News & Events
An Honest Analysis of the Committee on Boards Reports, Larry Reagan
10/05/2007 -
For many years messengers have complained that the nominating process of the TBC has been taken over by those who have an agenda to prevent conservatives from serving in important positions. After serving on the Constitution and Bylaws Committee for the past three years, and serving as 2nd VP of the TBC last year, I am thoroughly convinced that this complain is valid.
Last year I attended all Committee on Committee and Committee on Boards meetings. This year, I have spoken with members who were present at these meetings. This is not some conspiracy theory. The information I’m sharing in this analysis can be verified by several past TBC officers and committee members.
Most of you reading this article may remember the annual TBC meeting in 2003 at West Jackson Baptist Church. Conservatives protested the TBC nominating process by amending the Committee on Committees and Committee on Boards Reports. Their desire was to offer a separate slate of nominations for these two important committees. There were nine separate amendments placed before the convention. All of these amendments failed, but the vote was large enough to send a strong message to the TBC. Cooperative Program giving began to decline. Many of the staff members at the TBC and executive board members began to pressure out executive director to reach out to conservatives and insure that the nominating process is truly fair and honest.
I do not have the space or time to list the times that I noticed the intentional exclusion of conservatives. The process has improved a little each year .
At the 2006 TBC Annual Meeting in Cordova, the messengers overwhelmingly affirmed the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 as the statement of faith for the TBC. Dr. Jerry Sutton’s motion to add the question, “Do you affirm the BF&M 2000?” was approved by approximately 80% of the messengers. An amendment offered by Chris Francis, to require the answer, yes or no, to printed with the committee’s reports, was approved by at least 75% of the messengers. Later in the convention, a motion to officially affirm the BF&M 2000 was approved by approximately 90% of the messengers. Obviously, the messengers were sending a very plain message to the TBC, the Executive Board, and the nominating committees. WE’RE SERIOUS ABOUT DOCTRINAL ACCOUNTABILITY!
Note: I proudly voted for all of these motions. I noticed that our executive director voted against them all.
Question: When will the Executive Board, and particularly the Executive Committee, start paying attention to the messengers. If it is important to have doctrinally accountable committee and board members, is it not even more important to have doctrinal accountability in our executive leadership.
Challenge: In order to demonstrate doctrinal integrity, we should ask all ministry-related personnel to affirm the BF&M 2000. If any of these staff persons refuse, their office should be vacated, and replaced with doctrinally qualified leaders.
Note: I proudly voted for all of these motions. I noticed that our executive director voted against them all.
Question: When will the Executive Board, and particularly the Executive Committee, start paying attention to the messengers. If it is important to have doctrinally accountable committee and board members, is it not even more important to have doctrinal accountability in our executive leadership.
Challenge: In order to demonstrate doctrinal integrity, we should ask all ministry-related personnel to affirm the BF&M 2000. If any of these staff persons refuse, their office should be vacated, and replaced with doctrinally qualified leaders.
Let me pause and commend the Committee on Committees for their 2007 report. Every person they nominated affirmed the BF&M 2000. Chairman Paul Barkley, members of this committee, well done! You heard the voice of the messengers and were faithful to the Word of God.
I wish I could say the same thing for the Committee on Boards. They nominated 10 for the Executive Board and 2 for the Committee on Committees who did not affirm the BF&M 2000. (See the report on page 12.) Chairman Randall Adkisson and a majority of the committee members flagrantly ignored the plain voice of the messengers.
Five of these nominees simply replied “No” to the BF&M question. Apparently, a majority of this committee doesn’t care what someone believes, unless they are deemed to be conservative.
Others were nominated who replied “Not Read” to the BF&M question. Shouldn’t these committee members have requested the potential nominee to read it. It is only 4 pages long. (see pages 7-10 of this newsletter) Again, the majority of committee members apparently don’t care what the messengers think about doctrinal accountability.
Others replied, “No, I affirm the 1963 Confession.” I asked one leader from Carson Newman why someone would affirm the 1963 statement, but not the 2000 statement. He told me that it was because so many of the CN professors and staff believe in women pastors.
Others replied, “No, but they believe the Bible.” I’d like to ask these to state which parts of the BF&M 2000 they disagree with. Every article is clearly from the Bible.
The messengers have demanded doctrinal accountability using the BF&M 2000 as a tool to test in basic Baptist doctrines. The Committee on Boards has now sent a strong message back to the messengers: “You can vote for doctrinal accountability all you want to, but we will not enforce it. We will nominate whoever we please no matter what they believe.”
I expect the messengers will be amending this report again this year.
Larry Reagan, CTB Editor
[Back to Top] [Print] [Share This]
