my area were only now speaking their frustration about MPTs (mission partnership teams). The reason is that these are smaller churches that were passed over earlier. We’ve been flying under the radar and only recently ran into letters from missionaries that the plug was about to be pulled on them.

It’s difficult for me to respond to your #7 because it is much too close to me. I understand what home missionaries are, the historical foundation on which they stand, and the nearly insurmountable level of public misunderstanding. I also know that NM at its best has focused on the mission . . . whether that is evangelism, or acting to get children out of poverty, or assisting refugees, rather than on the personality of the missionary. And, for that matter, IM, in the passed, focused on the mission. I grew up hearing about medical missions and agricultural missions and preaching missions more than I heard the names of missionaries.

I’d like to avoid this topic but it does connect to the problems of IM. If the focus is on the personality of the missionary more than the mission, I believe we are in trouble accomplishing the mission. On the other hand, if the focus is on the personality of the missionary more than the mission, it may be easier to raise money.

I’m afraid the focus on missionary personality is a move to the past. I remember years ago at Green Lake during a women’s conference, a group of overseas missionaries came to meet with the women. It was primarily a photo opportunity. The European American missionaries were dressed in the native costumes of the people they served. The women at the conference went crazy taking pictures. One family had a couple of very small children trying to walk on wooden sandals built up on about 3” risers (evidently common in the country they served). The children fell down about every two steps, aggravating their parents. I watched and prayed for the day when the nationals would come to share their story and the missionaries would be dressed in their own casual clothes playing a supportive, encouraging role. The focus would be on the mission.

Is there room for this dream?

Values and Our Future

2009-08-17T05:59:00.000-07:00

Susan,

I confirm and affirm your observations and thoughts in Policy vs Practice. The only thing that surprises me is that churches around you are only now speaking their frustration about MPTs (or maybe I just missread what you were saying).

1. You are absolutely right that the "financial crisis" of International Ministries was, to a very large degree, created by their strategy in the late 1990's to radically increase missionary placement, using the double-digit income from endowment. Sundquist saw this as a temporary strategy, believing that churches would "step up to the plate" in financial support of this expanded missionary force. That did not happen and endowment income did not keep up with the financial commitments.

2. The "missionary partnership" funding strategy goes way back to this same era (I will refer to this as MPT, even though I know there are differnces between "network," and "team"). I am not sure which came first. But I do remember that the old World Mission Support Council (WMSC) approved "targeted giving" in 1999. This was a special funding category that MPT would be using. The special category was necessary because the strategy was in clear violation of the Common Budget Covenant. It was also approved as a temporary, two-year experiment. I voted against it; the Region I serve rejected it. Despite its experimental status, it was later codified in the new Common Budget Covenant without any evaluation of its success or impact.

3. It is hard to establish cause-and-effect, But there is a correlation between the appearance of the MPT strategy, the conflict over homosexuality, and the dramatic decline in United Mission giving across the denomination. Many believe that the support of missionaries was the lynchpin that held United Mission together. While UM is less important to IM and NM, it has been the dominant funding stream of regions and the General Board.

4. So far, the MPT strategy has not resulted in the dramatic increase in mission support that was anticipated in 1999. Many of us can clearly demonstrate the movement of dollars from United Mission and World Mission Offering to MPT categories. IM will argue that gifts from individuals and non-ABC sources has increased. In any case, the pattern of giving has shifted, but the net has been neglible.

5. The response to the MPT strategy in the Region I serve was overwhelmingly negative from the very beginning. Yes, there are a handful of churches (and individuals) what love it. Most do not. A few are very angry about it.

6. Until your post after the Biennial, I did not connect the frustration over MPTs with denominational reorganization. When you told me your experience, I remembered two Q&A sessions I had about reorganization leading up to Pasadena. It was evident that some in those two sessions (but not others I held) linked changes in IM funding with denominational reorganization. At the time, I thought it was just a peculiarity of those meetings. Now I wonder if the perception is more widespread.

7. Some analogous concerns were raised over National Ministries. In one meeting I held, I ran into the understanding that there was a stable of home missionaries on the payroll of NM, and people wondered what would happen to them if reorganization passed. It took me a long time to work through that. The strategy to brand denominational staff (both regional and national) as "missionaries" has not been bought by most of our constituents. They know what a "real missionary" is, and they are not likely to be persuaded differently. The realization that this was not the case was clearly a deep disappointment to many in the meeting.

8. Yes, there are "value" issues all through this. There are competing values. There are different values in different regions (small "r") of the country. Values are shifting as part of the dramatic cultural shift we have been experiencing as a nation. And there are generational differences.

9. Yes, we are changing. Yes, we must change. But it seems to me that at some point we must talk about these value differences and determine if we can find a constellation of values with enough gravity to hold us together. We need to talk about the question: "What do we want to become together?" Even more fundamental is the question: "What does Christ want us to become?"

10. We do not like such discussions. We prefer to ignore or avoid them. Without those discussions and a clear presentation that our constituents can claim and say "Yes! That IS who we are!"-- we will continue to fumble about.

11. This is what I was talking about (and probably did not say well) in my first Post-Pasadena post, when I said many (not all) delegates sensed we were becoming something different and reacted negatively.

One last observation in this too long post. Our polity and tradition make it fruitless for denominational leaders (regardless of how well-intended) to attempt to brand and define who "the denomination" is and expect churches and pastors to fall in line. Only our constituents can create and live out who we are as a denomination. Despite what some may think, our polity is bent toward populism, not hierarchy. Both have their weaknesses and shadow-side, but we need to know the general direction of the wind.

What next?

2009-08-11T05:37:00.000-07:00

I have been away for a month. Hardly a day goes by that I do not sink into some kind of whirlpool about the denomination I love. But I have not taken much time to think about "what next." The point of analysis is not (at least for me) to engage in some kind of "blame-storming," but is an essential step in figuring out what to do. Here are some preliminary thoughts.

1. I really don't think we can do any better at this time and I don't have much more energy to invest in this. I agree with Dr. Medley that we can't spend all our time on reorganization. However, I think this common sentiment deserves a little more reflection. I can't name a single church that has stopped ministry because we were engaged in reorganization. While the work was a distraction to regional execs, I don't know any region where regional ministry was put on hold while we worked on reorganization. I am not intimately familiar with the workings of IM and NM, but I doubt that their ministries were hampered by reorganization work. If restructuring is important, then it must be someone's priority (and priority is not the same as "exclusive activity"). In my opinion, that begins with the General Board and the staff of the General Board.

2. Assuming this is the best we can do, it is clear that we must (1) make adjustments where we can based on what we have heard and (2) do a better job of making a persuasive case for the change. I hope there is some careful gathering of information and reflection on what happened. We don't have a good track record of listening to things we don't want to hear; and we tend to emphasize minority points, especially if they coincide with ours. I think we can do better.

3. I think the major adjustment that must be made is full transparency on the part of IM and NM. The future of these organization IS part of the discussion. Their proposed bylaws need to be "on the table" of the General Board awaiting approval immediately after the Biennial adopts new bylaws.

4. While broad-based information is necessary, the practical reality is that voting delegates at the biennial are the ones who count in making this decision. I don't believe there is any way to avoid intensive on-site information, Q&A, etc., designed specifically for the voting delegates. 600 people in one room watching a PowerPoint won't do it. There are ways to engage small groups to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak at the same time that expressivists do not dominate gatherings.

5. Start living differently. The question was asked during the business session (and has been asked in other places): What do you want to do that you can't do now with our present structure? What is keeping the General Board from behaving differently? What is keeping the boards of IM and NM from behaving differently? We don't need a bylaw change to have a Mission Summit (does anyone remember "Seek It"?). The issue is our willingness to to make those things happen (again, what happened to SeekIt?).

Response to Christian Century Report

2009-08-11T05:36:00.001-07:00

Christian Century July 28, 2009 reported on the action at our Biennial. This was my response to them.

Friends

I suppose I should be pleased that the national gathering of so small a denomination as the American Baptist Churches USA captured the attention of Christian Century, but the title of your news article is wrong and some of the content is misleading.

While a solid majority of delegates supported the reorganization proposal, it fell short of the required 2/3rds. Loyal American Baptists--from Left, Right, and Middle--objected to the proposal for different reasons (some of which you accurately reported). However, to imply this event was one more Left-Right divide is a gross oversimplification. There were many more reasons for rejecting the proposal than ideology.

Further, the description of marginalized progressives as if it were their peculiar lot is an inaccurate description of this denomination. Significant numbers of loyal American Baptists feel marginalized and disempowered. While our work at diversity has made good progress, we have not succeeded so well in becoming a cohesive Body of Christ.

I believe that it is also worth remembering that "delegates" to the Biennial are self-selected; that the number comprised less than 1% of American Baptist; and they have no obligation to represent their church of origin.

Still, thank you for taking time to pay attention to a denomination that is generally on the right edge of mainline and on the left edge of evangelical.

Dwight Stinnett
Executive Minister
American Baptist Churches of the Great Rivers Region

Policy vs Practice??

2009-07-24T14:51:00.000-07:00

Dwight,
In my last entry on this blog, I mentioned a confusion some have had about the proposed ABC structure change on one hand, and the change in the method of funding missionaries being implemented by International Ministries on the other hand. Once again, this week, I had to clarify to several people that the two are not connected.

I am encountering frustration in some instances and rage in others about the change in missionary funding. Unfortunately when people get mad at one part of the family, it tends to affect the rest of the family. I’m spending a good deal of time trying to explain.

Why does it matter so much to people?

I wonder if it is a problem of a common understanding of what is a value and what isn’t. We have had an historic practice in the ABC that overseas missionaries don't have to spend time fund-raising. For some of us that is a "value." Because it is a "value," life gets tense when someone changes it without engaging us in the decision. For others it has simply been an operational matter that gets changed when needed. This is a question of a change in policy vs a change in practice. [If fully funded overseas missionaries is not a value, it is at least what makes us unique. –And we tend to have problems when people take away our uniqueness/identity.]

The problem has arisen because The Board of International Ministries has more missionaries in the field than it can support. A few years ago a strategy was implemented to put more missionaries on the field. The decision to move to this approach was part of a larger planning process conducted by IM. The planning process took several years, involved interviews with people from across the country and around the world. The process was motivated by a desire to continue to update the way we do mission AND because nationwide, United Mission giving was dropping. The whole idea of Mission Partnership Teams was introduced and we were told they didn’t have anything to do with fundraising. Yet, everyone knew they did.

A big fundraising push got the money for the first year to put more missionaries in the field. Some of us were asking how this could be sustained. Some strategies work, some don't, and some only work partially. There was certainly some significant energy generated by the emphasis -- but not enough money. Then . . . the stock market problems of last fall. In April, Reid Truelson, Executive Director of IM, told the General Executive Council (all region execs, and heads of other ABC organizations) that IM would continue to pay a portion of missionaries’ expenses. He said that income had not grown sufficiently to continue to support the missionaries without their (the missionaries) help in the fundraising efforts. He said they had hoped to make the transition much more gradually to missionary-help-with-fundraising. He said declining church giving, the economic crunch and increased costs had made them move the date to Sept. of this year. There is not enough money coming in to support the number of missionaries on the field.

The problem for many is that in some places this strategy is not raising new money but diverting funds from other purposes. And so, money is taken from the local church, the region, home mission, and ABC general ministry. It feels like we are engaged in a win-lose game instead of a win-win partnership.

Another "value" is that ABC historically has been committed to doing what Jesus told us to do and that getting the job done is more important that who does it. We have not been "personality" driven although we have certainly loved our missionaries. If we discover than in Borneo we can win more souls by supporting a locally driven effort, rather than placing or keeping American missionaries there, that's the way we've gone. The current emphasis seems to be strongly personality based. And it seems to be popular. Some churches are much more passionate about “their” missionaries than about the mission.

Another characteristic of ABC overseas mission work has been that missionaries had excellent training and supervision. The perception is that we do an excellent job of quality control. When missionaries need help, often their supervisors see it first and take action. I hope this is still true. I keep hearing stories to the contrary.

These are challenging days. Is there a way we can address the policy vs practice issue. Might that help us help our constituencies to understand changes? How do we constructively engage a discussion?

A pastor asked me this week if the denomination understood how frustrated churches are about this, would it change. Well, I don’t know how many are frustrated. Certainly the calls I’m getting indicate frustration. But I’m sure others are probably happy. I’ve heard that missionaries have been pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to raise funds.

How do we help the part of our family in great pain over what is happening?

Restructure

2009-07-06T10:22:00.000-07:00

Dwight,

Well, we’re back to blogging. I agree with your comments. The Biennial was very, very good. I heard much positive response and almost nothing negative. Congratulations to all who worked on it.

In terms of the failure of the proposed restructuring of the denomination, I begin with your conclusion . . . from the bus stop outside the hotel . . . Don’t give up! I agree with General Secretary Roy Medley that this must not be the only thing we do for the next two years. I agree with Associate General Secretary Jeff Woods who wrote, “I caution us, however, to think that we only need to “sway” 18 people to get an affirmative vote next time; for this particular group of delegates will never assemble again. As we present a revised proposal, we will need to think of this as a newly assembled group and communicate with them accordingly.”

The General Secretary reports “the proposed amendments to the bylaws failed by a small margin to gain the 2/3 approval required for adoption (377-for; 217-against; 20-abstentions = 63.4%).”

A group of us sat down in a hotel lobby that Saturday night in Pasadena and tried to unpack what happened. I value these kinds of “de-briefings” because they are often progressive. As we talked, new thoughts emerged. Our original thoughts began to be informed by further thought and – by the end – I felt we all had a deeper understanding. . . and certainly a different perspective on what should come next. You, Dwight, might say we just had more informed confusion! At any rate, I value group-think at a time like that.

I believe there were many reasons the proposal failed.

Delegates needed a summary in their packets. You are right, Dwight, the internet is not enough. And we probably should have done better with the presentation and process of discussion.
There was confusion – and plenty of it to go around. At one point I thought you were going to try to “table” the motion so I asked a question that I hoped would satisfy you and help the proposal go through. The answer helped me but it was a question that only made sense for those of us that had been waist deep in this process for several years. It only confused others.
The use of “uncoupling” language raised huge red flags for some. There is still fear of the program boards moving away from the ABC. I believe the program boards have been working hard to make the adjustments necessary. This has to be frustrating to them (as well as to the rest of us).
We wanted this to be mission driven but at some time we needed to make it much more clear that WE CAN'T AFFORD THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.
UNEXPECTED reaction. Some folks are confused/concerned/angry about the shift in philosophy of mission in International Ministries and somehow connected the change in IM with the proposed ABC structure. I had to contend with this in my region prior to the Biennial and I heard it from others while at the Biennial.
[The IM philosophy of mission and the ABC Structure proposal are not related.]

We have some work to do and we’ll get it done. Don’t give up!

Susan

Correction

2009-07-06T07:54:00.001-07:00

As I said in my previous post, I was not present for the last business session. Unfortunately, I was confused about some of the second-hand information I received. The vote to reduce the General Board numbers was NOT in response to the defeated reorganization proposal. It was something already in the works. I apologize for the mistake.

Pasadena Biennial Results

2009-06-29T10:09:00.000-07:00

29 June 2009

While I left Pasadena before the third and final session of the Biennial, everything I attended was wonderful. The churches in the Region of Los Angeles were gracious hosts. My friend, Dr. Sam Chetti, the Executive Minister of LA, was relentless to insure that this was a memorable Biennial. The setting and facilities were beautiful. The worship sessions were powerful. I wish everyone could have experienced them. It was good to connect with old friends and to see several GRR delegates.

Attendance was low (600 or 700 delegates, about 1200 total -- based on verbal reports), and I think there were several reasons for that. Certainly the costs and the economic climate contributed to it. But I also fear that there has been persistent, progressive disengagement from the national denomination since the Biennial in Denver (2005). Some of that disengagement is a cultural shift. Some is intentional.

In terms of business, the most significant action during the Biennial was the rejection of the reorganization proposal that the General Board has been working on for about three years. While the vote was a solid majority, it fell short (barely) of the two-thirds required. I can visualize a number of scenarios in which the requisite handful of votes could have swung the other way. But even then I am faced with 30% of the delegates rejecting the proposal. In addition, less than 20% of our churches were represented at the Biennial (a recurring problem when it comes to doing serious business that purports to speak for the entire denomination).

Two related questions immediately come to mind: "What happened?" and "What now?" There are no simple answers, but I will try to give my perspective.

In terms of "what happened," we have to consider both process and proposal.

Bylaws are not easy reading, and the issues are incredibly complex. I would find it difficult to catalog and explain all the compromises that went into the final proposal. It certainly cannot be done in twenty-five words or less. I have come to believe that the process we used led us to the least objectionable proposal--not necessarily the best or the most creative. I hope that my coolness for the proposal and my determination to be clear about reality and focused in my critique did not get interpreted as opposition. Given who we are, our competing interests, and our incommensurate values, I still believe it was the best we could do at the time.

The complexity of the proposal demanded an intentional, proactive process to educate delegates so they could make an informed decision. I am not saying that every one who voted against (or for!) the proposal was uninformed, but it became clear that a significant number felt inadequately prepared. In a culture of suspicion, that is problematic. Some may have abstained; some may have voted "No."

While online communication is quick and cost effective, it has (at least) two glaring shortcomings. First, it has been shown that electronic communication is a both a class and generational divide (I suspect it is a cultural one also, but I have not seen data on that). Second, it does not allow for good conversations among multiple participants around complex issues.

We did not provide accurate, complete, timely information during the process (by that I mean both prior to and during the deliberations). Most delegates arrived expecting more and felt the discussion was inadequate.

In particular, I repeatedly heard the complaint that we did not have Bylaw proposals for either National Ministries or International Ministries in hand. Speaking only for myself, I did not find the superficial verbal explanations of what they intended to do adequate for an informed decision.

Our environment of suspicion (both warranted and unwarranted) and the absence of information (both real and perceived) became a deadly combination for many.

On the other hand, some delegates were well-informed and objected to the proposal for substantive reasons. These objections must be verified and considered as we move forward.

Recurring objections I heard (in no particular order) included: (1) the loss of a proportionately representative process, (2) the "uncoupling" of National Ministries and International Ministries from the General Board, and (3) uncertainty about our ability to be and do things together in a unified way. There was also some objection around the changes in Public Witness Statements (in my opinion, a specific example of #3). While that was passionate, I do not believe it rivaled the significance of other objections.

Since the simultaneous move away from a proportionately representative system and the uncoupling of the program boards from the General Board were the heart of the proposal, sufficient objection to either of these were, in fact, a rejection of the proposal. I would argue that everything else in the proposal is a consequence of or compromise because of these two movements. Based on the results in Pasadena, the compelling case for these monumental changes was missing.

I do not believe this is merely an information, communication, or presentation issue. Proportionate representation and denominational unity focused through an integrated General Board (even if it is more perception than reality) is so integral to who we are, that conversion (true metanoia) is required. Forty years ago we became something different when SCODS/SCOR was implemented. The Pasadena Proposal asked us to become something different yet again. In that difference there were new things we could do, but there were also familiar, beloved things that we could no longer do.

We underplayed the magnitude of this paradigm shift. We stressed continuity and comfort when we should have been more transparent about discontinuity and possibility. We were asking this denomination to become something different. Delegates sensed this and a significant number recoiled at the thought.

Lastly, I wonder if the passage of this proposal by the General Board and its subsequent rejection by delegates of constituent churches and regions at the Biennial further exposes the disconnect between the General Board and its constituents.

In terms of "what now," both short-term and long-term actions must be considered.

There are immediate consequences to the failure of the Pasadena Proposal. If there were not serious consequences, the case that "we do not need to change" would have proven true. We are left with a system that not only does not work (and has not for a long time), but also a system that we cannot afford. The financial stress that drove us to this point was not eliminated by the vote in Pasadena.

While I am certain that there will be other financial cuts, and consequent changes in programs and services, the General Board has been reduced once again by action during the second business session in Pasadena. That will, in turn, negatively impact representation on both National Ministries and International Ministries. The irony is that those who voted against the Pasadena Proposal because they objected to the loss of representation, have unintentionally created a situation in which representation is reduced even further, but the functions and authority of the General Board have not been reduced concomitantly. This reduced General Board must exercise extraordinary restraint or it risks further alienating constituent congregations and regions.

At the same time, it is not fair that the cost of our system be laid entirely at the doorstep of representation. According to the audit that was distributed for the General Board meeting, the total cost of General Board operations, services, personnel, etc. was about $8 million. The cost of the "representative process" was only $400,000 of that. It is true that there have already been serious cuts to operations and services under the auspices of the General Board, but there must be more--and it will be painful. Barring a financial windfall, there will be loss of General Board visibility and activity. Once again, the irony is that those who were seeking to preserve those beloved, traditional (at least since 1970) functions will, in fact, lose them.

The Pasadena Proposal was built on the understanding that we absolutely must reduce the cost of the entire system. We can debate whether or not we actually accomplished that, but those of us in the room understood it. Many of the compromises were the result of moving to a system of governance that was no longer proportionately representative. It would be problematic for such a system to presume to act and speak on behalf of 5000+ churches. Neither is the Biennial representative. That is even less true today than it was 40 years ago when SCODS documented it.

Long term, we still must face intentional, proactive reorganization or submit to the piecemeal, uncoordinated, unfocused restructuring of the body over time. The patient could very well die.

Another round of Bylaw changes cannot be considered until 2011. Two years seems like a long time (it may be an eternity in our financial environment). But it took three years to assemble the Pasadena Proposal. More than that, I am uncertain where to turn at this point. This is the third time we have tried and failed to reorganize in 10 years. The first attempt was a large, costly, intentionally diverse commission of key persons from across the entire denomination. The second was a select task force of General Board representatives and denominational staff. The third (this one) was birthed by the General Executive Council (all denominational staff) through the General Board. The proposals were different--radical from one extreme to the other. One was died in the General Board, another died at the Biennial, the other was simply permitted to die.

Yes, the context has changed. But I wonder about underlying, unmentionable issues. We clearly are not of one mind when it comes to what this denomination should be or become. I wonder if we can do the hard work to come to such an agreement.

One thing at the Biennial really caught my attention. It was a sign posted in the Amtrak booth outside the Hilton. "Amtrak patrons: Due to traffic congestion, buses to Bakersfield serving this stop are sometimes as much as 30 minutes late! Don't give up!"

ABCUSA Reorganization Report January 2008

2008-02-05T11:06:00.000-08:00

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

2007-10-01T06:25:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-08T08:00:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-08T05:45:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-07T09:47:00.002-07:00

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

2007-08-07T09:47:00.001-07:00

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

2007-08-07T06:36:00.001-07:00

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).

Third: Transformation of General Board

2007-08-06T12:40:00.000-07:00

The plan under discussion also envisions a radical transformation of the General Board. Remember that the General Board was created by the work of SCOR/SCODS forty years ago to be a proportionately representative body functioning as the Board of Directors for ABCUSA and, at the same time, constituting the membership of the historic mission societies by means of interlocking boards. The dual constituency is legally defined as the congregations and the regions.

On the strength of being proportionately representative of the constituency of ABCUSA, the General Board is given twelve functions in the Bylaws. The first two are: “(i) give general oversight and direction to the life and mission of the Denomination and serve as the legislative body of the ABC/USA; and (ii) set policy in the areas of program functions, planning, coordination and evaluation and, with the National and Regional Boards, adopt common goals and objective for the Denomination.”

