beaconchurches

Friends -

Are any of you at the Biennial? If so, what are you hearing and seeing?

<>< Ron Troup

Please report on the "state of the union" in ABCUSA!! When will the up turn/down turn occur. What is the mood of the meeting/attendees.

Being part of the ABC for more than a half century made this biennial a particularly painful one for me. Not being present at a "family reunion" in my backyard because you are no longer part of the family simply reinforces the fact of the separation. My organization, Atherton Baptist Homes, did provide free housing for numbers of BIM missionaries and even an executive minister out to save some money for his region.

For those who want to know what happened, I refer readers to the always excellent and reliable blog by Dwight Stinnett.

This morning he posted a very comprehensive piece, "Pasadena Biennial Results" (http://abcviewsfrommiddle.blogspot.com/). Dwight has proven to be the best insider source for understanding the workings of the ABC. He is fair, balanced, exceptionally bright, and eschews "spin."

I was shocked to learn from my brother, a volunteer at the ABC biennial in Pasadena, that the denominational structure plan did not pass. With observers such as Dr. Dwight Stinnett, I would concur that the plan being proposed was probably the best satisficing balance of competing interests under the circumstances. As Stinnett opines in his blog: “Given who we are, our competing interests, and our incommensurate values, I still believe it was the best we could do at the time.”

But, while musing on the shock of an electoral defeat this dramatic, a thought came to me. The vote was close, very close to passing. And, the numbers of delegates were few, less than 700! What if the decision to hold the biennial in the heart of the old ABCPSW, in the middle of the worst recession in decades, without pruning the rolls of old ABC churches now more TM than ABCOSH, was responsible for tipping the balance against the proposal? [Nothing in this posting is intended as asserting that this did indeed happen. I was not there and do not know. However, it represents an interesting possibility to consider.]

Certainly there were plenty of people motivated to be suspicious of authority, who felt underinformed about the proposal, or who did not relate to the electronic means of learning more about the details from an internet site. "Old School" Baptists would object that the proposal was more than a little unbaptistic in its decoupling of agencies and regions. Add to this the progressives on the left who were sincerely offended that the proposal would freeze in time all past resolutions (e.g., the one they find most odious of all regarding homosexuality being incompatible with Christian teaching). The material prepared by the folks at AWAB's Central Baptist Church (Wayne) offered articulate reasons to oppose the plan.

However, an often neglected factor may have played a role as well. When PSW voted overwhelmingly to withdraw from the ABC, Dr. Salico explained that he and Dr. Medley had agreed to give congregations 18 months to discern which affiliation they wanted to maintain. However, it was hardly a couple of months when that agreement was interpreted (abrogated? forgotten? modified?) as something very different. Congregations were told that unless they took an official vote to disaffiliate, they would continue to be counted as ABC churches in good standing.

Even in the old bastion of conservatism, ABCPSW, feelings regarding the ABC were sharply divided in most churches. Few pastors would necessarily want to be so controversial as to raise the issue in debate, lest dissent would sour into division. At this point, the website for ABCOSH lists MANY churches I personally know to be officially opposed to all things ABC with pastors disinterested in continuing any relationship at all (other than one with BIM). However, many of these churches have not bothered (nor will they ever) to vote themselves “out” of the ABC. And, virtually all of them have members, many of them less informed about denominational politics, who still see themselves as American Baptists.

What if “old fashioned” Baptists who do not feel comfortable with getting their information over the internet from the ABC site, who never really understood what all the fuss was about with the ABC, who wanted to see old friends from around the country, prevailed upon their pastors to allow them to attend the biennial as delegates?

What if the recession reduced the attendance to 1,200? What if the numbers of registered delegates was closer to 600-700? What if some of these nominally ABC churches permitted their more diehard ABC types to go to Pasadena where, because their pastor had never mentioned it, the new structure was a completely new idea to them?

What if the discernment sessions did not adequately inform them about the seemingly radical deconstruction of the SCODS/SCOR structures that they did (finally after nearly four decades) understand? What if it sounded vaguely “unbaptistic” to them?

What if in a desire to be “positive,” nobody explained the financial drivers that made the reduction of the $400,000/yr. representative process price tag more of a decision of urgency and survival rather than merely a discretionary move?

Could enough delegates from basically non-ABC churches (i.e., TM congregations that had not formally withdrawn from the ABCUSA) have innocently mucked up the voting by registering the handful of negative votes necessary to result in a defeat? Could underinformed members of essentially non-ABC churches have shown up in enough numbers to have turned the tide on such an important issue?