However, the accompanying Standing Rules and Covenant of Relationships (not to mention tradition) create organizational conflict (even paralysis) by limiting (or confusing) the General Board’s authority to accomplish these tasks at the same time it directs other responsibilities. This conflict has existed since the earliest days that the organization envisioned by SCOR/SCODS was implemented.

I think there are two things driving this plan to reduce and redefine the General Board as a much smaller, non-representative Board of General Ministries (BGM). First, there is a desire to move beyond organizational conflict and paralysis. Certainly, I agree with this goal. Clarification of BGM responsibilities, especially in relationship to other ABC partners, is absolutely essential. But does this plan do that; and is it the best way to accomplish it?

There is a cultivated notion that it is the preoccupation with “legislative” matters that has stalled the denomination. I do not accept that argument. That is not hard to document from the agendas of the General Board for the last 10 years. Besides, the first and foremost legal responsibility of any board of directors is governance (which is not the same as “legislation”). While governance is not as much fun as program design and micromanagement, it is irresponsible for any board to neglect its governance functions.

If the present multiple board arrangement is unable to implement goals, how is the proposed arrangement, with independent boards, going to be more effective? Since we are (apparently) committed to uncoupling and greater independence, then the potential authority of BGM to implement anything is greatly compromised. Consequently, the responsibilities of BGM must be radically modest when compared to the functions of our present General Board. While the plan is moving in that direction, I am not certain it has gone far enough. In particular, it must uncover and confront the implicit or assumed functions of the Board. I think people will be surprised at how much is being given up.

The second driver to reduce and redefine the Board is finances. It has become clear that common funding is no longer adequate to support a large, representative body. But is this merely a financial issue, or is it a symptom of something deeper? Are American Baptists unwilling to commit the financial resources necessary for such a body? Or are they saying that the body, as it presently exists, does not adequately represent them? Are American Baptists willing to vest anyone with the kind of authority that is necessary to effectively achieve goals???

I agree that a radical reduction in the size of the Board is inescapable. However, there are consequences that cannot be ignored. While it may be legal, a very small, non-representative Board has no moral basis on which to claim that it speaks for constituents. That would be arrogant presumption. To couch such pronouncements, goals, public witness, or whatever, in language that “this is merely the Board’s opinion,” is a fine point that will escape most people and a betrayal of those it purports to represent.

As the size of the General Board has been reduced over the years, it has dropped below the number necessary for even nominal representation. The danger of elitism and classism is real. As the Board shrinks even further the prospects for disconnect with constituents is a certainty. This situation is problematic for me, because I believe a Baptist denomination exists to serve churches (not vice versa). I also believe that it is important for Baptists to speak together as a public witness on a variety of issues. One colleague has said that “The existing policies, resolutions, etc., must carry forward because they define who American Baptists are.” I agree. So, if we are to set goals and speak, but a board is not adequately representative of the constituents to do so with integrity, then we must find another way to give voice to our constituent churches.

Second: Uncoupling the Boards

2007-08-06T09:41:00.001-07:00

This plan moves us apart. Most clearly (but not exclusively) this is evident in the legal uncoupling of the historic mission societies and the General Board. This is the most dramatic feature of the plan under discussion. It is safe to say that the historic mission societies and their executive staff have never been satisfied with the organizational arrangements of the children of the Triennial Convention in the 20th Century. (But they are not the only ones.) In my opinion, the legal uncoupling of these boards is symbolic of what is happening across the denomination. I think there are three things driving this move.

(1) The historic mission societies (and their advocates) have never been happy with the level of organizational integration and its implications from as far back as the formation of the Northern Baptist Convention. The “thawing” of our organizational life in the last few years has given them opportunity to once again make the case for greater independence.

(2) Funding also has an influence on this move and consists of three components. Many (not all) of the various ABC partners believe they can do better raising money on their own, unfettered by rules and associations with other ABC partners. Also, it is a widely-acknowledged trend in American philanthropy that the culture is moving away from common funding strategies like United Way. Persons (and churches) like to pick and choose where their financial support goes, matching their passion with their pocketbook. Finally, churches are picking who will receive (and who will not receive) their financial support for ideological reasons. Funding is a major driver for reorganization. A key question will be whether this plan will answer that question, which leads us to the third driver.

(3) Many components of American Baptist life feel compelled to find a new place for comfort with one another. Those on both the Left and the Right are fearful or frustrated by even the modest level of integration in our present organization (yes, it is both). There are many places for mutual irritation. Some fear “popery,” others fear loss of autonomy, others fear the erosion of local congregational mission responsibility, others are frustrated that we cannot establish and implement denominational goals, others are troubled by the arrogant presumption that the denomination can speak for them, and others are angered by the lack of consistency (integrity) between what is said and what is done. The alienation and disaffection is real. It is easy to document. It is not so easy to formulate specific, organizational solutions.

I confess that the move to uncouple the boards (and what it symbolizes) is very painful for me. I believe that a unified mission board is the most effective way for us to claim identity and accomplish mission; and that it can be done consistent with a “federation” understanding of ourselves. However, I know that stream has dried up, and I have abandoned it.

There seems to be appropriate concern for maintaining at least some semblance of connection between the various components of American Baptist life. In the case of the historic mission societies, the discussion centers around the use of “Class B Directors” (a legal designation) to circumvent the possibility that any of the boards could unilaterally choose to abandon ABCUSA. This can work. However, it cannot preclude any board from choosing its own goals and direction, with or without the consent of the other partners.

Like I said, this plan moves us apart. The $64,000 question is: Does it move us far enough from one another to create a level of comfort, and at the same time hold us close enough together to claim a common identity? At what price??? Does it really solve the alignment problem we have between denominational goals and program board implementation? Is the very notion of “denominational goals” a reflection of a bygone era?

First: ABCUSA as "Federation"

2007-08-06T09:39:00.000-07:00

I endorse this completely. Some of us have argued for a long time that it would be helpful for all of us to understand the ABC “denomination” as a “federation.” Such a federation could be manifest in a number of organizational structures. I believe even our present structure could be viewed as a federation, and we all would benefit from such an understanding. The plan under discussion is not the only possibility of organization from a federation perspective.

The main question for me is not whether or not we will be a “federation” (I don’t believe Baptist associational life can be anything else). The questions we need to be asking are related to the consequences and implications of this. Much of our disease is due to our inconsistency in wanting an organization to do things that we are not willing to give it the ability to do.

“Federation” seriously limits our ability to speak as a group. “Federation” limits what we are able to accomplish together. “Federation” has implications for group identity.

If we don’t understand those limits—those boundaries—we will once again find ourselves frustrated. Those limits impact the full range of who we are, all the way from the Far Left to the Far Right.

Key Points in the Reorganization Discussion

2007-08-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

The latest attempt to reorganize ABCUSA originated in denominational staff meetings in 2005. The General Board agreed. In an ambitious meeting schedule, the GEC intended to present a proposal to the General Board in November 2006 so that it could come to the Biennial in 2007. While essential things did get done, the GEC did not meet the deadline. Hence the earliest that a proposal could be considered is the Biennial in 2009.

What has been done? The GEC has surveyed the denomination, identified critical areas of concern, presented eight criteria for evaluating any proposal, and periodically reported to the General Board and received its input. A small writing team has been working within the GEC. The previous post is the written progress report that GEC gave to the General Board in June 2007.

It is important to remember that there is no formal proposal at this point, but certain features seem to be taking shape as the GEC continues to work on reorganization. Obviously, there are many details to be filled in before the General Board considers a proposal in 2008, which could go to the Biennial in 2009. First I will identify what I consider to be seven key points in the report, and then I will offer my personal comments on each.

Key points:

1. We have accepted “federation” as a better 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. They would certainly be much smaller. We would probably use “Class B Directors” elected to each of the program boards by the Board of General Ministries whose authority would be limited to corporation affairs, such as bylaw changes, as a way to assure ABCUSA connections.

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. Board members might be elected during the Biennial, with others elected by the Board itself. It would still function as the legal board for ABCUSA.

4. 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. The data would be refreshed/renewed every five years. The maintenance of this data base is under the oversight of the National Staff Leadership Council.

5. 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.

6. The Missional Table is a new concept. This large gathering might consist of local church and caucus representatives, regional executive ministers, executive directors from the boards, executive directors of covenanting Affiliated Ministry Organization and executive directors of covenanting colleges and seminaries. 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.

GEC Reorganization Report for the General Board June 2007

2007-07-16T07:07:00.000-07:00

This is the unedited report from the GEC Writing Team that was Presented to the General Board during its June meeting. Obviously, a written handout which accompanies an oral report (like this one) is cryptic. I will make comments later.

GEC Writing Team Report
June 2007

In the fall of 2005, the General Executive Council committed themselves to examining ways of improving the ministry functioning of the denomination by surfacing and assessing potential modifications and renovations. In the spring of 2006, they identified four areas of concentration for potential transformation within the denomination, namely denominational leadership, denominational structure, representative process, and relevance to local congregations. In the fall of that year, they reviewed several proposals from GEC members. The proposals primarily focused upon the structure of the denomination and its representative process. The proposal below reflects the best of those proposals as well as the continued input and reflections of the GEC members who would now like your feedback on their current proposal.

The proposal contains several aims, including the following:
--We seek to enable quick responses to mission opportunities with a streamlined board structure.
--We seek to reduce costs of a representational system.
--We seek to resolve tension caused by wearing multiple board hats.
--We seek to create a mission venue that allows greater flexibility, networking, focus and accountability.

Eight criteria are currently being used to evaluate the model:
--Protect and secure the local church as the fundamental unit of mission by preserving historic Baptist freedoms and enacting a balance of autonomy and interdependence.
--Demonstrate respect for ethnic/ gender/ cultural/ theological/ generational diversity and inclusiveness in all processes and purposes.
--Increase the potential for fundraising through United Mission and other sources.
--Implement substantial cost reductions for General Board operations.
--Enable ABCUSA to establish, celebrate, implement and monitor outcomes of mission and ministry.
--Resolve the division over homosexuality or at least move the denomination forward on this issue.
--Provide for commitment to clear accountability, holding each other responsible for maintaining covenants.
--Provide central office functions for the denomination

Several organizational principles continue to energize and shape our thoughts:
--A GEC covenant was formed at the April 2007 meeting in Tucson, AZ…
“We covenant as GEC members to give due consideration to all ABC Policy Statements and Resolutions in recommending persons to serve at denominational levels.”

--The ABC might be best viewed as a federation of mission agencies…
“Linking together to provide enhanced services more efficiently and carry out programs of mutual interest such as finance, IT, training, insurance, travel, web, HR.”

--In order to achieve a set of diverse outcomes as contained in the eight criteria, the theory of simultaneous loose and tight connections can be employed in order to enhance stability and efficiency in some parts of the organization, while at the same time enhancing creativity and innovation in other parts…
1. Because tight connections lead to consistency, stability, clear expectations, accountability, and centralized decisions; they will be employed in such areas as brand management, assurances of boards remaining ABC, ABC broad priorities, identification of leadership needs, and benchmarks of organizational excellence.
2. Because loose connections lead to variability, innovation, creativity, empowerment, localized determination; they will be employed in such areas as providing resources for ministry, board member nomination and selection processes, local church priorities, leadership recruitment and development, methods of achieving organizational excellence.

Several current practices would end if this model were adopted, including:
--Legislation as a primary emphasis in our governance
--Large numbers in our board structures
--Inter-locking board structures

Several current practices would remain, including:
--ABC commitment to a gospel based mission
--ABC commitment to the local church
--Representation on the boards, although not in the same ways
--Commitment to support vital churches
--National Boards: NM and IM

Several practices would be added if this model were adopted, including:
--Missional Table
--Mission as the primary emphasis rather than legislation
--Smaller boards and greater use of technology to facilitate meetings resulting in reduced costs
--Ability to respond more quickly to missional opportunities
--Recruitment and development of a diverse leadership pool

The Mission Table would be chaired by the president of ABCUSA and have the following purpose:
--Leveraging resources for greater mission impact
--One proposal for the Mission Table is that it include representatives from local churches, the caucuses, BNM, BIM, MMBB, the AMO’s, the ABC Seminaries, and include the Regional Executive Ministers, totaling approximately 123 people.

The National Staff Leadership Council would be chaired by the General Secretary and would have the following purposes:
--Relationship Building
--Continuing Education for Executive Role
--Facilitate Implementation of Ideas from Mission Table
--Generate Proposals
--Denominational Functions as Assigned
--One proposal for the NSLC is that it include representatives from BNM, BIM, MMBB, the AMO’s, General Ministries, and include the Regional Executive Ministers, as well as a guest theologian, totaling approximately 58 people.

The Biennial meeting would be convened by the president of ABCUSA and would have the following purposes:
--Celebration of Mission
--Dynamic Preaching & Worship
--Showcase ABC Heroes
--Networking
--Training, Education, Sharing Best Practices
--Theological Reflection on Important Issues
--Listening to Constituency
--Governance Tasks

A National Leader Development Pool would be formed with the following purpose:
--Identify present and emerging leaders for denominational service
--Develop leaders
--Maintain a database from which national and general boards may select members

The Board of General Ministries would be chaired by the president of ABCUSA and would have the following purposes:
--Official Spokesperson for denomination
--Legal Board for ABCUSA
--Calls General secretary
--Coordinates Branding
--Coordinates Fundraising
--Ecumenical Functions
--Ministerial Leadership
--Staffs Missional Table
--Supports Regional Ministries
--Maintains Perspective of and Serves the Whole ABC
--One proposal is that the BGM include the officers of ABCUSA, representatives from local churches, and members-at-large, totaling approximately 28 people.

The GEC is continuing to work on the following components and will meet again in December of 2007:
--A funding proposal to accompany the model, although the GEC is committed to ensuring that the model will incur less expense than the current model.
--Demonstrating how this model will enable increased relevance to the local congregation

GEC Meeting April 2007

2007-04-27T06:10:00.000-07:00

I went to Tucson for the GEC meeting with great reluctance and fear. I thought the chances were good that we would either explode or simply walk away from one another. Neither happened. It was the most civil, constructive, focused GEC meeting we have had in a very long time. I came away feeling that I had been heard about divisive issues in the denomination for the first time.

What happened? Perhaps it was fatigue. Perhaps it was the fact that reality was finally getting hold of some. In any case, it seemed like God may, at least, have walked through the room.

One of the rumors out there says we spent a long time discussing the Imus fiasco. I don’t know what meeting those folks were in. I remember at one point, in one discussion, one speaker used the Imus affair as an illustration. We did not digress into a discussion about Imus. I cannot say whether the reputed “insider” allowed the table discussion to be hijacked down this road, but I can say with absolute certainty that it did not happen at my table, and it did not divert the discussion of the larger group. Those hearing such reports might want to rethink the reliability, if not the integrity, of their inside sources.

Our work began with a very long session built around Stephen Covey’s (the son) book The Speed of Trust. Many of us have known that trust across this denomination has been shredded in the last 10 years. It is so bad, and has had such an impact on us, that several spoke openly about the “post-traumatic stress” that the group is experiencing. I was encouraged by the fact that we have finally begun to talk constructively about trust. We committed to behaviors for the rest of our meeting that would contribute to trust.

Almost all our time was spent discussing, revising, arguing, and tweaking the work of the writing team. Unfortunately, there still has not been a sketch of that plan released, which makes it very difficult for me to discuss with any integrity.

In brief: The plan endorses a federation form of organization for the denomination. I have argued for a long time that federation is the best way for us to understand ourselves. Federation, however, can take several forms. As they say, the devil is in the details. This is not entirely a return to the societal days, but it is a movement in that direction. The General Board, as it functions now, will no longer exist. There will be no interlocking memberships between the General Board and the various program boards. Instead, each will become radically smaller and self-sustaining. The means for maintaining connection and accountability is not yet settled. Likewise, while it is generally assumed that covenants will be the basis of our very loose union, the nature and content of those covenants has not even been part of a casual conversation.

I am not entirely happy with the form, as it was discussed at Tucson. I think we are giving up on many things that I hold dear. However, I think it is probably the best we can do right now. I am committed to making it the best it can be.

It was obvious, that progress on the structure discussion was predicated on finding some way to deal with dissension across the denomination. Indeed, Criterion 6 (of 8) that GEC presented to the General Board in November says: Resolve the division over homosexuality or at least move the denomination forward on this issue. We spent two sessions, separated by an evening of reflection, in working with this. At the conclusion, the promise we made to one another is:

“We covenant as GEC members to give due consideration to all ABC Policy Statements and Resolutions in recommending persons to serve at denominational levels.”

All persons who serve on the General Board are charged with adopting, approving and implementing ABC Policy Statements and ABC Resolutions. Once a statement or resolution is duly established by the General Board, all Board members and the staff of the Office of the General Secretary must implement these policies and resolutions regardless of whether or not they agree with the decision. General Board members have a right to dissent but are not released from the responsibility of implementing all policies and resolutions. Further, the Covenant of Relationships specifies that the Covenant Partners (regions and program boards) will “implement ABC Policy Statements and ABC Resolutions within the areas of their assigned functions, subject to General Board review.” This was emphasized, with legal counsel, at the GEC meeting in April 2004.

It is my personal opinion, that the current conflict across ABCUSA, to a large degree, rests on inconsistencies (both real and perceived) with respect to the implementation of policies, resolutions, etc., related to human sexuality. The real “flash point” for dissension around the implementation of these statements is General Board functions and the relationships between regions—in other words, those places where we come together, or the “national arena.”

Dr. Roy Medley, the General Secretary for the General Board, has already indicated that he “abides by the policies and resolutions of the General Board, and encourages the National Board and the Regions to honor those decisions.” (letter 3 October 2005); and that this is his “personal belief … and responsibility to uphold this as the official position of the General Board of ABCUSA. This has been implemented in the admission of official exhibitors at the ABCUSA Biennial, chaplain endorsements, and in the staffing practices of the staff accountable to” him. (letter 17 July 2007).

If faithfully executed, I believe the GEC covenant will effectively remove the sources of conflict from the national arena while preserving the uneasy balance of the Baptist principles of personal interpretation, local congregational autonomy, and associationalism. It is not a perfect solution. It will not totally satisfy everyone. Indeed, I am not totally satisfied. But I am prepared to wait and see. I urge others to do the same. It will not take long to determine if this is going to work. In the meantime, we can redouble our efforts for reorganization.

This covenant really does not change anything with respect to many regions. I have already covenanted with other regional executive ministers in the “Pastoral Letter” of 20 November 2004. It is still operative. It is consistent with the way I have tried to behave even before it was written. Further, I am bound by the explicit policies and directions adopted by my Board. There is no conflict between my region’s policies, the REMC “Pastoral Letter,” the GEC “Covenant” presented here, and existing ABCUSA resolutions and policy statements.

Consequently, I will not endorse or recommend to denominational positions (including General Board representatives) persons whose lives and practices are not consistent ABCUSA resolutions and policy statements. I expect my colleagues on GEC to behave similarly.

Trust across the denomination is in short supply. Only careful attention to integrity will allow us to move forward. I am cautiously hopeful that the consensus of the GEC expressed in this covenant provides a means to move away from the controversies which have polarized our denomination for decades. I urge us all to be faithful, and beg for your prayers.

Thoughts on Reorganization

2006-12-05T06:36:00.000-08:00

It has been a long time—perhaps too long—since I completed my promise to write more analytically about the work of the General Executive Council (GEC) on reorganization issues for ABCUSA. Part of the delay was intentional. I did not want to undermine the work of the GEC “writing team,” or to preempt the report to the General Board, or to sabotage ongoing, unofficial conversations. Since the GEC “report” to the General Board is out, some may wonder, in retrospect, if my reticence was warranted.

Others may presume that I am part of a conspiracy of secrecy regarding GEC conversations. But confidentiality is necessary for GEC members to continue to speak freely among themselves and to explore (and discard) options in the midst of that conversation. There is a time for full reporting (including dissenting opinions) but that time frame rarely satisfies voyeuristic impulses or those attracted to conspiracy theories.

But another reason for my delay was not intentional (at least consciously). It is difficult to put a smiley face on the fact that we failed to deliver. The original intent in our charge was to prepare the General Board to make proposals at the 2007 Biennial. Our failure pushes such proposals to the 2009 Biennial. Yes, we did accomplish some good things; some necessary things; things that should have been done a year ago. But we did not rise to face the growing crisis before us. Even a professional facilitator, straight from negotiations between Greeks and Turks on Cyprus could not move us to a satisfactory conclusion. The churches that comprise this denomination deserve better and the General Board has a right to be disappointed in our performance. As a presumed leader in this denomination, I find it very dissatisfying and another cause for my growing depression. For that reason Susan’s optimism, while maddening (at least to me), is an important corrective to anything I write.

To be fair to GEC, I worked on the last reorganization attempt. It was a less contentious time. It was a group assembled in typical American Baptist fashion to include a spread of ages, genders, ethnicities, and ABC interests. That group ran into the very same brick walls and stumbled over the same speed bumps that GEC has discovered. While the group did conclude with a proposal, it was so innocuous (because that was the only way to work around the brick walls and speed bumps) that it was essentially discarded as irrelevant.

GEC is even less representative of ABCUSA than the General Board in a multitude of ways. In this it illustrates the universal problem of adequate representation when a diverse group is forced into a smaller and smaller body. More than that, it is not designed to be proportionately representative. A Region with 600 churches that contribute over $1 million to American Baptist mission and ministry has only one voice—the same as for a Region with 30 churches that contribute less than $100,000 to American Baptist mission and ministry.

The problem with the reorganization process will not be solved by increasing the number and/or composition at the table. We (meaning this entire denomination) have very real differences with regard to organizational theory, philosophy of ministry, interpretation of Baptist principles, and expectations for a denomination. Those differences will be reflected on any study group that is not self-selected.

Crisis makes this reorganization attempt different. Whether we plan or not the financial crisis will result in a different organization for ABCUSA. We will, of a certainty, be smaller and have fewer resources. Unfortunately, this denomination does not have a good track record with crises. During our last reorganization attempt, I can remember the challenge that “if we do not do something deliberate, intentional, and thoughtful we are going to end up with two program boards (National Ministries and International Ministries).” Educational Ministries collapsed not by courageous design or malicious intent, but because ABC leaders (including myself) could not tame the conflicting interests or the refusal to see reality. EM collapsed by default.

So I have mixed feelings. Crisis may move us, but I also know what this feels like.

The immediate crisis is financial. It is real. It is profound. It is widespread. Lloyd Hamblin reported this to the General Board in graphic terms six months ago. Nearly two years before that, it was predicted by outside consultant Larry Johnston. Six years before that it was predicted for denominations in general by Loren Mead. Since Hamblin’s report finances have only gotten worse.

As I remember Hamblin’s report, there were three reasons for plummeting financial support of ABCUSA. In no particular order (partly because I honestly cannot assign clear priority to any single reason and cannot exclude any of them) these are: (1) poor financial health in our churches, (2) changes in philanthropic patterns (generational, cultural, and intentional), and (3) discord/alienation/distance within the denomination, primarily but not exclusively over the issue of homosexuality. The alienation was reflected in the much maligned (and subsequently discarded) GEC survey done earlier in 2006. Hamblin’s analysis parallels what I have observed in my own Region. It is disheartening (angering to some) that there are those among us who think this financial decline is a figment or something manufactured by a few regional executives to serve their own personal (often unknown but presumed malicious) agendas.

It is clear as day to me that any restructuring proposal must respond to the new financial reality (read “significantly reduced operating, program and staff costs for the General Board”) and at the same time address the underlying causes of our changed financial picture, i.e. the division over homosexuality.