Honestly, I do not know the answer. Someone smarter than I am (e.g., Dr. Jeff Woods) might be able to perform a statistical analysis of the numbers of delegates from southern California ABCOSH churches. Were there enough of them to result in the shortfall???

If so, it would be a tragic instance of the law of unintended consequences.

Friends

From the Associated Baptist Press
-----------

ABCUSA delegates reject bylaw changes

By Robert Marus
(1,276 words)

PASADENA, Calif. (ABP) -- While celebrating the denomination's broad ethnic, regional and language diversity at their biennial meeting June 26-28, members of the American Baptist Churches USA also exhibited their ideological diversity.

Delegates, meeting in Pasadena, Calif., torpedoed a major restructuring that had been backed by denominational officials but criticized by many progressive leaders and churches. They voted 377-217 in favor of the bylaws changes -- failing, by a handful of votes, to muster the two-thirds majority required to pass them. The changes would have spun off the denomination's two mission boards into quasi-autonomous entities, altered the form of representation on ABCUSA's main governing board and changed the method by which American Baptists approve policy statements and resolutions.

In particular, progressive congregations and organizations feared that the changes would further marginalize their voice within the denomination and make it more difficult to rescind past ABC statements condemning homosexuality.

-----------

Full story at http://www.abpnews.com

<>< Ron Troup

Dennis

I did not think about that possible effect. I did wonder what would have happened if say the meeting had been in central part of the country, if it had been Denver this time instead of last time. I also think that there are a lot of folks who do not care. There are also those who would not believe (please also read trust) national leadership if the said that Jesus was Saviour and Lord; Satan was the enemy; Heaven is a wonderful place filled with Glory and Grace and that Hell is the place where one who does not have a relationship with Jesus will go!

These are the factors I see having killed the proposal. Remember I am not that informed so there could be other factors at work!!

I assume that the primary reason had to do with the opposition by progressives. I noted that the AWAB people posted a couple of pieces written by the Central Baptist gang in Wayne (backyard of the Mission Center in VF).

However, with such a complex proposal with its finely balanced gives and takes, it probably needed a lot more explanation and interpretation to make sense out of it. My brother is a veteran law librarian, teacher of legal research in a law school, and has lots of legal and bylaws background. He claimed not to understand the proposal! I'm not surprised that traditional baptists joined progressives in opposing it. However, given the extremity of the financial crisis facing the ABC, the failure will cost a LOT of money during the next two years prior to PR.

I know quite a few old PSW folks who went to see "old friends." Don't know how many of them were delegates, but most of them would have lacked the background to understand the proposal as it was evidently explained.

Dennis -

The opposition wasn't only from progressives; the ABP article quotes someone I know -

----------
“The uniqueness of Baptist churches is our congregational polity. However, when I look to this document, I do not see this polity concept transferred to our denominational bylaws,” said George Hancock-Stefan, the pastor of Central Baptist Church in Atlantic Highlands, N.J. “These bylaws represent a different polity, a different model. While this model could be good for other Christian denominations, it does not represent well our Baptist congregational polity.”
----------

As for what's next, the article quotes -

----------------
ABC General Secretary Roy Medley, in a June 30 letter to members of the General Board, said he would meet with ABC leaders to consider how to proceed with a future restructuring proposal.

“I am considering this vote much like a first reading at the General Board,” he said. “We have received feedback that our efforts need further work, and this gives us the opportunity to work to bring as many people on board as possible as we revisit the bylaws. And to aid us in our work we have significant written feedback from the delegates that was requested in the second discernment [business] session.”

Medley said American Baptists can go ahead and begin implementing some non-formal parts of the restructuring -- such as increased participation by the denomination’s several ethnic caucus groups at General Board meetings -- now.
---------------------

<>< Ron Troup

Bottom line: more layoffs.

Incidentally, as of 4:52 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, the ABNS has still not posted a report on the biennial since June 27!!!

Friends -

The American Baptist News Service has finally posted articles on the Biennial, including one on the defeat of the admendments -
http://www.abc-usa.org:80/news/2009/20090707c.htm

STRUCTURE PROPOSAL DEFEATED IN CLOSE VOTE

VALLEY FORGE, PA (ABNS 7/7/09)—At the Saturday business session of the American Baptist Biennial meeting in Pasadena, CA, delegates narrowly defeated the by-law changes brought by the General Board. 377 delegates voted in favor of the changes and 217 opposed them, with 20 abstentions. Two-thirds of the delegates present are needed for by-law changes to be accepted.

“It was a very narrow vote,” said A. Roy Medley, ABCUSA General Secretary. “Just over 63% voted for the changes. We’ve asked the delegates to give us suggestions and critiques. Now, we’ll take that information into consideration as we continue to work on the new structure.”
. . . .