The GEC was correct in identifying “criteria” for any new structure must include: (a) “increase the potential for fundraising through United Mission and other sources,” (b) “implement substantial cost reductions for General Board operations,” (c) “resolve the division over homosexuality or at least move the denomination forward on this issue,” and (d) “provide for commitment to clear accountability, holding each other responsible for maintaining covenants.” While there were eight organizational criteria identified by GEC, please note that two are directly linked to financial necessity and two are similarly linked to alienation/dissension within the denomination. There were other criteria that I do not disagree with, but these four are the critical ones in our restructuring work. I will not speak for others on GEC, but will say here and now that I cannot support any proposal that does not adequately address our financial reality or the division over homosexuality. I say that fully aware that the “solution” may ultimately be one which reduces or even precludes my further participation in ABCUSA.

If there were an easy, Christ-honoring solution to the cause of our discontent then surely some church, somewhere would have found it by now. Perhaps that is why we really don’t want to deal with it, or think that we have done enough already. Couple this with our predilection to avoid or deny bad news (especially financial) and it is no surprise that we spent much of our time working in areas related to the remaining four criteria, which, in my opinion, are much less critical. However, even there we do not have consensus.

Our present structure is one designed for impasse, inaction and frustration. The program boards (International Ministries and National Ministries) are tied to the General Board in a Gordian knot that neither can unilaterally cut. The General Board is specifically charged to “give general oversight and direction for the life and mission of the denomination,” and to “set policy in the areas of program functions, planning, coordination and evaluation.” The General Secretary (as the chief employee of the General Board) is “responsible for implementing all General Board policy decisions and for coordinating the implementation of American Baptist Policy Statements and Resolutions.” But there is no authority by which the General Board (or the General Secretary) may in fact implement those functions, goals, policies, etc., with regard to the program boards.

There is widespread misunderstanding of both the intent and the reality of our present organization. The misunderstanding crosses all divisions that you may want to imagine. (This is the topic for an extended discussion that I will explore in another blog entry.)

You could say that our present structure is the result of a series of compromises trying to balance autonomy and interdependence. The 20th Century began with the heirs of the Triennial Convention struggling with the organizational implications of these two poles in Baptist life. It ended the same way. I find two contemporaneous articles from those organizational struggles especially insightful.

“Where Do We Go From Here” by William Lipphard in The Chronicle 15:147 (1952) and “American Baptist Polity: What’s Happening and Why” by Robert Handy in Baptist History and Heritage 51:12 (1979).

At the same time, I don’t want to appear entirely negative about our organizational efforts. I believe there were at least two inspired moves in the SCOR/SCODS process. The first was to define the membership of the Home Mission Society and the Foreign Mission Society as the General Board, which consisted of elected representatives from churches. The General Board, functioning as the respective society, elected directors to those boards (defined as “program boards”) from their own membership. Many have forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that prior to that the societies consisted of individual members (not churches or their elected representatives) and their boards were self-perpetuating. They were accountable to no one. Many have forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that the General Board was never intended to serve churches with any kind of programming. The intent of the General Board was to hold the program boards accountable to churches.

The second inspired move was to define the “glue” that holds us together as covenants. The Covenant of Relationships consists of a series of agreements between the “covenant partners” that comprise ABCUSA. The identity of those covenant partners is limited to the independent corporations of the General Board of ABCUSA, the national program boards, and the regional boards.

One part (a very large part) of our struggle right now has to do with whether or not we really want to be together in covenant and what that means. Our organizational documents promise things that the organization cannot deliver. This is complicated by the fact that we have large numbers with denominational expectations that we were never intended or organized to deliver.

While I have supported reorganization for at least the last 10 years, I do not believe that there is an organizational solution to our current discontent. I have supported the single board concept. I believe an overarching, representative board should have the authority to set denominational goals, assign resources, and assure that those goals are accomplished. I think such a board can have limited and very clearly defined authority, but it must have the authority to accomplish its task or it serves no purpose. It is poor stewardship of time, talent, and treasure to invest in the operation of such a board that cannot do anything.

While a single board is both my heart’s desire and my best organizational perspective, it seems very doubtful that we will go that way. It seems more likely to me that we will find ways to get farther apart and have even less mutual responsibility—so we can stop irritating one another. There is potent energy from both the Left and the Right driving this. The price we will pay is that we will be able to do even less together and our common identity will be even more diluted. I also predict that this “solution” will prove unsatisfying. At some point (certainly after I am gone) there will be another effort to “unify” us. I hope it works. If not, we will dissipate and spin apart into complete irrelevance.

The good news is that God’s Kingdom, while we have been invited to participate in it, does not depend on us.

As with all my posts here, these are my personal opinions and interpretations.

Report from GEC 0609

2006-10-02T05:40:00.000-07:00

Below is the official report from the recent GEC meeting. I will offer comments and observations later.

Summary of GEC Meeting September 25-27, 2006

The General Executive Council (GEC) met September 25-27 as part of an ongoing process to promote adaptive change within the denomination.

GEC members focused on three primary tasks during their meeting:
The identification of criteria by which to formulate and judge a final proposal
The recommendation of an interim funding plan for central office functions administered through the Office of the General Secretary
Establishing a framework and parameters for the new structure

By consensus, the GEC members agreed upon the following proposal criteria:
Protect and secure the local church as the fundamental unit of mission by preserving historic Baptist freedoms and enacting a balance of autonomy and interdependence.
Demonstrate respect for ethnic/gender/cultural/theological/generational diversity and inclusiveness in all processes and purposes.
Increase the potential for fundraising through United Mission and other sources.
Implement substantial cost reductions for General Board operations.
Enable ABCUSA to establish, celebrate, implement and monitor outcomes of mission and ministry.
Resolve the division over homosexuality or at least move the denomination forward on this issue.
Provide for commitment to clear accountability, holding each other responsible for maintaining covenants.
Provide central office functions for the denomination.

By consensus, the GEC also made several recommendations to other entities within the denomination including the General Board, National Boards, and Regions regarding an interim funding plan for OGS central office functions, that included an endorsement of the General Board Executive Committee’s recommendation to sell the current Mission Center Office property. In accordance with ABCUSA processes, the GEC has the power to make recommendations to other bodies within the denomination but does not have the power to implement changes requiring ABCUSA bylaw changes.

This meeting was part of an ongoing process of the GEC launched in November of 2005 to address several concerns and opportunities including a strong desire to advance the mission that God has given to American Baptists, to build upon the work of the “Seek It” vision, to respond to the needs of 21st century congregations, to attend to financial concerns, and to address current conflicts within the denomination. Previous meetings have included the identification of key areas of concentration, the review of survey responses from American Baptists, and the formation of proposals.

At their previous GEC meeting in June, several GEC members submitted proposals suggesting possible new structural changes. Over the summer, authors of the proposals revised them using feedback received at the June meeting. During the proposal review process at this September meeting, it was evident that every proposal submitted had significant merit and addressed at least a portion of the identified criteria. Two proposals were approved as foundational and were augmented with ideas from the other proposals. The ongoing refinement may include elements of many or all of the submitted proposals as well as further refinements in thinking.

The GEC named a transition writing team to continue to develop these elements, charging them with the following responsibilities:
Continue to refine and build upon the key elements that contained the greatest level of support.
Gather feedback on these elements from the General Board and others.
Cast an eye and ear toward prophetic voices that can help the denomination to adopt a structure more appropriate for the 21st century.
Shed unnecessary components in order to create the new future.
Transition writing team members are: Michaele Birdsall, Sarah Hallstrand, Desmond Hoffmeister, James McJunkin, Jr., Roy Medley, Larry Swain, Reid Trulson, Aidsand Wright-Riggins III, and Jeff Woods.

The projected timeline includes receiving feedback from the General Board in the November 2006 meeting, holding an extra meeting of the GEC early in 2007, and working toward the adoption of a new structure by the 2009 Biennial delegates.

The American Baptist General Executive Council is comprised of the Executive Ministers of the Regions; the Executive Directors and two Associate Executive Directors from each of the National Boards (Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, the Board of National Ministries, and the Board of International Ministries); the Executive Directors of the Ministers Council, American Baptist Women’s Ministries, the American Baptist Historical Society, and the American Baptist Assembly; and the General Secretary and Staff of the Office of the General Secretary.

In Search of Reconciliation

2006-09-12T06:06:00.000-07:00

Susan, I hope you (and the others who read this blog) do not think I was ragging on you because of your commitment to reconciliation. I also hold reconciliation in high regard. Because “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Godself” and we have been “given this ministry of reconciliation,” I believe it is an unavoidable imperative for Christians.

It is precisely because I hold reconciliation in such high regard that I feel forced into my conclusion. Biblical reconciliation is not peaceful co-existence, apathetic tolerance, or mutual disregard. (Unfortunately, it seems that this is what people often mean when they call for “reconciliation.”) True reconciliation is a foundational practice of the Christian community we call the church and is an unending activity.

The practice of reconciliation begins with conviction—mine not yours. It moves through confession and forgiveness to changed behavior. Without this there can be no reconciliation. It is self-righteousness, if not sacrilege, to claim to be “bridge builders” when we have no intention to build bridges among ourselves.

I confess that I see none of these. Perhaps I am blind. Perhaps I am jaded. Perhaps I am moving in the wrong circles and looking in the wrong places. Perhaps 10 years is too long to be engaged in such a struggle at this level of intensity. Perhaps the best thing I can do for the cause of reconciliation is to walk away myself.

For a long time I thought we could at least find a place where most of us could continue to live together; and live in the hope that God might yet do a redemptive, reconciling work among us. I had no delusion about it being difficult and costly. Still, I didn’t hold back anything in that struggle. Time and again I witnessed crusaders on both sides of the issue undermine and sabotage progress. Pleas were disregarded or twisted into someone’s ideological weapon. Neither side is clean on this. Neither side is the innocent victim. I have all but given up my dream of community in my lifetime. And I think church without community is an abomination. God calls us to community, not autonomy. Father, forgive me, for I have sinned.

Even now people ask me “Is ABC going to split?” Have they not seen? Have they not heard? The ABC has split and is continuing to splinter. (I wonder how they define “split.”) The departure of those almost exclusively on one extreme will not result in reconciliation among the remnant. It will leave a self-congratulatory cadre with the superficial trappings of community (Scott Peck’s “pseudo-community”). But underneath the veneer will remain bitterness, the loss of an important corrective, the loss of resources, and, most of all, the crippling fact that we did not learn how to deal with polarities in a Christ-honoring way. Our lament should go beyond rhetoric. It should involve sackcloth and ashes.

As I read this, I know it sounds like I am arguing with you, Susan. But I am not. I am begging you. What does reconciliation look like for you? Where do you see it happening?

Mustering the Energy to Continue

2006-08-30T20:32:00.000-07:00

Dwight, obviously I’ve been quiet for some time. I have been keeping my head down, doing the work of ministry in the place where I work. I realize I have a role in the larger denominational family but it was nice for a bit to “stay apart.” We are now approaching Labor Day the traditional kick-off for the fall season and I’m trying to muster the energy to once again engage.

You made reference to my dislike for the term “irreconcilable differences.” Yeah, it’s been pretty evident in meetings we’ve both attended that I tend to “go off” when the term is used. I apologize for the intensity of my response. My contention has been “How can Christians have irreconcilable differences?” Couldn’t Jesus fix our differences – if we gave him a chance? Of course, I know that there are many areas in which people have nearly irreconcilable differences. My problem is that we use the term too soon. What I’m curious about right now is – does having irreconcilable differences mean we can’t work together? The answer is “No.” Baptists have always worked across lines of serious differences.

The problem is that the current climate in our society encourages all or nothing. You’re either red or blue or black or white and somehow that defines your position on a whole assortment of issues. Political advertising is filling the airwaves in my town these days and it’s disgusting. Vigorous debate is fine. Broadcast assault by half-truths is not. I’ve got a hunch that in the current climate we’d be divided as a denominational family no matter what the provoking issue. If our division is being driven by societal divisions, I may have to rethink my resistance to “irreconcilable differences.” But, at this moment, I still think Christians can rise above.

The General Executive Council will meet in late September to address the structure of the ABC-USA. It’s something that needs to be done. Whether it will help with our larger issues remains to be seen. I appreciate Roy Medley's efforts to get us through this. In this process, as in so many others, it seems we get caught between efficiency and principle. I can quickly come up with a clear, concise structure for the ABC – the only problem is it won’t be Baptist. We also can’t seem to figure out how to hold on to our history and how to move forward from it. When is our history a strong foundation and when is it holding us back from engaging a new day? Analyzing any possible proposals is inappropriate at this time. The members of the GEC will do that and, I hope, the process will lead us to ideas we have not yet conceived. We will talk more in the blog about this process after the meeting when we can discuss the possibilities for the future.

Rather amazingly, I still think we’ll use the minds God gave us and find a positive way to move forward as an ABC family.

Still Supporting Dr. Medley

2006-08-02T07:21:00.000-07:00

I repeat my support for Dr. Medley’s “Call.” (Dr. Medley’s Call on this blog)

The response has been predictable—cool suspicion, even dismissal, from the right and near hysteria from the left. Unfortunately, many of the words flying about focus on the person of Roy Medley, not the General Secretary, the General Board, or the Covenant Partners. Certainly none of these are above criticism. I have written my own critiques of Dr. Medley’s public speeches—whom I still consider a close friend and colleague—but don’t believe (of course someone may correct me) that I have engaged in theatrics, betrayed confidential conversations, nor engaged in ad hominem attacks. Roy has never chosen to respond to my sometimes stinging comments—probably because he is a better Christian than I am.

Some have said that this “Call” is a flip-flop from Dr. Medley’s Biennial sermon. One side doesn’t trust him because of it. The other side is scandalized by it and persuaded that in can only be explained by some dark, smoky room conversion (if not coercion) of Roy Medley.

This “Call” is fully consistent with what Dr. Medley said at the Biennial. I said then that “some follow-up is needed to draw out the complex implications and consequences Dr. Medley had in mind while preaching.” (see Hearing and Reading Dr. Medley on this blog) In that analysis/critique I said that “Dr. Medley will not use his office for anything other than the affirmation of traditional heterosexuality.” And that at the same time, “he will not use his office to encourage the denomination-wide dismissal of those churches that believe differently.” I still believe that to be true. There is nothing in Dr. Medley’s “Call” that counters that. Only those who imagined some hidden message to the contrary discern a change of position. As at least one on the left has said Roy’s position has been clear, “Nothing has changed.”

Dr. Medley’s Biennial sermon included the inaugural “call to radical discipleship.” While his litany of the “marks” of radical discipleship included evangelism, social ministry, being centered in Christ, etc., he did not have the time to do a full exploration of it (nor was it the appropriate place for him to do that). I note that Dr. Glenn Stassen (Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller) spoke at the June 2006 General Board meeting specifically as one effort to call us to radical discipleship. (I invite everyone to read all, not just parts, of his Kingdom Ethics). This most recent “Call” grows out of Dr. Medley’s passion for radical discipleship which, apparently, includes living lives of high moral and ethical responsibility.” Perhaps our level of offense at this is an indicator of the extent of our self-righteousness just as our easy satisfaction with it is an indicator of the extent of our smug blindness.

Some have expressed pain and offense that homosexual practices are mentioned in the same paragraph as sin, especially the mention of a culture obsessed with sex. I acknowledge the reality of the pain of those persons. At the same time, I assert that there are others who could also find pain and offense in the paragraph. Still, I must insist, that the point of that paragraph is that we live in an “environment of deep suspicion regarding the sexual integrity of persons in authority.” This environment of suspicion is one of the things that make it impossible for us to even talk about the issue. The response of some is, in fact, proof that we live in such an environment. Accusations that Dr. Medley has suddenly turned vindictive and mean with a singular focus on homosexual persons is unwarranted.

In the “Call,” the General Secretary affirmed that it is his “responsibility to uphold this as the official position of the General Board of ABCUSA,” and has implemented that position in those arenas over which he has responsibility. The General Secretary could do nothing else! Indeed, the relative silence of the General Secretary regarding the impact of duly adopted policies/resolutions of the General Board on General staff and activities has undermined the organizational integrity of the General Board. It is not inconsequential that the “Call” opens with the declaration that it is being issued as a “continuing part of our implementation of policies adopted by the General Board.” In this regard the General Secretary has the same obligation as the employee of any other board.

For those who differ with this, their complaint is with the General Board, not the General Secretary. Ask the General Board to “retire” the offending policies/resolutions or to give the General Secretary other instructions.

Some have asked “why now?” The better questions are “Why not now?” or “Why not three years ago?” This denomination is dis-integrating. It would be irresponsible for a leader not to address one of the leading causes of that disintegration, even if its very mention is offensive to some.

There is no simple resolution for our differences, and it is not fair to ask the General Secretary to pretend that there is. Susan, I know you don’t like to talk about “irreconcilable differences.” For me, it is also an extremis position. But I am persuaded that for some among us the differences are irreconcilable. Many of us have believed for some time that the only way forward would involve losing some from both extremes. I lament that. I lament the dozen churches that have already left my region, the thirty others that have threatened, and the even larger number that has disengaged. I lament 80 churches that left as reported at the last General Board meeting. I lament all the churches of the Pacific Southwest. I lament those departures even when I have not agreed with them.

But it is time. It is time for those of us who are trying to define and claim a middle (if there is such a thing) to stand up and say “Enough is enough!” If your goal in denominational life is to purge every last homosexual person (or their supporter) from every corner of the denomination so there is absolute purity (at least on this issue), then you will probably be disappointed. If your goal in denominational life is the universal affirmation of homosexual intimacy, guaranteed portability of ordination, and implicit permission, if not blessing, by the General Board, then you will also probably be disappointed. There are a lot of things between those two lines to work on. We choose to believe our General Secretary is making a sincere effort. We choose to stand with him and work with him. And we promise that when we can’t we will quietly leave and let the rest of you fight about the leftovers.

Response to Dr. Medley's "Call"

2006-07-19T09:38:00.000-07:00

Allow me to sidetrack from the recent GEC meetings and speak to the July 17th letter from Dr. Medley entitled “A Call for American Baptists to Live Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility,” as linked from this blog in the previous post.

While some may dismiss, pooh-pooh, or even get angry at the statement I believe it was important. It may even be unprecedented. While I will bow to some historian correcting me, I have been an American Baptist minister for nearly 25 years and I don’t remember a comparable, personal, pastoral letter from the General Secretary. It is an appropriate response to the current crisis in our denomination.

Dr. Medley described how he has practiced leadership regarding this issue in those areas over which he has authority. I personally believe this has always been the case, even though it was not acknowledged publicly. It is not fair to accuse the General Secretary for not doing things which he is not empowered to do. The General Secretary has no authority to discipline either churches or regions—for any issue. Regions have the sole authority to admit/discipline churches and to recognize or discipline the ordination of clergy. From the beginning, this was essentially an issue between regions. For that same reason it is also not fair to accuse the General Secretary of violating or undermining congregational autonomy (which is not absolute in any case, but that is another issue).

This is also important because it validates the organizational integrity of the General Board. The staff of the General Board (chief among whom is the General Secretary) are bound by the policies, resolutions, instructions, etc., of the General Board. If the staff of the General Board are saying and doing things contrary to what the Board has said, then it is the Board’s responsibility to make the correction. I believe Dr. Medley is making a bona fide effort to interpret and implement one very clear and one very vague statement by the General Board.

It is important because the issue is set in the realm of ethics and morality, where it belongs. Some want to make this a theological issue, so they can start heresy proceedings. But others want to make it a theological issue because they believe Baptist tradition will give them carte blanche. Both are wrong. While ethics/morality are related to theology, they are not in the same category as “God was in Christ reconciling the world.” I expect some challenges from both sides on that.

Dr. Medley affirmed, one more time, his personal position. While that is important for some, it is even more important to understand that there is a sense in which his personal opinion on this (or any other) issue does not matter (any more than mine does). He is an employee of the General Board, just as I am an employee of my Board. Both of us are obligated to interpret and implement the will of that Board even if we don’t personally agree with it.

However, his personal affirmation is important—even grossly understated. Dr. Medley is a deeply spiritual man of high personal moral integrity. Charges and innuendos about his morality are unfounded and out of line. While I have disagreed with Dr. Medley on some things, I have never had reason to suspect his moral integrity. He is living a life worthy of his calling.

The statement was important because it tried to set a very difficult issue in context in as few words as possible. Is there anyone out there who does not believe “we live in a culture obsessed with sex?” Has anyone watched TV, listened to the radio, or read a newspaper recently? This cultural context does not establish moral positions or substitute for moral reasoning. However, it does impact the energy behind those positions. Not many would agree with the practice of slaveholding today, but the culture of the 1800’s gave that same position much more energy then than now. Twenty-five years ago not many would have been involved in a clergy misconduct prevention workshop. Today I have 20-25 at workshops scheduled twice a year. The morality (nor reality) of misconduct has not changed, but our context has created more energy around the issue.

Some will argue that he didn’t say enough about our context, or that he had some hidden agenda and used these words to be PC and deflect. I don’t believe that. It was appropriate and reflective for a one-page letter.

Acknowledging that there are other sins (how dare the Apostle Paul do that?) does not diminish or deflect from any particular sin unless one is inclined to do so because of their own personal agenda. Many have argued that the sexual obsession of our culture is reflected in a singular obsession with homosexuality. Often there are not-so-subtle implications that those persons so obsessed have their own sexual demons or have a deep-seated hatred longing for violent expression. While that is sometimes the case, it is not my experience that most of those voicing moral objections to homosexual practices are obsessed, blinded by hatred, or violent. Indeed, most folks seem so careful to avoid the appearance of obsession, hatred, or violence that they are reluctant to voice their objection.

Lastly, it was important because it was pastoral. Dr. Medley chose not to attack homosexual persons or anyone who disagreed with him. He called us to life in Christ; a life of high moral and ethical responsibility. Does anyone really want to eliminate Christ-like compassion and care? We may debate how that is best done, but I am not ready to discard either. Likewise, does any sin justify hate, violence, or injustice? (Yes, God hates sin, that does not give me permission to hate sinners.)

I stand with Dr. Medley and this call. Even as I hope and pray that we will live lives worthy of our calling, I must confess that I am a sinner. I have sinned against God in thought, word, and deed, by what I have done, and by what I have left undone. I have not loved God with my whole heart; I have not loved my neighbor as myself. I do not need others to gloss over, dismiss, or approve of my sin. I need others to call me to repentance. For only Jesus Christ is faithful and just to forgive me of my sins.

Does this “resolve” the issue? Of course not. But I am more optimistic for the prospects of an honest conversation that I have been in two years.

Dr. Medley's Call

2006-07-18T10:58:00.000-07:00

Dr. Roy Medley, General Secretary of ABCUSA has issued a "Call for American Baptist to LIve Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility." It is worth reading:

http://www.abc-usa.org/documents/Welcome%20Messages/A%20Call%20for%20American%20Baptists.pdf

General Board June 2006

2006-07-06T06:40:00.000-07:00

Susan,

It has been a little over a week since you and I returned from meetings in Valley Forge. We are always attending a whole series of meetings (General Board, General Executive Council, Regional Executive Ministers Council, Multi-Region Corporation, etc.) which tend to blend together into a fog, even though each group has distinctive responsibilities. Perhaps the time has given us a little better perspective and we can say some useful things.

There were some very wonderful things and some very important things that happened during these meetings.

The report to the General Board of “Post-Katrina” assistance to the Gulf Coast was beyond good. The numbers of projects that American Baptists have been (and continue to be) involved in was breathtaking, as was the extent of donated dollars and volunteer time. American Baptists are a compassionate, generous people. Sometimes that gets forgotten. Kudos to individuals, churches, regions, ABMen, National Ministries staff, and all those involved with One Great Hour of Sharing. We are all proud!

It was also wonderful to see my former ethics professor again. Dr. Glenn Stassen (Professor of Ethics at Fuller Seminary) presented an engaging interpretation of the structure of the Sermon on the Mount. Granted, I had some personal stake in this because of my connection with Dr. Stassen, but this was a good teaching moment for the entire General Board. The only unfortunate thing is that the table discussions were not adequately structured to take the best advantage of Dr. Stassen’s challenging presentation.

The departure of the ABC of the Pacific Southwest necessitated some Standing Rule changes because there was no provision in either Bylaws or Standing Rules to deal with the consequences of an entire region withdrawing from ABCUSA. Consistent with other Bylaw and Standing Rule provisions, cooperating churches that are part of PSW will have 24 months to seek affiliation with another ABC region, or to form their own region. From PSW’s perspective, their break with ABCUSA will become effective in November 2006. From the perspective of ABCUSA Bylaws, that will be finalized at the Biennial in 2007. The necessary changes were handled easily.

The financial report from Lloyd Hamblin (ABC Budget Review Officer) was important, even if very troubling. In my opinion it was the most direct reporting of financial reality that the General Board has ever received. Over the last three years, United Mission has dropped 20.6%. All those components of the denomination that rely on United Mission for support have been impacted significantly. While some of those components have compensated for this loss through targeted and/or designated giving, most have not.

An intentional survey of those churches that have reduced their United Mission giving revealed three basic causes. (Actually Lloyd reported four, but I believe that one is a subset of another). First, changes in giving patterns that are predominantly generational and institutional. Second, conflict in the denomination and distance from the denomination (primarily, but not only, over the issue of homosexuality; it was not irrelevant that we received the report that 81 churches have withdrawn from ABCUSA, 40 from West Virginia alone). Third, financial struggles in local congregations.

The General Board has fiscal responsibility for 35% of United Mission, from which it must fund all its activities and make allocations to National Ministries and International Ministries. Clearly the denomination is in a crisis situation, and the General Board must directly address the issue because the financial decline has gone beyond the point that staff-initiated administrative changes can accommodate the continuing shortfall. Drastic changes must happen over the next 24 months.

I am concerned because we don’t have a good track record of dealing with such crises. I am also concerned because the morale of the General Board seemed as flat as I have seen it in 10 years. But even beyond the morale issue I am concerned that most General Board members are faithful American Baptists who are passionate about ministry—not money—and may not be gifted or informed adequately to deal with such a complex crisis. But most of all I am concerned that we will “fix” the financial problem (even if by default through inaction) without addressing the underlying causes that the Budget Review Officer described in his report. Consequently, in 24 months we will be in another crisis and shopping for another Band-Aid.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that this looks so much like “church” to me. When I consult with churches I see the same patterns avoidance, denial, self-interest, scapegoating, disengagement, etc. By the grace of God, churches can rise above this. I hope and pray that this denomination can.

This is already too long, so I will sign off and do a separate entry on the GEC meetings.

GEC Meeting June 25-26

2006-07-03T05:08:00.001-07:00

The General Executive Council of ABCUSA continued to work following the recent General Board meeting. Since April we have joined by an outside facilitator, Dr. Trish Jones. Dr. Jones has helped us identify four key areas of concern (denominational leadership, denominational structure, representative process, and relevance to local congregations). All four areas are obviously interrelated. Below is the official summary of that meeting, which was frank, sobering, reflective, and thoughtful.

Summary of GEC Meeting June 25-26

The General Executive Council (GEC) met June 25-26, immediately following the proceedings of the ABCUSA General Board. The primary purpose of the meeting was to examine ways of improving the ministry functioning of the denomination by surfacing and assessing potential modifications and renovations. During an earlier meeting this year, the GEC had identified four areas of concentration for potential transformation within the denomination, namely denominational leadership, denominational structure, representative process, and relevance to local congregations.

The members advanced their previous work by reviewing input from the General Board, new survey data from the grass roots level (from over 2400 respondents), information from a May Summit meeting of ABC Officers and Staff, as well as specific change proposals, authored by the GEC members themselves, in the four areas of concentration. Working in small groups and reporting out to the larger body, the GEC members asked three questions of each proposal: (1) What additional information or clarification do I need to fully understand this proposal? (2) What assumptions underlying this proposal should be/can be challenged? (3) What are the potential unforeseen positive and negative consequences of this proposal? The meeting was facilitated by Dr. Tricia Jones, a communications and organizational development professor at Temple University. Dr. Jones has also worked with the GEC in prior discussions.

During the next meeting of the GEC, scheduled for September 25-27, the GEC members intend to make recommendations to the General Board in the four areas of concentration; the ABCUSA General Board will receive this information after the September meeting, for consideration and processing in its November meeting.

Prior to their September meeting, GEC members who authored proposals plan to rework each proposal using the feedback received at their June meeting. All members of the GEC have agreed to further advance their work over the summer by assessing specific sections of the newly revised proposals looking for synergies that have the potential of becoming proposals at the September meeting. The criteria to be used for evaluating each revised proposal (as well as their component parts) will include criteria surfaced by members of the GEC itself as well as criteria surfaced by the General Board and its Executive Committee at their recent meetings in June. The process may also include further data gathering. Members of the GEC agreed to these future processes by consensus.

This current work of the GEC has been prompted by several factors, including a strong desire to advance the mission that God has given to American Baptists, to build upon the work of the “Seek It” vision, to respond to the needs of 21st century congregations, to attend to financial concerns, and to address current conflicts within the denomination.

The American Baptist General Executive Council is comprised of the Executive Ministers of the Regions; the Executive Directors and two Associate Executive Directors from each of the National Boards (Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, the Board of National Ministries, and the Board of International Ministries); the Executive Directors of the Ministers Council, American Baptist Women’s Ministries, the American Baptist Historical Society, and the American Baptist Assembly; and the General Secretary and Staff of the Office of the General Secretary.

GEC Survey Summary

2006-07-03T05:08:00.000-07:00

A few months ago the General Executive Council took a survey to help inform our work. The survey was open and voluntary. That means it has the limitations of all such surveys. The only “control” was that the same computer was not allowed to take the survey multiple times. Nevertheless, with 2343 people responding, it is a statistically significant (even if not satisfying) survey of American Baptist opinions. This is the official summary:

GEC Survey Summary
June 2006

I. Demographics - A total of 2343 people responded an online GEC survey during May of 2006.

A. Limitations due to demographic factors: While the number of responses indicate a large overall response, it is important to note that the people who chose to respond to this survey do not reflect the overall demographics of American Baptists. More specifically, all ethnic groups were underrepresented in this survey and many regional groups were over represented.

B. Gender: 69% of the respondents were male and 31% were female.

C. The ages of the respondents are shown below:
1% Under 24 (17)
5% 25-34 (112)
12% 35-44 (280)
30% 45-54 (700)
32% 55-64 (756)
20% Over 65 (480)

D. The ethnicity of the respondents is also shown below.
87% Euro (2040)
5.1% African-American (121)
1.8% Hispanic (42)
1.1% Asian (27)
0.2% Portugese-Speaking (4)
0.1% Haitian (3)

E. The number of responses from each region is shown below as well as the number of current congregations within each region for comparison:

REGION # respondents # congregations
ABCOPAD 189 321
Great Rivers 187 252
IN-KY 175 319
West Virginia 159 413
Mid-America 142 139
Central 119 233
NY State 108 318
Ohio 101 283
New Jersey 97 285
Michigan 94 152
Mass 77 290
Northwest 72 158
PSW 70 272
VT/NH 65 147
Wisconsin 59 61
Rochester 59 38
Rhode Island 53 74
South 47 305
Philadelphia 46 128
LA 46 144
West 46 196
Connecticut 44 121
Maine 41 159
Indianapolis 38 30
Rocky Mountain 37 92
Nebraska 34 58
Evergreen 29 35
Chicago 25 61
Metro NY 22 191
Dakotas 20 53
Oregon 20 50
Cleveland 17 38
DC 13 148
Puerto Rico 7 123

F. The roles of the respondents were:
53% Pastors (1249)
26% Laity (620)
7% Local church staff (167)
4% REMC/Region Staff (102)
3% General Board (70)
1% Seminary faculty/staff (32)
1% NEC/GEC (17)

II. Overall Issues of Importance. The results reveal that the respondents strongly value many of the items listed on the survey. On seven separate items, fifty percent of the respondents rated the item as a 9 or 10 on the scale of importance. Those seven items are listed below with the percentage shown in parentheses.

72% A structure driven by mission
69% A clear and compelling vision
68% Local churches being represented in decision making
64% The helpfulness of regional staff when I have questions or needs
63% Engaging in our common mission that extends beyond local churches
56% Dynamic leadership in the denomination
50% National and regional staffs partnering together to resource local churches

III. Issues of Satisfaction. There were no items where fifty percent of the respondents rated the item as a 9 or 10 on the satisfaction scale. The items with the greatest percentage of respondent ratings in the 9 or 10 range on the scale of satisfaction are listed below with the actual percentage of 9’s and 10’s shown in parentheses.

41% The helpfulness of regional staff when I have questions or needs
34% The quality of my relationships with regional staff
21% The helpfulness of national staff when I have questions or needs
21% An ethnically representative group making national decisions
17% The leadership development efforts of regional staff

IV. Issues of dissatisfaction. On five separate items, twenty-five percent of the respondents rated their present satisfaction level with the item as a 1 or 2. Those five items are listed below with the percentage rating the item as a one or a two shown in parentheses.

33% Local churches being represented in national decision making
31% The concern expressed for my local church by national leaders
30% A clear and compelling vision for the denomination
29% The quality of my relationships with national leaders
25% Dynamic leadership in the denomination

For sections V through IX, the responses of “agree” and “strongly agree” have been combined as have the responses of “disagree” and “strongly disagree” to obtain the combined percentages that you see under the areas of concentration identified by the GEC. The percentages of those who indicated that they “neither agreed nor disagreed with the item” are not included in the figures below.

V. Structural issues –
A. 22% believe that our present structure is very effective for dealing with today’s challenges and opportunities while 59% do not.
B. 39% believe that our present structure fosters rivalry among regional, national, and general staffs and should be changed while 17% do not.
C. 49% prefer a more decentralized structure while 29% oppose it.
D. 44% prefer a single board structure while 26% oppose it.
E. 44% prefer an affinity based structure while 25% oppose it.

VI. Leadership
A. 27% believe that our national leaders are providing strong and effective leadership on the most important issues facing our denomination while 57% do not.
B. 54% believe that our national leaders are failing to effectively address the needs and concerns of 21st century congregations 29% do not.

VII. Relevance
A. 25% believe that our denominational ministries compare well to parachurch ministries while 46% do not.
B. 37% believe that national resources and programs are relevant for their local church while 45% do not.
C. 40% believe that national resources and ministries are personally relevant while 37% do not.
D. 58% believe that regional resources and programs are relevant for their local church while 27% do not.
E. 58% believe that regional resources and ministries are personally relevant while 24% do not.
F. 21% believe that their ministry would suffer significantly if it were not for the national resources and programs while 57% do not.
G. 41% believe that their ministry would suffer significantly if it were not for the regional resources and programs while 39% do not.
H. 32% believe that national staff build their trust and confidence in the denomination while 49% do not.
I. 58% believe that regional staff build their trust and confidence in the denomination while 26% do not.
J. 66% believe that national gatherings and conferences should focus upon best practices and training opportunities for church leaders while 7% do not.

VIII. Representative Process
A. 45% believe that the representative process plays a vital role in the denomination while 27% do not.
B. 25% believe that the representative process adequately represents the concerns of their local church to the wider ABC family while 51% do not.
C. 56% believe that the representative process should be overhauled while 14% do not.
D. 39% believe that the General Board should be much smaller while 20% do not.
E. 58% believe that the General Board should focus on missional interests rather than legislative concerns while 19% do not.

IX. Communication
A. 37% believe that communications from Valley Forge are of the highest quality while 28% do not.
B. 66% believe that all ABC communication should emphasize a clear and consistent message while 10% do not.
C. 36% believe that the current ABC giving appeals appear more competitive than coordinated while 22% do not.

Where There's A Will, There's A Way

2006-04-24T08:20:00.000-07:00

I’ve been silent long enough. Where are we now?

The April meetings of the General Executive Council left more folks than normal with some degree of hope. This is good.

The task ahead of us is formidable – finding a better way to do what Baptists need to do as a family.

The ABC-USA President has called together a meeting in late May of Board Presidents & CEOs and REMC officers. The GEC will again go to work in June and Sept. The hope is that something may be set in place in time to be presented to the Biennial in 2007. This is a big mountain to get over.

Can the ABC family become a fellowship characterized by commitment to mission, and fluidity of trust, communication, actions & responses? Can we respect our right to have differences? Where is the boundary?

Can we effectively put in place administrative structures nationally and regionally that are under positive, constant review? Can we keep our structures lean? Can we be clear about what we are doing and why?

How do we meet our mission with as few administrative players as possible? Can we create a culture that continually pushes the focus of the mission action to front line missionaries and local churches while providing appropriate systems for motivation, education, support and quality control?

It is boring to hear people bad-mouth Valley Forge. Many of the critics haven’t taken the time to really find out the phenomenal amount of work that is generated from that place by dedicated persons of faith. Are there problems there? Of course. There are problems in regions and local churches, too.

I was driving to an Association meeting yesterday, listening to a Canadian interview program on my satellite radio. The fellow was talking about self-righteousness. We expect others to meet our expectations, never realizing we are not meeting theirs. In our ABC family, we tend to think that someone else is dropping the ball, not us. The reality is we are all failing each other in some way or other.

Let me say a word about bureaucracies. Their natural tendency is to grow. This can be good or bad. But you’ve got to watch them.

But we also need to grow up and realize that it takes people to make things happen. Americans want the best government in the world but don’t want to pay for it. In ABC, it takes people God has gifted with administrative and bureaucratic skills to make things work. I believe that excellent bureaucracies make it easier to get a job done. They are the oil that makes it possible for machinery to run smoothly. Denominational organizations, mission agencies, and local churches are most effective over the long haul with really great system support.

In the ABC we have the capacity to resolve enough of our conflict so that we can move ahead. The only question is whether we have the will (and enough of the love of Jesus) to keep at the task.

From Thomas Oden

2006-04-13T05:38:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Thomas Oden’s newest book: Turning Around the Mainline. Even though Oden is Methodist, and his writing can be edgy, I like him for several reasons, not the least of which is that this faith pilgrimage seems to parallel my own. It is a good read that I heartily recommend. For your consideration, I offer his opening words from Chapter Two – Discipline, Not Separation:

The major issue before the mainline churches: Will they submit to their own discipline, or will the absence of discipline finally require division? Some leading commentators like Lyle Schaller have already predicted the necessity of division.

Countering this view, confessing Christians seek to maintain the unity of the church through discipline, not through division. The confession movement is strongly committed to staying within. It is better for churches to learn to respect their own legislative processes and discipline themselves accordingly than to face the even greater problems of separation, division of property, and the anguish of divorce.

Confessing Christians seek to reform their churches, not leave them. Those who split off leave the patient in the hands of euthanasia advocates, the Kevorkians of dying modernity. The Holy Spirit will not bless willful unnecessary divisiveness.

If classic Christians self-righteously leave, they abandon the legacy, the patrimony, the bequests, the institutions, and the resources that have been many generations in the making with much tears and sweat.

Walking away turns out to have weightier moral impediments than hanging in. It seems unthinkable to abandon, without further prayers for special grace, those historic communions by which so many have been baptized. The faithful have committed themselves for generations to the support of these communions, which their classic doctrines and evangelical revivals have engendered. To allow these resources to be permanently taken over by those inimical to the faith cannot be an act of responsibility.

Those libraries, these alumnae/alumni, these endowments, and these mission boards will be abandoned only at great cost. A clean sweep seems both necessary and impossible. Hence there is a need for prayer for special grace, and for an army of prayer for the urgent reform of representational systems, wayward educational institutions, and world missions.

To flee the church is not to discipline it. No one corrects a family by leaving it. Separation does not foster discipline. Discipline is fostered by patient trust, corrective love, and willingness to live with incremental change if that is what the Spirit is allowing. Discipline seeks to mend the broken church by a change of heart.

GEC Meeting April 2006 -- News Release

2006-04-11T08:26:00.000-07:00

General Executive Council Delves Into Weighty Matters At Meeting

VALLEY FORGE, PA (ABNS)—The General Executive Council (GEC) meeting of the American Baptist Churches USA took significant steps in attempting to position the mission and ministry of ABCUSA for the 21st Century. The stage for this meeting, which was held from April 5-8 in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, was set by the action of the GEC itself at its November 2005 meeting in Green Lake, Wisconsin. The GEC in its gathering acknowledged the brokenness of our relationships and need for healing.

Internationally recognized facilitator, Trish Jones, led the GEC through the process of examining the operational system of ABCUSA. Dr. Jones assisted the group in identifying four critical areas for review: structure, leadership, the representative process and relevance. These four areas represented common ground for the GEC participants.

A scheduled meeting in June will involve a brainstorming session to clarify solutions with a high level of specificity. The outcome will be distributed to a wider ABC audience for input. A September meeting will negotiate possible courses of action. This GEC meeting was imbued with a sense of hope as well as an element of urgency. Participants experienced movement and progress toward consensus, and the day and a half of discussions were held on a positive and high level without conflict or confusion.

Also leading a session of the GEC meeting was well-known consultant, Dr. David Roozen, who placed the weighty issues facing ABCUSA in a wider context. Dr. Roozen pointed out that mainline or oldline denominations as well as other denominations in the United States are all facing difficult issues regarding downsizing, diminishing financial resources, and other troubling matters between leadership and congregational life.

For the GEC, however, their meeting was touched with a God-moment as new light began to emerge from the distant horizon. A new day seems to be dawning as a new vision is birthing around the Focus Statement: American Baptist Churches are Healthy Missional Churches that Nurture Devoted Disciples of Jesus Christ who Live Their Lives in Mission and Ministry for the Healing of the World through the Love of Christ. This Statement grew out of Seek It! and the Seven Key Ministry Areas of Radical Discipleship, Healthy Missional Churches, Leadership, Church Planting, Youth, Stewardship and Mutual Faithfulness.

Rev. Dr. Leo Thorne
Assistant General Secretary, ABCUSA Director, Mission Resource Development

Dr. David A. Roozen is Professor of Religion and Society as well as Director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research at Hartford Seminary. His work focuses on national religious trends and organizational change. http://hirr.hartsem.edu/about/roozen.htm

Dr. Tricia S. Jones is Professor of Adult and Organizational Development in the Department of Psychological Studies, College of Education, Temple University. Her work focuses on: 1) negotiation and mediation theory and practice, 2) conflict competence and social and emotional learning for K-12 populations, 3) organizational conflict and dispute system design, and 4) interpersonal communication and conflict. Dr. Jones was our facilitator in the Common Budget Covenant process. http://www.temple.edu/education/faculty/jones_t.html

Still Lines

2006-03-01T08:12:00.000-08:00

I suppose I have put this off long enough.

“Claustrophobic,” huh? “Phobic.” “Fearful.” I thought you were arguing that “fear” was the major motivation for drawing lines, not trying to erase them. (Susan, you know I am messing with you).

Seriously, you have spotlighted one of the fundamental issues in our present conflict, and one of the ways we continue to talk past each other while maintaining the illusion of “dialogue.”

I agree that the contemporary church (indeed, I would argue all human societies for all time) have made “a mess of drawing lines.” However, I disagree that the answer is to stop drawing lines (as if we could). I have not seen the thriving, faithful “no-line church.” And I will quickly add that I have not seen a thriving, faithful church that is preoccupied with drawing all kinds of lines. The presence of lines is not the issue. As I tried to argue in my last entry, the intentional, reflective discernment about the placement and maintenance of those lines is the issue. To argue “no lines at all” can be a self-righteous power play that stops the conversation. While I am not accusing you of that, it has been my experience again and again.

Also, the argument that we must acknowledge the necessary presence of lines cannot be interpreted to mean that all lines must be broad, smelly lines drawn with a bold, indelible Magic Marker. As you point out, and as I argued in my last entry, there are many kinds of lines with many functions. This is one of the “slippery slope” arguments that I hear from the left (I hear others from the right). “If we allow a line to be drawn here, then we will be covered up with all kinds of lines—and you may be next!” (Who is the fear-monger here?)

Most often this takes the form of the “hidden agenda” accusation. It implies that there is a secret list of 50 to 100 other lines that “they” want to draw, and this is only the first. There are at least three problems with this. First, it is the very kind of behavior we try to defuse/debunk in church conflicts. Second, it is not true (but truth is usually irrelevant in most conflicts). Third, it assumes that there are not enough of us with insight or moral fiber to argue that this is not a line we want to draw or this is not the place where we want to draw it (which is not the same as saying there are no lines).

Of course there will be a “next issue.” There always is and always will be because we are alive and because our context is always changing. We will never escape issues. We will never draw (or avoid) the last line. Dietrich Bonhoeffer has become a helpful, nagging, puzzling conversational partner for the last 10 years. There is much I about him that I do not understand. But I believe part of his idea of “the Christian come of age,” is our ability and responsibility to make decisions as Christ-centered communities of faith again and again.

It is clear that I have been unsuccessful, but I have urged us to clearly identify needful lines and to thoughtfully and faithfully draw those lines.

You say that for you the boundary lines for clergy are “profoundly different.” I argue that those lines are profoundly more important than some head argument about an obscure point of theology. Nor is it a polity argument. Nor is it a biological or psychological debate. It is not about soteriology, justice, or compassionate ministry. This is a moral behavior issue. This is a major difference between you and me, and it is the major divide in this denomination right now. The denomination has rightly said that we have moral standards of behavior for clergy. We have also said that crossing some lines is more offensive than others (most of the time without rational argument, but “just because”). That is why there is a range of disciplinary actions regarding clergy behaviors. Nowhere is the presence of lines clearer (even if they are inconsistently interpreted) than clergy misconduct. We will get nowhere until we put moral behavior by clergy on the table.

Thank you for the women in ministry story. I hurt for you. I find it offensive. You have been incredibly gracious (but I am not surprised, that is how I have always experienced you). At the same time, I don’t want to sell this church short.

This denomination is not neutral on the issue of women in ministry. It has drawn a line! (And I am glad that we have drawn this line.) While the denomination cannot force the church to accept an ordained woman as its pastor, the denomination is clear about the line. There is a denominational office whose sole intent is to promote women in ministry. The President and General Secretary of the denomination speak and write persuasively and positively about women in ministry. Everything published by the denomination supports women in ministry. Speakers, etc., at every denominational conference and workshop are intentionally reviewed to reflect gender inclusivity. Denominational employment at the ministerial level reflects the value of women in ministry.

Despite the line that the denomination has drawn to exclude this church, and despite denominational “enforcement” of that line, the church has chosen to remain. I know nothing about this church’s level of participation. But if the Pastor chooses to be part of regional and denominational clergy gatherings, he knows he will be confronted with women in ministry. If the church chooses to attend regional or denominational gatherings, they know they will experience women in the pulpit (and not just praying!). The church knows that national groups that oppose women in ministry will accuse it of complicity. Still, the church remains. It has found a resting place in its exclusion, and knows that it holds a position that the denomination officially and programmatically rejects.

I argue that this same denomination is not neutral on the issue of homosexual behavior. The General Board has repeatedly affirmed its position. Despite what some may wish, the Board is not neutral. It is not unreasonable to expect the General Board, its staff, and its programs reflect the same kind of compassionate implementation that is the case with women in ministry. It is not unreasonable to expect regions to formulate how they will behave with one another in view of the denominational position.