“There are several things in the proposed bylaws that we can already begin to implement,” said Medley. “The 2011 Biennial will continue to be planned as a mission summit, and General Board meetings will be more like a mission table. We have already begun the practice of having a representative from the caucuses meet with us, and we can move forward with establishing the leadership pool.”

During the next two years, Medley concluded that, “the program boards will have the time to fully flesh out the proposed changes in their by-laws for delegates to see and study before they meet in 2011 in Puerto Rico.”

There was one statement that struck me as a possible typo -

Rev. Curtis Price, pastor of Wedgwood Community Church in Seattle, WA, affirmed the amendments, noting the decision-making developed by the Evergreen Baptist Association. As an ethically diverse region, they have developed a process that allows all members to have a voice. Price noted his belief that the proposed structure would have presented the denomination with the same opportunity.

Did the author really mean to write 'ethically diverse' (and if they did, what does that term mean?); or was it supposed to be 'ethnically diverse'?

<>< Ron Troup

The ABNS piece reminded me of the old adage about turning lemons into lemonade!

With progressives opposing it because it would make it more difficult to rid themselves of the "homosexuality is incompatible" resolution . . .

With old timers opposing it because it would dismantle the SCODS and SCOR structures that they had grown accustomed to (if not fond of) . . .

With paranoids on both the left and the right fearing that decoupling National Ministries and International Ministries would allow them to both go "off the reservation" (one wandering left and the other drifting to the right) . . .

With bureaucratic insiders having spent far more time with this stuff over the last two years than any human being would ever want to do, and taking for granted that everyone else understands it as well as they do . . .

With spin-meisters afraid to tell the unvarnished truth that the denomination simply canNOT afford the current structure . . .

We probably should have expected the outcome.

My question is simple: Where will the $$$ come from to support the by-laws mandated "representative process" for the next two years until Puerto Rico??? They already mortgaged the Mission Center to the program boards. I guess the next step is lay offs?

Changing the old guard -- I wonder how many churches are going through this same process on smaller levels. I'm thinking of older churches The world is changing and the money tree is dry. Older churches can suffer from an identity crisis, especially ones that are 'ethically' diverse (see misspelling from previous post). With the economy the way it is, it's forcing religious groups to question who they are and where they are going. Doing nothing=death (or opt to delay the inevitable, difficult decisions until some other poor sucker takes your post and cleans up the mess). I think on a larger scale our country is going through that same process -- only denominations and churches can't just print money to stimulate the economy *sigh*.

Dennis presents a sundry of world-views as it relates to fearing ABC change. The differences between the "keep-Bible-in-polity-crowd” and the "Autonomy-at-any-cost-group" seem irreconcilable. One group would have to leave en masse or by ultimate-dwindle to create any real change. I never hear anything about lovingly dividing. Being "all things to all people" loses the vigor of the evangelicals. A "revival of religion" loses the progressives. There seems to be a modicum of "middle-leaning" ABC types, but many of them are daily becoming shut-ins. The young-middle are few.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on a focus group for younger pastors, below 40-something. These cats were movers and shakers; the kind that win souls and grow leaders despite the times. They were fun, funny, a bit sarcastic for my taste, and dead serious about sharing Christ across cultural lines. I was surprised to hear how much they seek mutual cooperation, but how little interested they are in denominational goings-on. These people were indeed the salt of the earth. Most of these shared parachurch networks. If a denomination could find out what makes them tick and create an environment for them to thrive, they would have quite a booming denomination. I suppose this would look like the old-time Baptists with the association principle, but I suppose too WHAT would keep them associated (Christ/Bible or Christ/diversity) is at the heart of all the malaise.

I don't envy any of the ABC leaders. May God bless them as they re-write, live-with, or plan-b this difficult decision.

Friends -

From my previous post -

Did the author really mean to write 'ethically diverse' (and if they did, what does that term mean?); or was it supposed to be 'ethnically diverse'?

In checking the article this morning, I notice that it is now 'ethnically diverse'.

<>< Ron Troup

chip wrote:I wonder how many churches are going through this same process on smaller levels.

Chip. if you mean down sizing the leadership (boards and staff) stucture (sp?). I think there are more churches doing this than one would like to admit. It is a money issue and personel issue. Staff are not being replaced for the money reasons. Boards are being down sized, both number of boards and number of board members for lack of people --- older folks no longer able and the younger either not wanting the "jobs" or not being there to take the jobs.


Gee, maybe we need to look at a new way of ministry!!