While I generally agree with you about the dysfunction of focusing on the negative, or defining ourselves by what we are against, I also urge caution for several reasons.

We know that in most cases the negative is simply the flip side of a positive. A person is “against” something because they are strongly “for” something else. Just because a person is not articulate enough to identify what they are so passionately for, do not dismiss or discredit them because they express their passion in negative terms. One of the helpful things about Appreciative Inquiry is that it helps us uncover that positive attraction. One of the downsides of AI is that it can gloss over the energy or passion that is inherent in a negative statement and disempower participants.

Also, we must acknowledge that the power of appearing positive is just as addictive as the negative. Positive thinkers can become blind to reality and enmeshed in denial. We have enough real life experience with this as a denomination that I don’t believe it needs rehearsal.

Lastly, a few years ago I discovered John Carver. Carver is an organizational guru, specializing in the work of not-for-profit boards. One of the remarkable insights I gathered from his work was the dynamic roles of positive and negative in boards achieving their goals through staff. Direction, goals, ends are established by positive directives. But the means to accomplish those ends are bounded by negative rules regarding staff behaviors. Both are absolutely essential. Only when the two are held together can the organization accomplish its purpose. Positive purpose statements without bounds to means can go in scary directions (Hitler was pursuing world peace). Negative boundaries without purpose create a rule-oriented maze (Orwell’s bureaucratic 1984). More than that, I found a biblical example. In Genesis, God ordered Adam and Eve to be productive stewards (a positive purpose statement) along with a negative boundary (stay away from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). I had always viewed the Ten Commandments as a little suspect because they were negative. But now I understand that those negative statements established the boundaries on a very large playing field. There is not that much denied to us. Why do we chaff at it???

I understand your fatigue. I have felt it like an oppressive weight the last six months. However, I would argue that we are tired because we have not dealt with these lines. I do not see the endless parade of study commissions, etc., that you fear. As I reflect over the last 10 years, it is not decisions that have exhausted us; it is our determination to avoid decisions which has worn us down.

I believe “fatigue” has replaced “fear” as the major denominational emotion. Fatigue is driving us into an end game with which most of us will be dissatisfied. Whether the game ends in clear win/lose, resignation, or draw, there will be fewer pieces on the board. The game cannot continue. We may choose to start all over again, with a different strategy, but this game will be over. I regret that I have not played a more effective game.

More Lines

2006-02-06T08:23:00.000-08:00

OK, I probably should confess that I am claustrophobic. Maybe that’s why it’s hard for me to attribute positive values to lines. I generally see them as restrictive rather than empowering. I did acknowledge in my last entry that there would always be lines. Of course there are lines. Our society establishes lines for the greater good and we call them laws. And all the other kinds of lines you indicated, Dwight, are part of our reality.

But in the contemporary church, I still contend that we are making a mess of drawing lines. What’s more, we seem to obsess on using a wide felt tip marker and don’t ever pick up a fine point. We seem to resist permeable lines (dotted lines?). One dotted line that seems to work is the one between ABC churches that support the National Council of Churches and the ABC churches that don’t. We’ve been able to live with this dotted line that allows us to be in fellowship and engage in mission but not sacrifice something we feel strongly about.

[You made reference to professional boundaries for clergy. I think this is profoundly different from lines we place between positions of theology or Biblical interpretation. I work hard to help church leaders understand these lines. The problem is putting lines in the right places in the right way.]

It’s hard to imagine not having some kind of line between racial groups. The color of our skin just keeps a fine line there. And we can’t help but notice the line between genders. But beyond that I feel called to act like an eraser as much of the time as possible. How do we get that line to be an honored, cultural identifier . . . a mark of heritage more than separation . . . Rather than having that line become a barrier to deep and enriching communication, caring and even worship? It seems to me that once you bless the line, someone comes along trying to make it wider and deeper.

Although our denomination supports women in ministry, not all our churches do. So far, we’ve been able to live with this fact. But it was still jarring last week when one of the churches in my region asked me not to pray in their worship. I knew enough not to preach or stand behind the pulpit but to not be allowed to pray was so very sad. Now I know in my heart and mind that God would love to have me preach and pray in all parts of my state, the USA and the world. I believe this line was drawn by humans, not God. But I still don’t want to separate myself from this church. We are part of a family and I must love them, hear them, and minister as I can among them. I believe I’m right but what if I’m wrong? I plan to listen and learn and grow until the day I die. I don’t want to draw a line that would keep me from being stretched.

Psychologists tell us that it’s healthier to focus on what we’re “for” rather than on what we’re “against.” For me, erasing lines (or minimizing them) is more positive than drawing them.

Dwight, you posed questions, “The key questions for us as a complex, spiritual (I hope) system are: 1) Is this a line consistent with God’s intent? 2) What kind of line does it need to be? 3) How will this community of faith draw and maintain this line?”
I don’t argue with the idea of these three questions but my weary mind envisions a decade of task forces and committees and study groups and hearings and I confess I’m tired. Where do we go from here?

My dream is of the people of God gathering together and working together celebrating the common ground they have rather than being distracted from their mission because they are so busy trying to draw and define lines. But maybe I’m one of those “delusional” ones.

What kind of line?

2006-01-30T06:48:00.000-08:00

Susan, I hope you will indulge me a little difference in approach to the issue of “lines.” I do not believe all lines are inherently evil, nor do I believe all line-drawing is driven by fear.

Early in high school I had thoughts of being an engineer. Listening to Saturn rocket static firings every week and attending school with the children of German rocket scientists certainly influenced that fleeting life script. As part of my preparation for that vocation, I took a course in engineering drawing.

I don’t remember too much of it, but I do remember that we learned how to draw many different kinds of lines and that each line had a distinct, essential function in the drawing. Bold, heavy lines were reserved for the object itself. Lighter lines, broken lines, phantom lines, dotted lines, etc., etc., were used to identify important attributes of the object, like dimensions, hidden features, etc.

We find a similar situation in systems thinking (which is rooted in biology). “Boundaries” (another form of line) range from hard, physical expressions (such as the shell on a clam) to more abstract descriptions of life functions from the subcellular to the macro-ecological level. But in every case, boundaries are essential to life. What distinguishes a living clam from an inanimate granite pebble is the ability of the clam’s boundary system to exercise discernment and selectively protect from attack, allow the passage of essential nutrients, and expel accumulating waste products.

In a similar way, psychologists and counselors speak of self-differentiation. As a gross, oversimplification this means that you are not me and I am not you. One of the important ways of respecting both you and myself is understanding the “line” between me and you. The line between married couples is different from the line between co-workers, but there is a line in both. There are also lines between men and women, racial lines, cultural lines, linguistic lines, etc. These are not unfailingly evil lines (although they may well be). As just one example, in the 60’s we often spoke of the goal of color blindness that would ultimately erase the race line. But we didn’t stop to think that if we erase color, then I may be erasing you and you may be erasing me. The problem resides not in the fact that I can see (and therefore, respect) you as a brown person and you can see me as a white person. The problem resides in what we do with the reality of that line. Is it a line that says, “Here I stop and you begin,” or is it a line that becomes an undiscerning, impenetrable barrier.

A line can include just as easily as it can exclude. (In fact, every line does both at the same time; it merely depends upon your perspective.) And neither function is always right or always wrong. Inclusion can be just as violent and oppressive as exclusion (Hitler drew a line to “include” Poland in the third Reich). Boundary training with pastors encourages them to draw lines excluding certain behaviors because they are detrimental both personally and professionally.

Jesus drew lines; lines that both included and excluded. Some of them are lines I puzzle over, but cannot easily dismiss. The early church struggled with lines as it moved into the world arena. Paul’s letters almost always address a church issue involving healthy and unhealthy lines.

Lines can protect, define, focus, warn, or guide.

With regard to ABC life it is not unusual for some in one camp to long for lines like granite, while others want no lines (but are delusional). From a life perspective we must have lines—lines of all kinds. The key questions for us as a complex, spiritual (I hope) system are: 1) Is this a line consistent with God’s intent? 2) What kind of line does it need to be? 3) How will this community of faith draw and maintain this line?

Drawing Lines

2005-12-27T18:35:00.000-08:00

People in southern Calif. are weird
East coast people are snobs
Northwest folks live in caffeine la-la land
Middle of the country people are so unimportant
Folks in rural areas are unsophisticated
The country is filled with hicks, effete elites, and folks of “limited capacity.”

So, even before we have differences in Biblical interpretation
Even before we have theological differences
Even before we discover basic life view differences . . .

We already had attitudes about each other
Or, perhaps more importantly, we thought we knew what others thought
of us and we resented it.

Many, many chips on many, many shoulders.

But what is common among us is a deep desire to take the good news to the world. And so, a denomination forms, taking this rag-tag group of folks from north, south, east and west and letting them focus on mission together. Perhaps it was inevitable that we would eventually take our eyes off the mission and look around at the people with whom we are joined and say “Oh, no! I didn’t realize I was working with snobs and weirdos and space cadets and country bumpkins! Where are the other normal people, like me?”

Then, add to this, the fact that we do have differences in our beliefs. Where do we draw the line at working with people who believe differently than we do? The drawing of lines is one of the things Christians have done prolifically. I do understand that there are always lines somewhere. The question is, do the lines we draw help our mission or hurt it. The damage caused by much of our line drawing has been profound. It may be that the disinterest in organized religion on the part of many in our society is because of our habitual line drawing. It has made observers distrustful of us, critical of us, cynical about us, utterly disappointed in us, dismissive of us – but more importantly it has interfered with their ability to hear the good news.

Why do we draw so many lines? Because we are insecure.

And that’s pitiful in Christians.

Board and GEC Recap

2005-11-28T07:28:00.000-08:00

Susan – I am sorry for my absence. No doubt you are frustrated by my silence because we promised one another to do this together. There are probably plenty of other things about me that you find frustrating. I want you to know that I do not take you for granted. I wish everyone had experienced your caring compassion in the same ways that I have.

Since there has been a little “distance” since the General Board and GEC meetings, I will venture to speak to those—even if it may not be appropriate.

I don’t think it is any secret that the Indiana-Kentucky Region (INKY) presented a petition to the General Board in June. It was a complex proposal that was appropriately introduced and duly received its first reading. As is the usual course of such proposals, it was worked on during the Summer and received its second reading at the November General Board meeting. As a result, the document “We Are American Baptists” was amended, adding the following line to the section “A Biblical People:”

Who submit to the teaching of Scripture that God’s design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching.

In one sense, there is nothing new here. Essentially the content of the ABCUSA Policy Statement on Family Life (7036:6/84) and the ABCUSA Resolution on Homosexuality (8200:10/92) were added to the document that the General Board had previously adopted as “an expression of Christian faith representative of American Baptists.”

In another sense, it is new to see something like this in our statement of faith.

I confess that I have mixed feelings about it. I agree with both the “Statement on Family Life” and the “Resolution on Homosexuality.” And I have no problem with the expectation that ABCUSA (and ABCUSA is not to be confused with any Region) teaching and behavior should be consistent with both. Indeed, statements adopted by the General Board should be sufficient. My uneasiness is in the elevation of such issues to the level of faith. But that uneasiness is not because I am moved by the tiresome charge of “creedalism.” I am uneasy because both marriage and sexuality, while important, remain peripheral to my core faith beliefs. To me these are morality and behavior issues; they are discipleship concerns and flow out of my faith. While very important (and essential considerations in ordination), they are neither the objects nor expressions of my faith.

At the same time, this is consistent with our pattern of behavior. American Baptists of all varieties have sought to have their issues endorsed at the highest level. It cannot be reduced to a question of “right” or “left,” “fundamentalist” or “liberal.” All across the spectrum it is done. Key documents tend to become exhaustive catalogs of behaviors and expectations because we cannot practice discernment and discipline. (And then we merely ignore them, because they don’t mean anything). And that is what I find really troubling.

I am also concerned about the inclusion of this line in our statement of faith because raises the stakes. It has the potential for increasing the conflict, not resolving it. In particular, it may raise false hopes and expectations. And I am concerned that we have set a pattern for the future. Will every issue become a candidate for inclusion in our statement of faith?

Nevertheless, this move could be predicted because of the frustration that the majority (yes, the majority) of our churches are experiencing over the inability/unwillingness of the General Board and the General Secretary to find Christ-centered, compassionate ways to implement policies and resolutions within the limits of their authority—and to say so clearly and publicly. As that frustration mounts, the chances for thoughtful action go down. If left unchecked, terrorism or revolution will result. As supposed leaders in this denomination, we must own up to our failure to lead through this frustration.

From another arena, I am not sure how public the General Executive Council (GEC) actions are, but I will venture to comment on them as well.

There were three actions of GEC reported to me (and everything I have to say is based on the accuracy of that report).

First Action: That the GEC express in writing a desire for PSW to remain in the Covenant of Relationships.

Second Action: That GEC appoints a group of people to craft and implement an intervention strategy that would engage PSW and all the other parties who have engaged in this process so far to bring to conclusion in a given time frame and report back to GEC in April of 2006.

Third Action: Building upon its action in the Spring of 2005, the GEC has observed a confluence of events that are symptomatic of a need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the very character of what it means to be a denomination in this day, and that we accordingly resolve to put in place a process to review the Covenant of Relationships to include a review of our values, structure, and decision-making processes that would form the basis of a new relationship together.

I affirm all three actions. We should not have gotten to this point without taking such action.

In particular, the Third Action is both significant and long overdue.

The debates around the Commission on Denominational Unity (CODU) report in 1997-98 exposed fundamental flaws in our organizational culture—in particular our inability to deal with deeply divisive concerns in constructive ways, especially if it means setting limits. The debates in the midst of Common Budget Covenant negotiations (which were not common public knowledge) also indicated to me a growing disregard for our covenantal life together. I concluded two years ago that our covenant life together was nominal at best.

I am not certain where this conversation will lead, but I hope that it is not too late. If the covenant partners (all 39? of us) cannot agree how we will be legally autonomous but covenantally interdependent at the same time (and also persuade/teach our churches what that means) then ABCUSA will dissipate into irrelevance.

Susan, a long time ago (too long ago) you asked me what I wanted. It is time to be obtuse—probably something you have come to expect from me. I want ABCUSA to act like a healthy family, not a madhouse full of self-centered juveniles.

You have never known me without a beard. While I have had a moustache since high school (grown in response to the rule that we couldn’t have one), beards have come and gone. The present facial hair was grown ten years ago while I was in Russia teaching Baptist pastors. The longer I was there, the more those students came to trust me and to ask more personal and pointed questions. Questions like: How much did I make? Did I tithe? Did my wife and daughter wear jewelry? Did I do baptisms in a stream or in a baptistery? Why do Americans hate Russians?

As Spring came and the time for my departure neared, I was asked about my beard. I knew from Russian history that Peter the Great had outlawed beards as part of his drive to modernize and westernize his empire. But there seemed to be more to it than that—at least among these young Baptist pastors.

I pressed to clarify the issue, and finally they were able to say: “What if your church doesn’t like it?” I was a little surprised that they did not ask about my wife or daughter, but were concerned about my pastoral relationship with my church—the household of God I was privileged to lead. When I understood what their question was, I could answer without hesitation, “Then I will shave it off.”

Follow-Up

2005-11-28T06:30:00.000-08:00

The Green Lake meetings are over. Nearly everyone acted like Christians almost all the time. And that’s very, very good. I find it deeply moving when debate at General Board is careful (and care-filled). I’ve seen it happen often when the discussion is around the most difficult issues.

The General Board approved the Indiana-Kentucky Resolution on the second reading. The General Secretary was re-elected. The General Executive Council made three decisions: 1) Write to PSW and ask them to stay in the family. 2) Assemble a small group of GEC members to make another attempt at persuading PSW to stay. 3) Begin a process for a complete review of our covenants.

Our problems aren’t over. But something more important is happening . . . Jesus. I hope I won’t be writing for a while; I’m going to focus on Advent.

Here We Go Again

2005-11-13T13:44:00.000-08:00

The blog has been pretty quiet of late. This week the General Board, its executive committee, the Regional Executive Ministers Council and the General Executive Council convene at Green Lake for regular meetings.

There are some who fear the middle will collapse at this meeting. There are those on the right who are actually hoping the Indiana/Kentucky resolution will fail so they can proceed with plans for either martyrdom or new life in a different organization. There are others on the right who hope the resolution will pass its second reading and that they will find some peace. There are those on the left who prefer to die rather than compromise. There are some on the left who want to cut a deal. There are folks on both ends of the spectrum who are tired and want it all to be over. There are folks on both ends of the spectrum who still have trouble believing that folks on the opposite end are actually Christians. There are folks right, left and center who want to end up in a more influential position that they had before. And there are some right, left and center who want us to focus more on mission than on division. There are folks coming to the meeting planning to end the tenure of the General Secretary. There are those coming who will defend him. And almost all these folks will profess to be seeking the greater good.

As far as I’m concerned, the holy outcome would be if we would move to a new level of listening to each other and caring for each other and following Jesus. Whether we stay together as a family or split into factions, it would be soooo much better if we could act like Christians in the process.

What Do You Want?

2005-10-24T16:35:00.000-07:00

What do you want, Dwight?
Do you want to recommend the middle make an alliance with the right? Or the left? (Do you want to suggest which one?) Does that mean, whack off the other side and move on? Does your scientific mind require resolution? Will we continue to do this every time we disagree?

Being human, much less Baptist, much less American Baptist, means there will be unresolvables. Our challenge is to determine how much we can tolerate. The even greater question is “Is there a common mission in which we can engage, regardless of our differences?” The answer to this question has kept Baptists going for years. Because there is ALWAYS a common mission – if we’ll just focus on it rather than on our denominational bellybutton.

One region executive told me today that those from every side in his region can gather around the “Children In Poverty” emphasis being lifted up by the home mission folks (NM). He plans to get going.

Dwight writes about a shrinking middle. Another part of what he described is what I call a “sagging” middle. I realize the word “sag” is not appreciated by persons past 50 who resent the thought of anything “sagging.” But life is what it is. The truth is, a taught rope will eventually sag. It just happens.

Some members of the radical middle in ABC life are sagging. Time goes on. The issues can’t be fully resolved. No one seems to win -- and when they do, they act like they’ve lost. We tire of living in the in between.

What happens if the middle disappears? If that happens, what will bring left and right to the table of listening, learning, growing? I can understand why folks on the left and those on the right would like to walk away – just hang out with folks who think like they do. What’s happening now is that the middle is weary and may walk away. The destination is unclear, however, the consequences are very clear.

I repeat, what do you want, Dwight?

The Shrinking "Middle"

2005-10-24T07:15:00.000-07:00

I struggle with how to underscore the seriousness of our situation without sounding like a doomsday prophet. I know I don’t always succeed.

Recent action by the region of West Virginia needs to be seriously considered. You can read their full report at http://216.30.200.250/business%20session.pdf . The short version is that a motion to begin action toward withdrawal from ABCUSA was defeated AND a motion to affirm and support the leadership of ABCUSA was also defeated.

I find the votes extremely interesting, and very troubling.

The motion to begin action to leave ABCUSA was narrowly defeated (325 to 391). The motion to affirm and support the leadership of ABCUSA was also narrowly defeated (267 to 402). Voter analysis is always risky business, but I do it anyhow! It seems that there were about 100 swing votes during this convention. The distribution, by my calculations may be described as 46% are ready to talk about leaving right now, 38% want to support and affirm ABCUSA (at least for the time being), and about 14% are not really happy in either camp.

My strained observations are:

First: The “middle” is smaller than I imagined (I had thought it was more like 20-30%). Yes, I know this is only one region—but it does make me wonder; perhaps I am living with a delusion. Neither side has the power (at least at this point) to impose its will (and I have seen this repeatedly). Only when the middle is won (which can be done by either side, at least mathematically) does a majority emerge.

Second: 60% of those voting are so profoundly disaffected from ABCUSA that they cannot publicly affirm and support the leadership—even by a pretty anemic resolution. About 100 of those who had rejected action that was headed toward withdrawal still would not publicly affirm ABCUSA. From my experience, it would be a mistake to presume that that all those who want to be supportive of ABCUSA approve of leadership actions in our present situation.

An exclusive “middle” will not hold the day. Somehow, a coalition must be drawn toward the middle from those on either side. If that does not happen: 1) either side may attract and energize sufficient numbers from the middle to achieve majority, or 2) those in the middle will disengage and not participate, effectively removing themselves from the playing field.

Is anybody listening?

Presbyterian Task Force

2005-10-21T07:24:00.000-07:00

Like Susan says, it has been a while. Between regional meetings, meetings with pastors regarding the conflict in ABCUSA, and writing in response to that conflict, I have been absent from this blog. I truly feel that any wisdom I may have had in this situation has been long since exhausted.

No doubt you are aware that the issue of homosexuality has every American denomination in its grip. Recently the 217th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA received a report from its Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church. It is entitled simply Peace Unity Purity. The entire text can be downloaded at http://www.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity . Scroll down to find the final report and study guide (it is in pdf, so you will need Adobe Reader).

I am not a Presbyterian and have no desire to be a Presbyterian. I do not agree with everything in their report (after all, I am a Baptist—regardless of what some may think). But there are some things from that report that are worthy of our attention.

The Task Force was specifically charged to address four issues that have been the focus of controversy and conflict in PCUSA: biblical authority and interpretation, Christology, ordination standards, and power. I believe the same issues are at work in ABCUSA.

In the course of Bible study, reflection and spiritual discernment, the Task force discovered several characteristics of the present conflict (in their own words, with no implied endorsement):

First, those of us associated with the Anglo traditions that have dominated the Presbyterian Church (USA) came to understand how much alienation and pain we have caused by past oppression of other racial and ethnic groups and by currently maintaining barriers to the full inclusion of those groups’ members, cultures, and gifts.

Second, those of us who identify our views as liberal came to understand how alienating it is for conservatives and evangelicals when their passionate commitment to holy living and upright conduct are labeled as rigid and judgmental.

Third, those of us who identify our views as conservative came to understand how alienating it is for liberals when their passionate commitment to justice and compassion are labeled as unbiblical.

Fourth, those of us who identify our views as moderate came to understand how alienating it is when those with passionate concerns on either end of the theological spectrum are labeled extreme and divisive.

Fifth, many of us came to understand how alienating it is for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons to be so regularly identified as a major threat to the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

Sixth, many of us also came to understand how alienating it is for those who support a ban on the ordination of non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to be accused of prejudice, and how alienating it is for those who oppose such a ban to be accused of moral laxity.

Seventh, all of us came to see that the Presbyterian Church (USA), in its current factionalized state that we have all created together by our mutual stereotyping and misuse of power, fails to offer a suffering world a sign of peace, unity, and purity that is God’s gift to us in Jesus Christ.

While the Task Force worked hard and honestly, they did not overcome our differences and reach agreement on all the issues.

They did note that the most serious disagreements were not over biblical interpretation per se, but focus on what constitutes faithful pastoral application of scriptural teaching or on which passages of Scripture are relevant to a particular question.

While the Task Force was not asked to take a position on human sexuality or ordination, they did come to agreement on several points:

It is a grave error to deny baptism or church membership to gay and lesbian persons or to withhold pastoral care to them or their families.

Those who aspire to ordination must lead faithful lives. Those who demonstrate licentious behavior should not be ordained.

Sexual behavior is integral to Christian discipleship, leadership, and community life. It is not purely a personal matter.

Sexual orientation is, in itself, no barrier to ordination.

Perhaps most challenging for us of Baptist persuasion is the conclusion: Truth, holiness, and righteousness matter as pathways to discipleship, in both the life of the church as a body and in the lives of its members. Ultimately, the church cannot simply agree to disagree on important matters of faith and practice. Church polity must provide ways for serious disagreements to be resolved. But resolution by merely technical or legal means will not endure because it does not address the conflict of convictions that gave rise to the disagreements in the first place. Only a resolution with theological integrity can be sustained.

Elsewhere they speak of a church both preoccupied with and weary of conflict. That certainly rings true for me in ABCUSA. While some are openly encouraged by certain departures or disengagements, and chastise those who leave “in a huff,” I suspect many more are leaving and disengaging because of fatigue and discouragement. They are not angry or self-righteous; they are in great pain and have an abiding sense of loss.

Walking Very Carefully

2005-10-12T07:45:00.000-07:00

Well, you’ve noticed quite a gap between Sept. 21 and today. It may be because some folks have been holding their breath -- not as a belligerent child having a temper tantrum (we’ve been through that already) – but rather as a time of fragile watching as the denomination and its critics move carefully in a way that just might lead toward on-going life together.

The good news in ABC life is there is a softening in positions among some key leaders. There are those (on both/all sides) who are truly trying to find a way to lead this denomination through these troubled waters. Thank you to those who are staying open and are willing to re-think and try again.

I encourage those of you who have emotionally “thrown in the towel” to pick it up again. This tenacious ABC may be flawed but it has deep roots and a will to live that is overcoming the obstacles being thrown in its way. It’s like the weed that pushes up through the concrete. It may not be beautiful but it has a purpose and a vision and is determined to live.

Each church in the denomination has received a letter from the General Secretary clarifying current policies. [The amount of mis-information has been distressing. There are certainly serious concerns and disagreements but we don’t need the confusion of false information. Much of this has circulated as in the old party game “telephone.” Each person hears a message slightly differently from the way it was said and by the time you get to the end of the line, the message is a mess.] The letter from the General Secretary also defines the direction he intends to lead us.

I have nothing profound to say today. It’s a time for prayer and care. [But I thought if I put something on the blog, Dwight might be tempted to share some wisdom.]

Irreconcilable Differences

2005-09-21T06:05:00.000-07:00

I, too, am suffering from a profound sadness. I also have some anger.

My last entry to this blog sounds foolish now. I thought we would naturally put aside our arguments for a time and focus on the gulf coast and obviously I was wrong.

The PSW region stated they have “irreconcilable differences” with ABC-USA. What a profoundly troubling selection of words. The words “irreconcilable differences” are the most often used words to describe the legal reasons for a divorce. I felt I had to use those words once in my life but I didn’t like them then and I don’t like them now. As a Christian I don’t believe there are irreconcilable differences. As church leaders, we try to help folks reconcile the irreconcilable. Jesus specializes in the impossible and we work for him.

But for a moment, let’s agree that a region and a denomination can have irreconcilable differences on a particular issue. Why does that justify breaking up a denomination?
We live in a culture that encourages all or nothing. I’m trying to figure out why we don’t have actions we can take short of execution. Folks disagree with the position on an issue of a pastor (or Executive Minister) (or denomination) and the choice seems to be keep them or get rid of them. Nothing in-between.

On the other hand, I can think of some very healthy churches I have know over the years that were different. I heard an old-timer say that he remembered Rev. “A” as a wonderful pastor. “He was absolutely wrong on the subject of ------. But he was a wonderful pastor.” A serious disagreement on one very serious issue wasn’t enough to terminate the relationship.

Today we are much more into punishment rather than healthy criticism. Why couldn’t a region board make a declaration that, in their opinion, the denomination is incorrect in its position or its procedures? And then get on with the tasks of evangelism and caring ministries? Go on record and then get on with ministry.

Our life of faith is a pilgrimage. We are granted eternal life with God when we accept Christ. But then the journey starts. The rest of our lives we work on improving ourselves, growing more Christ-like. The church is a place for people with bad habits, distorted understandings, off-base opinions, and limited Biblical insight -- people on a pilgrimage, trying to be faithful. On that journey, we may grow steadily and surely, or we may grow suddenly and dramatically, or we may stubbornly cling to a sin for years before seeing the light. And when that light fills us, sooner or later, we may discover what we thought was irreconcilable, isn’t.

A Sad Day

2005-09-14T06:31:00.000-07:00

I just got back in the office this morning and read the Associated Baptist Press release reporting the action of the Board of Directors initiating the withdrawal of the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest (PSW) from ABCUSA. [ link to story ]

I am sick. And there is no way I can write about my profound grief without it sounding like I am pontificating. So I will keep this brief.

I am sad because this action seems contrary to what I have been told by the leadership of PSW, both publicly and privately. I don’t know if things got out of their control, we weren’t trusted enough to hear the truth, or if we were deliberately deceived. Until proven otherwise, I choose to believe it was the first or second. But I am still sad, because I have friends and colleagues in PSW.

I am sad because some will rejoice, thinking that a major thorn in their side has been removed, and now all will be happiness and joy in ABCUSA and we can get back to business as usual. The habit of identifying two or three regions, one or two organizations, and/or a half dozen individuals as the source of our conflict does not bear up under close scrutiny. This conflict is widespread and goes down into the very roots of our being. The debate is about who we are (our identity), not what we do. The conflict will remain with us.

I am sad because my reading of Baptist history says that we have been diminished every time there has been a departure under such circumstances. We become more homogeneous and, consequently, wear blinders because an important corrective voice is no longer present. Make no mistake; this will significantly impact the identity, programs, and resources of ABCUSA.

I am sad because this has great symbolic significance. And I can’t embrace what it symbolizes. This is but one example of the distorted sense of autonomy that has seized many of us and is being reflected in the institutions/organizations we lead and represent. I do not believe koinonia is optional for Christians. Indeed, I am absolutely persuaded that it has theological priority over autonomy, at least in the way autonomy has come to be expressed among us. If we cannot express the same passion for koinonia that some of us do for autonomy, we will not stay together.

How About A Postponement?

2005-09-12T17:58:00.000-07:00

No, Dwight, I can’t accept that we are past the tipping point. I respect your intelligence and wisdom so I realize you may be right. But, right now, I can’t accept it. [I am absolutely with you in not having much heart to continue talking about the practice of homosexuality. In the last two weeks I’ve thought about calling you and suggesting we quit this blog.]

I have been encouraged by grass roots responses to Katrina while large relief organizations have struggled to come up to speed to respond to a disaster of this vast dimension. I have seen people who disagree on issues work together to respond to hurting people. And isn’t that why we became a denomination in the first place?

Short of a miracle (which I fully believe could happen) we are not going to resolve our differences on the practice of homosexuality. Too much fear. Too much hostility. Too much polarization. So, do we dump everyone on one side or the other? Or, can we decide to minister together to the displaced, the poor, the lost – bringing them help, hope, and the good news? Can’t we do this even if we think some of the people we are working with are absolutely wrong on some issues?

As I’ve written on this blog before, American Baptists feel very strongly about abortion. They feel very strongly on both sides of the issue. But we realized that we were not going to come to agreement so we agreed to disagree. That doesn’t mean we never talk about it. There are those on both sides who work to help others see another perspective and consider changing their minds. We seek to encourage, teach, listen, understand as the discussion continues. But the discussion is not keeping us from our greater mission – letting folks know God loves them.

We have before us a disaster of huge consequences. Our attention and our energy needs to be devoted to the greatest love response ever seen in this country. Let's take the risk. Let’s lay down our weapons of debate, threat and fear, and get busy helping, hoping and loving.

There will be plenty of time later to fight with each other.

Fear Sets Priorities

2005-09-09T06:04:00.000-07:00

Sounds like Susan has been enjoying her own “circle of fear.” Actually, it sounds more like the old football drill I learned as “bull-in-the-ring.” I have had lots of experience with the latter. And, like Susan, I stay there and take the hits because I love God and because I try to love those God put me with to form community centered in Christ. (Although she is undoubtedly better at that than I am.)

However, following Hurricane Katrina, I must admit that I don’t have much stomach for these discussions. (I really didn’t have much to begin with.) It seems like everything has gotten out of perspective.

One of my colleagues was in Dallas with evacuees, and I spoke with her yesterday. As overwhelming as the physical devastation has been, she described psychological devastation even greater. She spoke of trying to comfort children who had become separated from parents, having no idea of where they were or even if they were alive. She spoke of one girl who had been unable to sleep because her recurrent dream included floating bodies. I expect we will continue to see the scars of this tragedy 20 years from now.

But she also spoke with great satisfaction that the Church was present, and was bringing hope. The Corps of Engineers may plug the levees. The Red Cross may feed people. The government may rebuild infrastructure. Humanitarian physicians may stitch the wounds. Habitat for Humanity may erect houses. But no one can bring healing to seared psyches like the Church—at least when it truly acts as the presence of the living Christ. While hurricane relief should never assume the full manifestation of the Kingdom of God, it is a graphic reminder that there is more at stake, and that we should give some consideration to our priorities as citizens of that Kingdom and as disciples of its King.

I really do not believe the Kingdom of God hinges on the denominational acceptance of clergy who are openly and actively homosexual. Likewise, I do not believe the Kingdom of God hinges on a denomination-wide sweep, purging every vestige or hint of homosexual (or any other aberrant) behavior.

But fear has other plans. Despite its eclectic, fictional spirituality, the Star Wars series understands that “fear is the path to the dark side.” That path is littered with priorities raised by fear.

And so, like Susan, I find myself again and again in the ring. The priority that fear has set for me includes personal visits with 15 pastor clusters, costing about $3000 in mission dollars, and devouring my time and energy like a black hole. The priority that fear has set for me includes running worst case scenarios of funding and its impact on regional mission and ministry as I plan the budget for next year. The priority that fear has set for me includes two major denominational projects for which I simply do not have any heart. (And I know that I am not singing a solo.)

Fear has hijacked every discussion group I have been part of for the last nine years. A long time ago I learned a simple pattern for groups working toward decisions. That pattern is F-F-I-D. First, you express and deal with feelings. Then you gather and examine facts. Then you consider the implications of various decisions. And, finally, you make a decision. Fear is an emotion, a feeling. We never get past the “feelings” part of this formula. Even people who are trained and who should know better get stuck in the quagmire of feelings, and the prevailing feeling is fear.

In one of my recent meetings a pastor spoke, nearly with tears. “Let me be clear. I am absolutely confident that homosexual intimacy is sin. We should not be ordaining persons who engage in this sin any more than we should those who are unrepentant of any other sin. I have never found it necessary to approve of or make excuses for sin as I minister to people. But I do have ministry to do, and this fight is an unnecessary distraction. Both of you, please take it some where else.”

In another meeting, after Katrina, I stole a few minutes to advocate for relief. One of the avenues I suggested was One Great Hour of Sharing. Afterwards a person came up to me and said, “I won’t trust American Baptists with my money. I will give to XXXX instead.” The church was one of the largest financial supporters in the entire denomination.

I think that hurt worse than any of the other darts that have been hurled at me. I had always thought that, of all the ABC offering channels, One Great Hour of Sharing was the most resistant to ideological and theological sentiments.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a great little book: The Tipping Point. He analyzes major social changes using the analogy of a contagious epidemic. Because of my previous life in medical research I find that very interesting. Fear is epidemic. I have come to fear that we have passed the tipping point.

The Price of Fellowship?

2005-09-01T14:08:00.000-07:00

I think the “Circle of Fear” is amazing. I need to think about it. Perhaps next week, I’ll ask some questions.

I’m just back from a trip visiting seven churches in four days, listening to what the folks are talking about and doing, sharing some stories, sharing meals, worshiping, celebrating an ordination, and, in one case, enduring a grueling interrogation asking me how the ABC could have gotten itself into the mess that particular congregation feels we are in. I listened, I explained history, I explained process, I listened some more, and I prayed for them. A couple of things were brutally clear to me that night. 1. A time like this is a really crummy time to teach effective means of Biblical study or Baptist history and polity. [but better now than never] 2. We haven’t learned how to debate tough issues with grace. Some of the folks in the room were angry, one was rude and most of the silent ones showed grace after the evening ended. I left the church building with more than a little frustration. I’ve endured some pretty dramatic church fights but somehow, on this particular evening, I was spent in a way I’ve never experienced before. I had tried to absorb their anger and fury and it nearly did me in. You see, I love them.

In Sunday School in the 1950s the Judson curriculum taught me “Baptists believe the Bible is the word of God and our authority in all matters of faith and Christian living.” I believe it. I memorized it. And yet, I own too many material things, I am not generous enough, I speak in church, I wear jewelry in church without one iota of guilt, I eat too much, I am divorced, I cut my hair. I am not above gossip and critiquing people I have no business critiquing. I can go days without praying for the poor (or even thinking of them). My prayer life has known times of dryness. I am a bad steward of my time. I am not a theologian or a Bible scholar; I am a teacher/broadcaster who got sidetracked by God into denominational work. I still think of myself as a layperson. Since I was a child, I have tried to live my faith in my daily life. But, obviously, I have had limited success. Just like most other American Baptists.

My pastor sent me an e-mail this week with a quotation from Bible scholar, C.E.B. Cranfield. It’s in Barclay’s commentary on I Peter 3:8-12 and his consideration of unity as a quality of the Christian life."The New Testament never treats this agreeing in Christ as an unnecessary though highly desirable spiritual luxury, but as something essential to the true being of the Church. Divisions, whether disagreements between individual members or the existence of factions and parties and- how much more!- our present-day denominations, constitute a calling in question of the Gospel itself and a sign that those who are involved are carnal. The more seriously we take the New Testament, the more urgent and painful becomes our sense of the sinfulness of the divisions, and the more earnest our prayers and strivings after the peace and unity of the Church on earth. That does not mean that the like-mindedness we are to strive for is to be a drab uniformity of the sort beloved of bureaucrats. Rather is it to be a unity in which powerful tensions are held together by an over-mastering loyalty, and strong antipathies of race and colour, temperament and taste, social position and economic interest, are overcome in common worship and common obedience. Such unity will only come when Christians are humble and bold enough to lay hold on the unity already given in Christ and to take it more seriously than their own self-importance and sin, and to make of these deep differences of doctrine, which originate in our imperfect understanding of the Gospel and which we dare not belittle, not an excuse for letting go of one another or staying apart, but rather an incentive for a more earnest seeking in fellowship together to hear and obey the voice of Christ."

Circle of Fear

2005-08-29T07:19:00.000-07:00

After spending most of the day on the road, I collapsed on the sofa. As usual, TV had little to offer. Then I ran across “The Eagles Farewell 1 Tour – Live from Melbourne.” (Yes, I know that tour was last year, but that is how far behind I am) Some music was just what I needed.

While the lyrics and tunes were very familiar, the sound was richer and the harmonies more complex. I remember when rock and roll bands were quartets: lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass guitar, and trap drum. This stage was sixty feet across. There were five guitars, two percussionists, a piano, an electronic keyboard, and a four-man brass section.

Even within that grouping the complexity (the diversity) was incredible. I deliberately called two of them “percussionists” because the music involved more than the trap drum. There were tom-toms, marimbas, and things I can’t even name. The “brass section” included saxophones, trumpets, and even occasionally stepped outside the category to play violin.

The musicians seemed to move effortlessly from one instrument to another, adapting to the style of the music. I am certain that I saw Joe Walsh hitting licks on five different guitars.

But in the end, it all came down to the music. This was complex harmony and rhythm, not merely noise (despite what my parents may have said). Each musician was attuned to the same musical score, which was bigger than any one of them.

The TV broadcast was from the DVD, so the music was interspersed with interviews of the musicians.

Don Henley was obviously happy with the way the sound of the band had evolved from the early Seventies. While the lyrics and root tunes remained constant, he credited the continual adaptation and tweaking of the harmonies and supporting sound tracks for the richness of the music. He gave a lot of credit to Glenn Frey for the evolving arrangements.

Glenn had a somewhat different take on why the band sounded so much better. The tight harmonies and full sound don’t just happen. He said “Now we listen to one another on the stage. We didn’t do much of that in the Seventies.” (My recollection; the quotes aren’t exact.)

I grew up doing music, but I was stunned. Here are 13 musicians, playing and singing (and acting) on an open-air stage with twenty- or thirty-thousand screaming fans, and they are listening to one another!?

Glenn went on to explain that the full band did a sound check each and every day on the performance stage. Equipment was checked and re-checked. Then the eight vocalists went to a small room for the “Circle of Fear.” Now he really had my attention.

The “Circle of Fear” consists of eight chairs arranged in a circle, so the vocalists can see and hear one another. Then, with a single acoustic guitar, they sing, with full harmony, each song of the concert.

There is no possibility of hiding or making excuses. Your voice is right “out there.” Either it is the correct song, or not. Either it is on pitch, or not. Either it is on rhythm, or off beat. Either it blends or it clashes. Everyone knows what everyone else is doing. The purpose of this exercise is not to celebrate one another’s musical gifts (that is a given at this point). The purpose is to “tune” the individual vocalists into a single, cohesive band.

Because they go through this harrowing exercise again and again they are able to hear one another during the concert. Because they have listened carefully to one another, and adjusted their own pitch and rhythm in private, they are able to produce a full, rich sound on a public stage. Because the listening has given them confidence that each band member knows the tune and rhythm, and is “dead on” with pitch, they are free to improvise during the show.

FEAR

2005-08-19T13:17:00.000-07:00

Dwight’s paper is full of discussion topics. When I worked at Valley Forge (I left there five years ago) there was much talk about and work toward re-organization. The problem from my perspective was that the proposals led to a stronger hierarchical structure. I kept trying to point out – and I don’t think I did it well – that our current structure seemed more suited to Baptists -- the mission societies, the regions, a small organizing center (Office of the General Secretary).

The drive to reorganize failed, probably because it was packed with dozens of different “agendas,” and it was proposed at a time of extremely low trust. My mistake was that I was too pre-1970s in my thinking. The ABC had already become too centralized and the train was moving.

We need to talk much more about the ideas in Dwight’s paper but today I want to focus on the conclusion of that paper and Dwight’s challenge regarding living together. I have become increasingly troubled by the extent fear plays in our denominational and church life these days (not to mention the impact on each of us, personally).

Fear inhibits careful deliberation. Fear blocks, distracts, numbs, as well as inflames. It is hard to have a thoughtful discussion with folks who are truly scared of some imagined (or real) consequence.

I understand the fear that people will leave our churches, or churches will leave our regions, or regions will leave our denomination. But even justified fears cannot be allowed to distract us from the larger mission. The best way to deal with fear is to take it apart and examine it. Get it in perspective. Sort through reasonable alternatives.

I have met with several local church groups recently who seem overcome with fear. What will people think of our denomination? [They were referring to the chance that someone would read a particular Statement of Concern on the internet.] What if I’m seen associating with people with whom I disagree?

I don’t understand the fear that says, “what if somebody finds out that there is an American Baptist church that is crazy.” There have always been dissenting ABC churches and, very probably, there have always been just plain crazy ABC churches. I agree that there are always boundaries and our current debate is specific to how to set and maintain boundaries. But the challenge is to deal with the problems step by step. Yes, even if it takes years. What doesn’t help is to dramatize the threat to gigantic proportions, demonize the opposition, and then discover you have no time or energy left to do all the good that you are capable of doing.

Perfect love casts out fear. Evidently there’s not much perfect love around because if you just type in the word “fear” on Google, you’ll get 62,800,000 entries. We should apologize to Jesus.

A Minimalist Denomination

2005-08-15T06:55:00.000-07:00

This is a way too long response/reflection on Susan's request for a history lesson. It is a paper I wrote (primarily for myself) about 4 years ago when I was engaged in some of the (failed) reorganization work of ABCUSA.

**********

What does it mean for ABC/USA and its constituent regions to constitute a “minimalist denomination?”

It does not mean irrelevant or ineffective; it does not necessarily mean small. It does mean recognizing the limits of denominationalism. Some of those limits are rooted in our Baptist heritage and distinctives.

The earliest history of Baptist associations in England reveals an uncomfortable relationship to military organization during the Civil War (1642-1649). I have seen no evidence for such a connection in the United States. Here we developed a more theological basis for association, which reveals a concern for some sort of cooperation around the issues of (1) fellowship in the larger Body of Christ, (2) doctrinal faithfulness and public witness, and (3) clergy selection and ordination. It was only during the 1800’s that “missions” became a rallying point for unity and fundraising.

The present denominational organization of American Baptists is fundamentally a product of concepts from the 50’s and 60’s, with strong roots going back into the 19th Century. This is proving to be a liability for both national and regional organizations as we move into the 21st Century.

The very idea of denominations is suspect in some quarters. It is argued that the days of denominations are limited, and that they will be replaced an explosion of “independent” churches reflecting all kinds of traditions and creating new ones. Some of the reasons for this include:

· Widespread weariness of the very idea of denominations
· The inability of denominations to deal with divisive issues
· Growing “generic” forms of Christianity (fundamental, evangelical, liberal, neo-evangelical, post-modern, etc.) which challenge existing denominations and forge new kinds of ecumenism
· Suspicions about raising money and “giving it to some board somewhere else” to do mission and ministry which does not seem linked to a local congregation’s ministry and competes for limited resources
· A sense that denominations are somehow controlling and inhibiting faithful response to the Gospel, especially by individuals, by rigidly packaging and presenting Christianity

While the symptoms described are real, denominations are not fading from the scene. In fact, if we use a functional definition of “denomination,” there are more denominations today than there were 30 years ago. It seems to be part of our religious nature to create community networks that function as denominations—regardless of the name we give them. However, the critique does show how the historic denominational structures are out-of-sync with current attitudes toward and expectations of larger organizations. And it is clear that denominations are changing—those that refuse to change will fade into the ecclesiastical woodwork.

Many of the necessary changes are “Baptist-friendly.” They are already in our genes. Some have gone dormant, and they need to be reactivated. Some are no longer serving us well, and need to be shut down. Others need to adapt, mutate into something new.

Baptists started out with minimal denominational structures, because we had minimal expectations of our denomination. In fact, because of our emphasis on congregationalism, we might be best described as an “ecumenical federation.”

Most importantly, the denomination was never seen as synonymous with “the Church” for Baptists. In a very real sense, denominational organizations and institutions are para-church. “Para” meaning that they stand alongside of and depend on churches. The denomination was never supra-church. Even in the case of missions, the early debates among Baptists often exposed a fear that mission organizations were usurping the rights and responsibilities of churches.

Certainly the description of American Baptist denominational structures and institutions as “parachurch” will raise some hackles. There are at least two reasons for this. First, there is a knee-jerk reaction against those organizations that have been popularly understood as parachurch organization. Second, it reveals the widespread presumption that denomination is church. Therefore, organizations and institutions within the denominational umbrella cannot, by definition, be parachurch. We would be more correct to describe such institutions not as parachurch, but intradenominational.

We followed the lead of most American denominations in the 50’s and 60’s, becoming an activist, “full-service” denomination. This denominational structure was expected not only to meet every conceivable need of every one of its churches (i.e. “full-service”), but also to lead the way into exciting new ministries. To meet this need, and consistent with Post-WW II organizational philosophy, denominational structure became large, complex, bureaucratic, and totalizing.

Expansionist denominationalism requires finances and commands uniform vision/values. The greater the expansionism, the more finances are required, and the greater conformity to vision/values is required. It does not matter if the vision/values are predominately fundamental, liberal, Calvinist, orthodox, evangelical, Pentecostal, neo-evangelical, charismatic, neo-orthodox, or post-modern. An expansionist, totalitarian denomination can be rooted in any one of these.

My premise is simple: Our 19th Century Baptist forebears had it right with modest expectations from their denomination. If we are to affirm the fundamental place of the local congregation in the scheme of things (and maximize the freedom of those congregations), then there must be limits to denominationalism (and, in Baptist ecclesiology, denominational organization must be accountable to the churches). Those limits must be reflected in our expectations from the denomination.

REACTIVATE OUR GENES OF DENONOMINATIONAL MINIMALISM

This is not only Baptist, it is consistent with the growing attitude of localism and regionalism in America. We expect more from those closest to us. We are more deeply invested in those closest to us. We trust most, those who are closest to us.

The dark side of localism/regionalism is isolationism and arrogant individualism. One of the most important roles of a 21st Century denomination will be to counter these with a sound theological base and practice of Christ-centered community. Isolationism and individualism (under the sacred guise of “autonomy”) is a glaring weakness in Baptist thought.

While advocating the reactivation of 19th Century Baptist denominational philosophy, this does not imply a return to 19th Century organizations. A number of organizational arrangements are capable of incarnating a minimalist denomination. We cannot return to the 19th Century structures because the 19th Century no longer exists. Transportation is different, communication is different, work styles are different, information technology is different, and the world is different. Any organization form is transient. Some are more timely than others.

SHUT DOWN OUR GENES OF FULL-SERVICE DENOMINATIONALISM

While finances have made the full-service denomination (a denomination that attempts to do everything) a thing of the past, we must not forget that the demand for full-service tends toward expansionist totalitarianism and is contrary to Baptist ecclesiology. In addition to limited finances, several other things conspire against full-service denominations. One of the most important is the explosion of alternative resources available.

Churches are no longer at the mercy of their denomination for otherwise unavailable curriculum resources, training conferences, or mission opportunities. It is especially true that American Baptists have never enjoyed the kind of denominational “brand loyalty” that characterizes certain other denominations (even though we coveted it and aspired to it). But it is even less so today. If the sole (or most important) reason for the existence of a denomination is the production of a full-range of resources and opportunities with the denominational label on them, the ABC probably has no reason for being.

Granted, denominations are all different. A small handful of denominations still strive to provide full-service to their congregations. They have the resources to do it (it takes a large denomination to provide a full range of services and resources, just like it takes a large congregation to provide a full range of services), or they have an ecclesiology that demands it, or they are homogeneous enough to make it work. In all cases, these denominations are swimming upstream.

Full-service denominationalism also has the unfortunate effect of creating an environment of hierarchical parentalism. Churches can come to expect the denomination to “take care of” all their problems. They can become passive and disempowered. The relationship between church and denomination becomes dysfunctional.

If the denomination of the future will not be full-service, what are the implications for us? (I claim no originality in any of these.)

We are well into the Information Age. I believe that the primary role of denominations will be service to churches, not to produce programs or manufacture “stuff.” Service is rooted in relationship. Denominations must cultivate relationships in order to better understand and service churches and their leaders—not in order to tap into finances. Denominational service in the 21st Century will include:

· Mending nets – We must assemble and care for the network of churches, pastors, leaders, and missionaries that comprise the frontline of Christian ministry and mission. This may be our most important work, and may be the hardest to “sell.”
· Discerning resources – Churches today are overwhelmed with resources (curriculum choices, training conferences, video productions, etc.) and opportunities. Churches and their leaders need help in identifying, evaluating, and applying them. That service can only be provided by denominational staff persons who bother to learn the church, its leaders, its context, and what is appropriate in that place and time. Churches will not welcome denominational workers perceived as “sales agents” or exclusive advocates for denominational opportunities.
· Shedding weight – The duplication of curriculum resources and training conferences is arrogant, wasteful, and unnecessary. Why not direct a church to a good curriculum (regardless of who produces it) rather than insisting that we must produce something with our brand on it? Why not help a Pastor go to a good conference rather than insist on designing one of our own? If there is not something both valuable and distinctive about an opportunity, why offer it? Limited finances make it impossible for us to do everything—even every good thing. Shedding weight will mean eliminating some cherished things and even some good things. It must be done with discernment. But it must be done.
· Tailoring products – Even with the cornucopia of resources and opportunities available, some things that distinctively address the needs of American Baptists will not be developed by others. These materials must be produced in forms and distributed in ways that are consistent with the 21st Century, not the 19th Century. Some of these resources will be easily identifiable: American Baptist history and polity, or ethnic diversity, for example. But others may be more subtle. The bulk of ABC churches are modestly-sized Pastoral or Program churches. The resource needs of these churches are very different from both Mega-churches and Multi-Program churches. These churches are contrary to a culture that values the niche marketing of the tiny specialty shop, and the comprehensive marketing of a Super Wal-Mart, but seems to have no place for anything in-between. (I note that some church gurus have vocally given up on these churches). Market production seems geared toward larger churches, or those wishing to become larger. We must spend more time and energy custom-tailoring high impact resources for modest Pastoral and Program churches.

Another important way to move away from denominational totalitarianism is to recognize that ABCUSA is a many-layered cake. Must everything really be determined on the layer of the General Board? Our history and our structure answers clearly, NO! No region board can prescribe action for the General Board. And there are legal, covenantal, and ecclesiological limits to what the General Board can prescribe for regional boards. Both are subject to the churches which elect their representatives.

MUTATE OUR GENES OF FIERCE INDIVIDUALISM TO CHRIST-CENTERED COMMUNITY

American emphasis on the Enlightenment ideal of individual freedom has proven to be inimical to community. Both society and church have been affected. Baptist distinctives of soul competency, priesthood of the believer, and religious freedom (which are not the same thing), have become distorted in this environment.

The loss of community is evidenced in the “pew rage” which is present in so many of our churches and in our denominational meetings. We are not civil to one another; churches abuse pastors; and pastors, in turn, abuse churches; etc, etc.

Denominations are not only a utilitarian way of getting things done together. Denominations are also a way of being. In particular, they are a way of being together in Christ. Denominations need to be less about what we do, and more about who we are (and are becoming) in Christ.

Who we are (self-definition) requires healthy boundaries. We need to get over the juvenile suspicion that the mere presence of limits is proof of sinister totalitarian oppression. Boundaries are a sign of maturity—psychologically, socially, and theologically. The real questions are: “What are the boundaries? Who sets them? And How?” In particular, we need to be clear about the boundaries between congregation and denomination.

Denominational minimalism becomes a strategy here. The more we demand of our denomination, the more comprehensive and homogeneous the “rules” of community become. We can live together with less comprehensive “rules,” and with more diversity if we “bracket out” some areas and say to our denomination: “Don’t go there!” That will result in a denomination that refrains from saying and doing some things that are valued by one contingent or another.

Trust is also an essential ingredient for community. Unfortunately, it is not something that can be demanded or legislated. Trust takes root in shared values, and is cultivated by doing what we say we will do, and doing it in a way that is acceptable. While trust can only be built over time, I do believe we can put our default setting on “trust” in most cases.

Structure and processes built on the American political idea of “balance of power” presume that others cannot be trusted. That same attitude is reflected in most congregational organizations. I also wonder if it is implicit in our denominational culture that demands that every one, be at every table, every time. Is this motivated by the desire to include, an obsession to appear fashionably inclusive, or a fear rooted in lack of trust?

Clear denominational responsibilities (and limits), using spiritually-based discernment processes for decision-making can build healthy community.

The denomination models and fosters community. That will not be easy for us. Life together does not attract the passion of Baptists like soul competency. But it is an urgent task before us. It is urgent because life together is a recurrent, high-priority theological theme in Scripture. It is urgent because our unrivaled ethnic diversity will collapse if we do not learn how to live together. It is urgent because neither our culture nor our churches have taught us how to live together with differences. It is urgent because our preoccupation with rights and political means is a greater offense to Christ than the division represented by denominationalism itself.

I Need A History Lesson

2005-08-11T15:03:00.000-07:00

Isn’t a classic position of conservative American Baptists one of more freedom locally, less power at the national level? When I accepted the call to National Ministries, my North Dakota church commissioned me as a missionary to Valley Forge. They wanted me to “keep an eye on it.” When I worked at Valley Forge I heard the cries from local churches and regions that they didn’t want Valley Forge calling the shots. They didn’t want Valley Forge types to mistakenly think they were in charge. We were reminded over and over that in our style of governance, national couldn’t tell local what to do. The clear message was, “Don’t even think about it!”

Now it seems the desire of conservatives is to put Valley Forge in control. The staff of ABC-USA is bound by the policies of the General Board. So, operating under GB rules, Valley Forge should determine which churches can be ABC and which can’t -- which persons can be ordained and which can’t. Let’s make the General Board the legislative branch and then let’s set up a judicial branch to rule on issues (be the interpreter of scripture for us all). And then let’s enforce those judgments. (Be clear, the enforcers would have to be Valley Forge types.) Is that really what you want? I would encourage my conservative friends to be very cautious about what you are willing to give up.

I’d also like to make an observation about civility. We are in an extremely difficult time in our denominational family. We need to speak the truth as we understand it in a way that reflects our love for each other. Dwight pointed out that not everyone who disagrees with you is out to destroy the denomination. On all sides of the current debate are good people who are seriously trying to find a way through this. We need to respect each other. We owe each other, as members of the family, courtesy. Now, it’s also true that there are opportunists and folks just up-to-no-good caught up in all this. But it’s wrong to assume that all of the opposition is that way. We have behaved (on all sides) in ways that make it impossible for us to sing, “They’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love,” with any integrity.

I particularly dislike condescension -- an aloof attitude of “I am obviously more enlightened and you obviously aren’t.” In my observation, it has been used more by the liberal side of the denomination. In recent months it has become more and more a characteristic of conservatives. It isn’t pretty either way. [The conservative tradition was more “My reading of the Bible is the right one.” But they weren’t as likely to condescend. Now they’re getting into it.]

I know these ways of communicating are indicators of anger, frustration, even depression. They sometimes are used to protect us from the battle. But they are not indicative of persons who respect each other as children of our loving God.

Addiction Plus

2005-08-09T08:18:00.000-07:00

I am grateful that Susan seems to be one of the persons who can understand me—even if we don’t always agree. Thank you for your clarifying follow-up on “Tables.”

I would like to return to Susan’s entry on July 20 “ABC in Reactive Mode.”

Susan is absolutely right that, as an organization, ABCUSA has many of the “symptoms” of an addict. She is also right that her description is “generally exaggerated.” It is not universal and it is not the root cause of our problems—I do not believe that any of us set out to be “addicts.” The addictive condition is an end product.

There are “true believers” (and not just two groups) among us who not only have radically different positions; they hold positions that, if acted upon, cannot coexist at the same time in the same place. The key in that sentence is not the reality of differing ideas; it is the phrase “if acted upon.” A community can tolerate a large range of differing ideas, but not all behaviors (or actions) can be allowed. One of the good things that came out of the Enlightenment was that behaviors can (and should) be controlled, but mind police are an ineffective waste of time.

From a sociological perspective, boundaries are essential for the health and viability of a community. “Commonality which is found in a community need not be a uniformity. It does not clone behaviour or ideas. It is a commonality of forms (ways of behaving) whose content (meanings) may vary considerably among its members.” (Anthony Cohen The Symbolic Construction of Community Routledge, 2003). There are several kinds of boundaries, the least effective of which is the statutory boundary. The unwritten covenant of community is violated long before the written law is broken.

Baptist communities have a difficult time establishing and maintaining behavior boundaries. And the larger the amalgam of Baptists, the more difficult it is. That is one reason for our propensity for schism. But Baptists, even American Baptists, have found it possible to call some behaviors out-of-bounds.

These “true believers” (and the incompatibility of the practices they demand) cannot be easily dismissed, ridiculed, distracted, or ignored.

Not everyone who has doubts about the morality of homosexual intimacy is mean-spirited, ignorant, homophobic, or, God-forbid, a Fundamentalist out to destroy the denomination.

Not everyone who wonders about a compassionate, Christian response to homosexual persons is unprincipled, elitist, perverted, or, God-forbid, a Liberal out to destroy the denomination.
At the same time there are issues of power. For some, power is always bad and is to be avoided, but in reality it is notoriously slippery. I confess I am trying to claim and exert power. I am trying to claim and exert power on behalf of the large community of the middle. Of course, I may be self-deceived. But others seem to be jockeying for power for more selfish and/or more narrow purposes.

It is a complex symptomatology. Our responses are equally complex.

Some grotesquely oversimply the conflict, and blame it all on the Fundamentalists, or the Liberals, or the homophobes, or the perverts, or the power-hungry, or the hate-mongers, or the fear-mongers, or this Region, or that Region, or former SBCers, or ….
Simplistic analysis leads to simplistic answers/responses which will not work.

Others cannot cope with the complexity or the implication of the conflict, and so they deny the conflict. The capacity of this denomination to live in denial is legendary. Even as the Board of Educational Ministries was disintegrating leaders (who should have known better) were reassuring the denomination of the health and viability of BEM. While there is a fine line between describing the truth of a situation and apocalyptic obsession, denial will always prevent effective responses.

Still others want to bypass or avoid the conflict. They believe that if we get busy with something else we will be distracted enough that the conflict will die a natural death. Closer to home is the danger that unending diagnosis can also be a form of avoidance.

They arrived on the other side of the sea in the country of the Gerasenes. As Jesus got out of the boat, a madman from the cemetery came up to him. He lived there among the tombs and graves. No one could restrain him—he couldn’t be chained, couldn’t be tied down. … Night and day he roamed through the graves and the hills, screaming out and slashing himself with sharp stones. … Jesus asked him, “Tell me your name.” He replied, “My name is Mob. I’m a rioting mob.” … The demons begged him, “Send us to the pigs so we can live in them.” … Everyone wanted to see what had happened. They came up to Jesus, and saw the madman sitting there wearing decent clothes and making sense, no longer a walking madhouse of a man. … As Jesus was getting into the boat, the demon-delivered man begged to go along, but he wouldn’t let him. Jesus said, “Go home to your own people. Tell them your story.”

More Table Talk

2005-08-08T12:24:00.000-07:00

Dwight’s suggestion that the ABC is more of a federation than a denomination is interesting. He describes the kinds of tables and I, also, resonate with the table of fellowship. A group of tables in the same house may be the only way Baptists can work together. However, I doubt that building a separate house is the solution.

Dwight’s description of a meal at his grandmother’s sounds like a family to me. They were all engaged in the same meal. There were certainly some variations but they came together. They had the same food at approximately the same time. There was probably one blessing. Folks that can’t have a meal without one table, a tablecloth, china and sterling silver may not have wanted to be a part of Dwight’s family. But the collection of people that made up his family found a way to be together. Can American Baptists?

Henri Nouwen said that peace starts every time we move out of the house of fear toward the house of love. I wish we would try setting up our tables in the house of love for a change.

Sometimes I wonder if I am a good Baptist because I’m an American or am I a good American because I’m a Baptist?

Where did I get the independent streak?
Did my upbringing as an American teach me that I should think for myself . . . that I shouldn’t accept everything at face value . . . that I should apply critical thinking to things I observe? Isn’t the independent spirit a fundamental part of being an American? The Bill of Rights. Individual rights. [Some would say States’ Rights – or region rights?]
Or maybe it’s because I’m from west of the Mississippi . . . the independent spirit that comes from being the descendent of pioneers. Or did my upbringing as a Baptist teach me independence -- that I must learn things for myself . . . that I must pray in my own words . . . that I had to be of a thinking age to make my own decision to follow Jesus.

Wherever it came from, I’ve got it. And I think it helps make me a good Baptist and a good American. And good or bad it makes me not want to sign statements of belief. At one time I was on the faculty of a Christian college. Years later the school invited me to consider returning to the faculty but in the intervening years they had instituted a requirement that faculty had to sign a faith statement. Nope. I stayed with the job I had. I agreed 100 per cent with the statement but I wouldn’t sign it. [I realize there is a possibility I am just a curmudgeon.]

That’s why I can’t go to the upcoming meeting in Illinois. You are welcome if you sign. Your word is not enough. You have to sign. Is it a meeting to do an exciting new thing as it’s billed? Or is it the next step in the intentional fracturing of the ABC? I suppose it depends on your perspective. There have been good revolutions and bad ones. Are the drivers (or key factors pushing the issue) our differences on Biblical authority and interpretation, or the coveting of power (or perceived power) and of access to mission endowments? Lord, have mercy.

If being at the table is bothering you, I’d suggest you just use a TV tray for a while. Let’s continue to renew the ABC House of Love.
Let not your heart be troubled. Let’s keep talking.

How Many Tables?

2005-08-05T05:17:00.000-07:00

Susan has more than ably carried the freight on this blog in my absence. While I have a lot (perhaps too much) to say, I would like to respond to her plea to remain at the table.

Let me begin by saying that I have expressed the opinion that ABCUSA is more like an “ecumenical federation” than a “denomination” in any normal sense of the word. Most people look at me strangely when I say that—but that is another story. For the present discussion, one of the openings this perspective gives us is to pay attention to what we can learn from the efforts of ecumenism.

“Organic union” has proven elusive because the differences discovered once you get past the superficial niceties become insurmountable. Ecumenists have learned that there is a pretty narrow range of activities that can be shared. Despite the flowery rhetoric of top theologians waxing eloquently on deep theological subjects, persons in the pew seem unmoved. Even worship together, beyond the occasional “special” service seems forced and difficult. Too often ecumenical worship is an undiscerning amalgam of ritual and speech that satisfies no one.

About 15 years ago I worked with the old Indiana Council of Churches in a major reorganization and redirection of that organization. I remember two significant events in the midst of that reorganization. As we drew near the end of the work on a common statement of faith (apparently that is essential for any ecumenical work), the facilitator proudly announced that “the Baptists have agreed.” While she intended to move on to the next action, my hand shot up like a rocket. “Wait a minute!” I said, “ ‘The Baptists’ did not agree to anything. The one, lone Baptist in this room said this statement of faith seemed acceptable.” And I tried one more time to explain the unexplainable—Baptist theology and polity to a group of conciliar ecumenists.

During that same work, we struggled long and hard with images which could be used to talk about what we hoped to achieve. For almost all of us “the table” worked. But it didn’t for the Orthodox. Apparently the image was too loaded with communion, and that carried with it a whole lot of other baggage. Rather than unload that wagon train, we abandoned “the table” for other language.

There are many kinds of tables. There are work tables, study tables, game tables, display tables, and dinner tables, just to mention a few. Sometimes I wonder if we are all talking about the same kind of table. I confess that, when it comes to church issues, I find the dinner table—the table of fellowship—much more essential than the others. If our church table is merely a work table—a utilitarian table—I will not have much passion about it.

But even if we agree that it is a dinner table, it still is not simple. Who chooses the menu? Who sits where? How will the table be set? Etc, etc.

One of my childhood memories is going to my grandparents on special occasions. That was always an excuse for a meal. And there were usually a lot of us. (And a lot of food, also). The food would be spread across the stove and the countertop so we could “help” our own plate. Everyone was not expected to eat everything, although a greedy serving of one thing was sure to draw the response “Save some for everyone else,” and the obvious avoidance of another offering would receive the encouragement “Why don’t you try just a little….”

After we had “fixed our plates” we would sit down to eat. The kitchen table proper was reserved for the “old folks.” The next social strata included those who enjoyed TV trays. The kids may be forced to sit at a downsize or makeshift table. Some chose simply to eat on the floor. Some actively engaged in conversation; some shared a football game on TV; others focused all their attention on the plate in front of them.

Were we all eating at the same table?

Why Stay At the Table?

2005-07-27T13:06:00.000-07:00

I study and prepare and act on my beliefs. If I didn’t think I was right, I wouldn’t take action. Most of us act out of sincere belief in the rightness of our actions. This is a sign of integrity. It’s good. It is really important, however, to be aware that we may be wrong. There is always more to learn. We aren’t God. Our understandings are always limited. Keeping this mindset helps us listen to those with whom we disagree. It also helps to remember that the folks with whom we disagree are made in the image of God just as we are.

When we see Jesus in each other, it is much easier to maintain mutual respect even though we differ. I got a letter last week from a pastor in my state who has been reading the blog and clearly self-identified himself as “not in the middle.” He believes his position is the correct one for any Bible-believing Christian. What is special about this man is his reasoned approach and his willingness to engage in dialogue in a care-filled way. If I could label him a “nut” or if he was someone who raged on and on, I could ignore him. The problem is he is a brother in Christ and I respect him. [He is also doing a very good job as pastor of his church.] I must engage with him. I am a person who has never, ever liked conflict or confrontation of any kind. I deeply wish I could explain my perspectives clearly enough and listen to him carefully enough that we would come to agreement. But I’m scared to enter the dialogue for fear of the outcome. I doubt my capacity to build the bridge. But, you see, I have to try. And so I pray. Do I have the courage to “stay at the table”? If we continue the dialogue there is risk. Both of us may have some of it wrong. Talking may lead both of us to change. Sometimes we feel so safe in our clear understanding of truth. Staying open to the movement of the Spirit and respecting those with whom we engage in meaningful dialogue, can change us (and them). Will we risk it?

The other part of my fear is that this pastor and I may realize we are not ever going to agree. I feel deeply the emotion Roy Medley expressed in his Biennial address. I don’t want to be separated from the folks in this family with whom I disagree. And why don’t I want to be separated? I already told you I hate conflict. Why not have a denomination limited to folks with whom I agree (in this case it would be a teeny, tiny denomination)? The reason is, I may not be right. How can I grow without the tension? I believe I’m right but I know my mind and heart are limited. Learning and growing take a lifetime.

My prayer is that this pastor and I will both stay in the family and continue a care-filled dialogue. No ranting. No fighting. Just a steady desire to influence and be influenced under the power of the Spirit.

For me, the new middle is not wishy-washy. It is not “undecided.” The new middle keeps its focus on our mission and vision. It is also true that the new, radical middle, or vibrant middle, is composed of those who have made a commitment to stay at the table. It is composed of people with strong, clear views. But they accept they have more to learn and that learning will best be stimulated out of healthy, loving study and dialogue. But that dialogue doesn’t dominate or distract from the mission focus.

ABC in the Reactive Mode

2005-07-20T17:43:00.000-07:00

I want to discuss Dwight’s comments about societal vs. convention structure in our history and practice, but I’ll wait at least until next week.

Today, I need to respond to Dwight’s reference to the speed of communication causing us to live in a reactive mode. I think this is a key to some of what’s wrong with us (and our society). One of the problems with living in a constant reactive mode is that it often involves adrenalin and adrenalin is addictive. There are varieties of opinions but it’s interesting to read about theories and studies regarding adrenalin addiction (living in constant stress and getting to the point of craving it) and adrenal exhaustion. When a crisis hits, we spring into action. Our adrenalin is pumping. But the body was designed to use adrenalin only occasionally, not constantly. The theory suggests that using adrenalin constantly results in a need for more – even to the point of creating a crisis if one is not readily available. Addiction. The eventual result is adrenal exhaustion (the inability to produce adrenalin – not a good thing).

It is possible to get addicted to dealing with the crisis-of-the-day, everyday and not understand what’s happening. When someone tries to set a new tone . . . the General Secretary’s call to radical discipleship . . . or NM’s new agenda on children in povery . . . we don’t see a vigorous response or a grass-roots mobilization . . . why? [I imagine Dr. Medley and Dr. Wright-Riggins have been wondering about the limited response to such great ideas.] We don’t get more jazzed about these initiatives because they don’t feed our addiction. We’d rather wait a few minutes for a new internal crisis. Then we can experience the reaction – reaction – reaction – exhaustion cycle. We don’t have the time or energy for reasoned, caring deliberation, reflection, and conversation. Many who have developed this addiction, don’t know it. [I’m not sure why children in poverty is not a “crisis” in this sense but somehow what I’m describing is generally exaggerated and dramatic in its effects on us personally.]

We are wasting our God given gifts in non-productive, energy sucking, reactive debate and strategizing and posturing and dramatic back-room conversations. [Trying to figure out what the insiders are doing – not realizing we’re all outsiders.]

The Regional Executive Ministers Council members have gotten extremely frustrated of late. It’s rare for anyone to end up as an Executive Minister unless they have high skills in problem solving. So we gather together these wonderful problem solvers and get caught in having to deal with a new episode of a crisis that demands our attention but which our structure does not allow us to solve. It is even difficult to find a way to help find a solution. The folks caught in the most serious part of the crisis need a denominational response – or help – or even just understanding. We don’t feel we can ignore the crisis but it’s frustrating to devote so much time and energy on reaction. These gifted problem solvers get caught in a bureaucratic or theological tangle -- the very thing they are usually the best at resolving, and when they can’t get it untangled, they are really not happy.

If we can talk about this reactive mode, if we can understand it, we might begin to get a handle on how to become a more healthy community of faith

Baptists Struggle with Community

2005-07-19T07:48:00.000-07:00

Community is, indeed, a major issue (if not the issue): Are we going to live together? If so, how? I confess I have begun to feel like one of the lone voices in the wilderness raising the question. Most of the time when I raise it in meetings it is either ignored by those who don’t even want to talk about our life together (both right and left) or hijacked by one advocate or another who thinks I am bolstering their position.

Susan has an unusual perspective, and a very valuable one. What are the causes and consequences of being a denomination of “outsiders?”

One of the questions it raises for me is one of cause and effect regarding community. Are we a denomination of outsiders because we have lost the sense of community we once had? OR Are we a denomination of outsiders because we never really had community, but the environment in which we find ourselves right now highlights our lack of community?

Increasingly, I am persuaded it is the latter. (Though, it is probably a little of both) I think Baptists have struggled with community from the very beginning. Certainly, Roger Williams was not able to inspire life together for the long term.

The early debate over Baptist organization (the vision of missions was not the debate) which swirled around convention (which is church-based and more unified) versus society (which is individual donor-based and more cause specific) has a significant community component. Each plan has its own advantages and disadvantages. Baptists in the North (centered in Boston) tended to favor the societal model, while Baptists in the South (meaning not New England) tended to favor the convention model. There are complex regional cultural differences at work here, and this is not the place to explore all of them.

Leon McBeth makes the following assessment: “The society is simpler, requires no extensive denominational machinery or approval for its work, maintains local control, and has the advantage of a committed membership. Those not interested in the society’s cause simply do not join. To its adherents, it also seems to protect the autonomy of the churches. However, the society plan does not enlist the involvement of churches, seldom builds denominational identity and loyalty, and makes overall denominational planning and correlation difficult.”

The old Triennial Convention was never really able to resolve the tension between these two models for accomplishing mission. Winthrop Hudson observed that “Baptists in the North deliberately packed the 1826 meeting [of the Triennial Convention] and, with this regional control, proceeded to dismantle the convention, sacrificing national Baptist unity and cooperation to regional interests.” That same meeting dismissed Luther Rice as an agent of the convention. This was the beginning of the end of any pretense of Baptist life together in America.

Following the schism of 1845, the Triennial Convention reorganized as the American Baptist Missionary Union (ABMU) with the sole purpose of foreign missions. The new constitution clearly reinforced the societal model. Any person (not a church) who contributed $10 could be a delegate that year.

Finally, in 1908 the Northern Baptist Convention was formed to bring the various societies for mission and education under one umbrella. However, in McBeth’s words “the denominational overhaul which formed the NBC in 1908 was never fully successful.” In reality, the formation of the NBC did little more than create a common funding tool. Further reorganizations followed.

The SCOR and SCODS reports of the 70’s created the denominational structure we have now, which is still essentially societal (especially in mindset) with a thin veneer of convention organization. But its membership is church-based (not donor-based) through regions and it is governed by a board of elected representatives from those regions. The Biennial meeting may look like a “convention,” but it does not have the power and authority that is typically ascribed to Baptist conventions. Our present organization is a peculiar animal that satisfies very few. Ray Jennings said that the reorganization “produced an undercurrent of acrimonious dissatisfaction that has yet to be fully evaluated or understood.”

One of the perverse evidences that we have struggled with community is the fact that we find so much in print about it! For example, “Autonomy and Interdependence,” adopted by the General Board in 1983 was, in part, stimulated by denominational unrest. It argues for a “dual emphasis on autonomy and interdependence,” a polarity in which “neither overcomes the other in theory or practice.”

Likewise, The Commission of Denominational Identity, chaired by Dr. Ralph Elliott, produced “American Baptists: A Unifying Vision” in the midst of the dissatisfaction of the 80’s. The Commission was created in 1984 in order to “identify who we are as American Baptists.”

“A Unifying Vision” is still a worthy document (American Baptists have produced a lot of them, even if we ignore them) that deserves to be read and studied carefully cover-to-cover. According to that Commission document, the number one premise of our identity is the sovereignty of God, and, under that, “The Life of Covenant.”

The opening paragraph of that section reads: “Citizens of the realm of God, of the Redeemer’s kingdom, are called in Christ to attend seriously to life in community and to the meaning of our covenant to pilgrimage together. As God’s people, we celebrate our covenant with God and with one another, and we rejoice that Christ has delivered us from the isolation of self-willed autonomy. Whether we are individuals, churches, or associations, we are called into the family of God, and we strive in the Spirit to order our life accordingly.”

I think both of these documents illustrate the attempt to establish a new (or reaffirm a forgotten) basis for associationalism. The old society models were essentially utilitarian. They were about “doing together what we cannot do alone.” (The key justification for the denomination that I learned growing up Baptist) The new/reaffirmed basis is that being together, living together, community, is a theological imperative intrinsic to the very nature of the Church. It is inextricably bound up with the “doing” of the church.

Back to my original point. If this ambivalence about life together has been with us such a long time, why is it emerging with such ferocity now?

In my opinion, it can be tracked to communication.

Dr. William Brackney, in a meeting with regional executive ministers, reviewed and analyzed the history of Baptist schisms. He found that one of the contributing factors to schism was the establishment of advocacy publications; in other words, the creation of communication channels.

Today, we can communicate more broadly and more quickly than anyone has imagined. What happens in Boston is known in Los Angeles within an hour. Old publication and distribution methods, by their very nature, included the moderating effect of time. Now we have no time for reflection, conversation, understanding or strategic thinking. We are all in a permanent reactive state.

What makes it even worse is the irony that despite the ease and low cost of rapid, widespread communication we have very few reliable, reflective sources of information in American Baptist life. At the same time we are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of “stuff” we receive in the name of ABCUSA. Much of this is focused on “telling the story.” But too often it is the victim of tunnel vision, ignoring the issues of life together. Sometimes communication is nothing more than financial solicitation in the guise of story-telling.

The communication vacuum was evident in the rumors and paranoia that swept through Denver. Maybe it was only in the backrooms and alleyways I tended to haunt, because it seems to me that many people still remain clueless about the fault line that is flexing underneath our feet even as I write this.

Reflections

2005-07-11T12:24:00.000-07:00

Long before this blog began last week, I struggled with Dwight’s position that there are times when we must be drawn into the conflict whether we like it or not. I would like to believe I can resist certain debates simply because I don’t want to be drawn into them. Unfortunately I have a strong, sinking feeling that Dwight is right. (He usually is.) My frustration over the current debate in society and in our denomination is because I don’t think it’s the debate we should be having. I heard someone say that there are 3000 references in scripture to the poor. Well, if we allow the Bible to set our priorities, it would seem we should be spending much more time struggling with the challenges of poverty than the challenges of sexuality. [Another frustration with the current focus on homosexuality is that the churches I’ve worked with have been much more damaged by heterosexual sin.] Of course the truth is, we don’t allow the Bible to set our priorities.
Another concern coming out of General Board and Biennial is to what extent are our denominational problems the result of “power plays” rather than deeply held differences in belief. In the late-1980s, I tried to figure out who the “insiders” were in the ABC. In talking to many folks I began to realize that we were, strangely, a denomination of outsiders. Clergy felt disenfranchised after SCODS & SCOR ( the restructuring of the 1970s). Laity felt disenfranchised because they felt power in the church was always with the clergy. Valley Forge types felt disenfranchised because they lost credibility when they went to work there (Why did you decide to leave ministry?), women – both clergy and lay – felt disenfranchised because of low representation even though lay women are the dominant demographic group in the denomination, laymen felt disenfranchised because they believed the denomination was interested in them only when a roof needed repair. And minority groups and caucuses felt disenfranchised because they had not gained a significant voice in denominational life. While everyone I asked felt like an outsider, they all believed there were insiders. I just could never find anyone who felt like an insider.
One of the things that happens when your group feels like it has been disregarded, is that you can begin to feel militant. (and sometimes, paranoid) You begin to think that perhaps extraordinary measures should be taken to gain rightful recognition. At a recent meeting of American Baptists in the heartland, someone said he and his group didn’t have to abide by the Code of Ethics because “Valley Forge has violated Biblical ethics.” Pretty sick.
The reason I’ve described all this is because it’s hard to have a debate on the pure issues that divide us when the environment is so clouded with mountains of personal and group baggage.
Paranoia was rampant in Denver. I heard groups on both left and right speculating on what the others would do next. There were some pretty dramatic scenarios floating around. My hunch is that both sides give the other more credit than they’re due in terms of skill at plotting. It does seem that there is a fairly highly developed and secret plan for the future of International Ministries.
Some of the paranoia surrounded the appearance of The Great Commission Network. I heard it described in various ways, such as: as a valuable new resource for church vitality, an attempt to up-end National Ministries, a channel for entrepreneurial and opportunistic leaders to make a buck, the seed of a new denomination. The brochure they handed out looked nicely done – rather like a standard ABC brochure. It didn’t seem to say too much but I’m sure more will follow.
Dwight’s most recent entry to the blog addresses our life in community. We need to talk more about that. I believe there are many who stay in this fracturing denomination because of the underlying beauty and blessing of this community. For us, it’s not about winning or losing a debate on an issue, but rather finding a way to travel this faith journey together.

Hearing and Reading Dr. Medley

2005-07-08T07:29:00.000-07:00

Dr. Roy Medley, our General Secretary, delivered the key message on Friday evening during the Biennial. ( click here for the full text of his message) It was the most personal and impassioned such address that I have experienced by a General Secretary. It ended with a classic (for most Baptists) call to revival prayer.

Responses were (and continue to be) mixed. Right after the session I heard several say “he hit the nail right on the head.” But it was obvious that they had different nails in mind. Conversely, others said “he dropped the ball.” Likewise, one was playing football, the other baseball.

Certainly much of the confusion can be traced to the expectations (both positive and negative) of listeners. At the same time, some of the confusion is due to the genre of the message. Was it a sermon or a state of the denomination speech? Was it a plan for action or a logical monologue?

For me, it was clearly a sermon. And it reflected both the strengths and weaknesses of sermons. In particular, it was strong on images and emotional connection. But the very thing that makes most sermons powerful (stories and images with openings for “entry” and participative thinking) precludes clear, linear action strategies. Many, on all sides, were seeking the kind of clarity a sermon can seldom deliver. That is not to say that Dr. Medley’s address should not have been a sermon. Rather, I think some follow-up (even if pedantic and boring) is needed to draw out the complex implications and consequences that Dr. Medley had in mind while preaching.

Here are some of the things I heard and read:

1. Dr. Medley gave a testimony early on: “I want you to hear me clearly tonight: I am STILL traditional in matters of human sexuality AND I do not want to be separated from those who in Christian conscience differ from me on the issue of homosexuality.” Those who were hoping for an endorsement or approval of homosexual practices were disappointed. Likewise, those who were hoping for a strategy to accomplish denomination-wide purity on this issue were also disappointed.

These two poles define an awkward space. Whether or not it is livable space remains to be seen—but our track record so far is not encouraging. It seems evident that Dr. Medley will not use his office for anything other than the affirmation of traditional heterosexuality. At the same time, it seems evident that he will not use his office to encourage the denomination-wide dismissal of those churches which believe differently. Even within these poles, there is a large field which demands further delineation. Things cannot merely rest here.

2. He then went on to the role of Baptist principles. For Dr. Medley Scripture is key and Baptist principles function as a hermeneutic. He then went on to list personal convictions, including seventeen citations from Scripture. In that outline of faith you will find a robust confession of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and a resounding affirmation of the eschatological community of faith that we call the church. Dr. Medley’s essential theological conservatism will attract some and repel others.

While it is an important move to link Baptist principles to Scripture by functioning as a hermeneutic, or “rules for reading,” it raises several questions. If Baptist principles are derived from Scripture, then they cannot be superior to nor take the place of Scripture. Those principles themselves must be constantly tested against Scripture. That is not an easy task, especially for a denomination that does not have a formal court of theology or biblical interpretation.

Indeed, the identity and role of Baptist principles per se is a growing issue. The Baptist movement was not founded on a list of principles. The so-called principles were unearthed after the fact in reflection. Beyond that, there are many groupings (and non-groupings) of Baptists. There are significant differences among those groups regarding those principles, their order, and the function given to them.

Even among American Baptists our “priniciples” have changed. In the preface to American Baptists: A Unifying Vision (produced by the Commission on Denominational Identity in 1988, chaired by Dr. Ralph Elliott) warned: “American Baptist identity cannot be reduced to one or two simple affirmations that may distinguish us from the many communities that make up Christ’s church. … Denominational identity, like human identity, is not fixed and rigid.” Baptist principles exist in tension among themselves, creating another awkward space.

3. Dr. Medley drew on the story of Esther and her call to radical discipleship: “Who knows but that you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” I know that he has found connection with this story because of the personal burden he carries as General Secretary. However, in this sermon he issued the call for all of us to live up to our calling to be radical disciples in a time of great uncertainty.

Three brief points were made from this story. First, that God called Esther to radical discipleship that expressed itself in radical love. She was called to face adversity by placing her life in God’s providential care. Second, that radical discipleship has been mark of American Baptists. Finally, that God is calling us to a new radical discipleship today.

Dr. Medley quickly went on to describe what he meant by “radical discipleship.” His litany included evangelism, social ministry, being centered in Christ, etc. The point was driven home by a listing of the diverse heroes/heroines of Baptist faith, all of whom were seeking a deeper form of discipleship. Indeed, the thrust behind Baptist principles was to make radical discipleship possible.

This presents a second-function for Baptist principles. Those principles are derived from Scripture, provide the community “reading rules,” and have the purpose of promoting radical discipleship. Now we have been another “test” for Baptist principles: Do they actually produce disciples? This forces us to address the issue of discipleship. Dr. Medley said that the “call to radical personal discipleship in Christ Jesus is part of our Baptist DNA. We by our very nature as a Baptist body can do no other than to proclaim the invitation of Jesus, ‘Come, take up your cross daily and follow me.’’’

Dr. Medley followed a very traditional, personalistic path here. I wish he had said something about the role of the community of faith in discipleship. I am persuaded that Baptists (and other revivalist offspring) have lost something of great importance in our neglect of the community. Christian formation requires intentional communal life. Not only that, I am persuaded that the goal of discipleship is life together, not mere personal piety. That is yet another tension we live with.

4. The remainder of the sermon was an impassioned call to radical discipleship, demonstrated in radical love. There is a lot of powerful, compelling rhetoric in this section. It needs to be unpacked carefully, but this is already too long!

Dr. Medley affirmed (once more) the linkage of Biblical authority, soul liberty and radical personal discipleship. He also affirmed yet another tension. “American Baptists grant the majority the right to say ‘This is what we believe’ and also protect the right to speak a minority point of view.” That one line needs to be read again and again and again. It demands answers to all kinds of questions. How does the majority (or minority) speak? What does it mean when the majority (or minority) speaks? What are the consequences of majority (or minority) speech? Most of all, how do we fit all that together in a unified (not uniform) community of faith?

Dr. Medley asserted that the last question “returns us to a biblical principle more important even than soul freedom: the principle of love.” Community is possible only because soul freedom is tempered by love, it is not absolute. This is not the romantic or popular notion of love, it is the love exemplified by the Cross. Love is costly action; and it costs me. Worst of all, it can’t be legislated, enforced, or demanded. The challenge from Romans 14:13ff is very blunt: “if your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.” It is a principle of self-control that challenges autonomy and is found repeatedly in the New Testament. This is a devastating critique of many in our denomination today. If we were living like this we would not be in the midst of turmoil. For this reason, if no other, Dr. Medley was right in calling us to revival prayer. Unfortunately, I suspect many nodded their heads and pointed to someone else.

What would happen if, instead of strategy meetings discussing how to win those meetings addressed the question “How can we best demonstrate our love for the Body?”

5. Dr. Medley moved to the close of his sermon with another personal note. Citing the words and example of Dr. Billy Graham, he claimed that this kind of love was a missional issue. Consequently, he avoids being drawn into controversial topics.

I sympathize with Dr. Medley, and I also fear for him. Dr. Graham (and others in positions like his) enjoys a luxury of personal freedom that I have not experienced as a pastor. While I can often (even usually) avoid controversial topics, I cannot always. Most morality issues are controversial. (Imagine the Triennial Convention had not taken a stand on slaveholding.) Sometimes what to one person is an inconsequential issue, is to another the ground of being. (I note that Billy Graham does not avoid the redemptive work of Christ, which is controversial to many). Sometimes a controversial topic has persistent life in, or even threatens the life of, the community that I serve. Despite my personal feelings, it would be irresponsible of me as a pastoral leader to refuse to be drawn into such conflicts—I do not live unto myself. (That does not mean I go looking for them or nurse them.) I am persuaded ministry is always contextual; and context sometimes includes unavoidable conflict.

In closing, I agree with Dr. Medley that “We stand at a crossroads. In our world, the path of radical discipleship, the path of radical love is the road less taken.” He painted a picture of a Baptist community of intrinsic tension. I have said many foolish things in my days. One of those foolish things was that “I am an American Baptist because I am comfortable here.” I am not comfortable any more. I am not sure it is even possible to be comfortable as a Baptist (perhaps that is why Roger Williams ended up alone). The greatest source of my discomfort right now is not so much the tension as it is the determination of one side or the other to resolve that tension in their favor and the “no holds barred” approach that many (not all) on both sides have adopted.

I have a deep personal affection for Roy Medley. And I have no doubt about his personal integrity or theology. I disagree with his intention to ignore this into oblivion. The balkanization of ABCUSA is progressing at a frightening pace, and many share the blame. Two years ago I could not imagine the things that are happening right now.

Another View from Denver

2005-07-06T16:04:00.000-07:00

You will find in reading this blog that Dwight and I are not always in agreement. We are, however, both committed to providing voices from the center. We will attempt for the next few weeks or months to provide a weekly update.

I agree with Dwight that there were things to celebrate and things that caused concern during the days in Denver. As usual we saved money by having the General Board and Regional Executive Ministers Council have their meetings right before the Biennial. Because both meetings were particularly challenging, members arrived at the Biennial exhausted.

Clearly, perspectives on the practice of homosexuality continue to be a major issue for the ABC family. I rate it about a 9 on the Richter scale. The action of the Executive Committee of the Board of International Ministries (described by Dwight) I would rate as a 12. It is a move toward denomination fracturing of monumental consequences. [I do not have a quarrel with those who would like to discuss a stronger “societal” model of structure and governance. I do have a problem with secretive, unilateral manipulations. And I have a problem with non-representative governance.]

I am concerned that some American Baptist leaders don’t think our constituents can understand our denominational structure. I agree it can be mind-boggling at first. But a clear, USA Today-style chart & description, has worked for my board. If the day comes when we need a new structure, we’ll do a much better job of designing it if we clearly understand where we’ve been and why.

I agree with Dwight that you should read Dr. Roy Medley’s address rather than interpretations of it. I have noted a rather strange response to the speech. The speech contained things that might encourage as well as caution both the far left and far right. In the day following the speech, I heard folks left of center who seemed to have only heard the part they wanted to hear. I heard folks right of center who seemed to have only heard what they were afraid they would hear. Curious. We all need to look at it again.

From Denver

2005-07-06T07:30:00.000-07:00

The Denver Biennial was hyped as a “make or break” for American Baptist Churches USA. This was an unfair expectation. While any Biennial gathering may be of visible and political significance, the real work of the denomination is done by elected representatives in the General Board. In Biennial years, the General Board meets right before the Biennial.

During this meeting the General Board considered (or received) several potentially important proposals. Most were not controversial. We heard exciting reports of the growth of American Baptists (though this deserves more detailed analysis); growing American Baptist mission support (but declining United Missions); extraordinary responses to the tsunami disaster through One Great Hour of Sharing; adopted ministry emphases in church planting, healthy missional congregations, leadership, radical discipleship, and youth; and endorsed a Board of National Ministries proposal to for a special ministry emphasis on children in poverty.

There was controversy (both expected and unexpected) at the General Board meeting.

The Indiana-Kentucky petition for By Law changes was duly received for “first reading,” and will follow the normal process to “second reading” and consideration at the Board meeting in November 2005. Mid-American Baptist Churches (Iowa and Minnesota) presented an unexpected proposal entitled “A Resolution of Concern for the Family and Our American Baptist Family of Churches.” There were several reports of concern and response from other regions. (you may read more about these at http://70.84.25.226/~abcusa/news/20050629.htm )

The most stunning development during the Board meeting was the disclosure of the intent of the Board of International Ministries (BIM) to hold closed session discussions around significant By Law changes. There were to be two parts to the discussion. The first was to consolidate the corporate structure of BIM. Presently, the organization is incorporated under various names in several states. It probably does make sense (not necessarily financial) to do this legal “clean up.”

However, the second discussion was much more troubling. It called for the necessary By Law changes to convert the Board of International Ministries into a “non-member self-sustaining” board. Regardless of the intent of this proposal, its effect would be the separation of the Board of International Ministries from the representative process of ABCUSA. BIM would no longer be composed of elected representatives from churches through regions. The work would be accountable only to this Board, which would elect its own members.

In neither case was it appropriate for such discussions to be secret or conducted without consulting with the General Board of ABCUSA. Beyond that, it would be an illegal unilateral action. The General Board, meeting as the representative American Baptist Foreign Mission Society (whose members presently elect directors to BIM from its membership) instructed BIM not to pursue such action without appropriate representation from the other partners who compose ABCUSA. There was a heated exchange. To their credit, both the officers of ABCUSA and BIM later exchanged apologies and sought public reconciliation. Unfortunately, the damage cannot be repaired by a public hug.

The intended action stimulated a long discussion in the Regional Executive Ministers Council (REMC) and resulted in a concern being sent to the General Board (by majority, not unanimous vote). That concern, while precipitated by the BIM disclosure, was not directed solely to BIM. It expressed concern about the use of “closed” or “executive” sessions by boards anywhere in ABCUSA. While it is appropriate for some issues to be considered in closed sessions, our present climate of mistrust, suspected “conspiracies,” and rumors is not a good environment for such meetings. We need to exercise better discernment.

BIM tabled the action, which means it will be on the November agenda.

Having said that, the Biennial proper was not without significance. Certainly the address by Dr. Roy Medley will receive a lot of attention. (you may read the full text at http://70.84.25.226/~abcusa/biennial/2005bien_armaddress.html ) Please read the whole message before you accept a second-hand report or interpretation, including ours.