Update: Task Force now wants 15-year secrecy

My local church is not affiliated. While I used the personal pronoun, technically, individuals cannot be members of the convention but can belong to a member church.

 

There are a number of reasons. First, for the committee itself. Secondly, for historic significance. Finally, the understand the theological and social import of this decision.

I think I answered them in the first section.

I do not think these committee members motives should be questioned. They were appointed partly because of their moral integrity. I see no reason to question this moral integrity and believe questioning it would require proof greater than speculation.

Yes, and no! As noted before, there is a significance. Yet, they were asked to record the sessions. I think the important question is, "Why did they keep it sealed for 15 years. As many who have served on a board where our decisions could be controversial, I believe I may have a couple of reasons.

1. Some of the discussions were candid. Committees like these should have the freedom to discuss issues candidly and disagree/agree candidly. Such candid discussions could be offensive or cause a bigger stir. Yet, to get to good solutions you must be able to talk freely. If the committee thought these recorded conversations were going to be made public now, they would be more reluctant in sharing, which may make the solutions less helpful.

2. Some of the discussions were divisive.

3. Some of the discussions may lay blame to people/organizations.

4. Some of the discussions may be unnecessary but still cause problems. These discussions may take the focus off of the issues and off topic, but still cause a stir. Perhaps the recommendation was not implemented but the conversation would still cause a stir.

 

That is correct. Basically there are three layers to affiliate with, the association, the state, and the SBC. A local church can affiliate with none of them, all of them, or any combination it so chooses.

 

Why in the world would anyone be surprised by any secret or underhanded maneuvers by a committee of the SBC? This is par for the course folks. The leadership does what it wants without much regard for what the "common church-folk" think. These problems are much to sophisticated for just anyone to tackle by flying all over the country and having meetings so important they must be recorded. Please, this committee has been a joke from the beginning.

I am holding out hope that by some miracle the report gets voted down. That would mean two huge defeats for Ronnie (call me W.A.) Floyd, which might mean he and his fire-engine baptistry would quit getting appointed to these things.

 

go2church,

The men and women in the SBC may be wrong in what they do, but I do not think we should assign motives and call what they did as "underhanded." I left the convention, as described above, but I am not going to demean their character. I think you can disagree with their decision without attacking character. Some of these people are Pastors; they are men we are called to give double honor. I think double honor is to trust they are men of character, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I also think this means we can disagree in a respectful and dignified manner.

On this issue, I agree with the decision. However, I often disagree with the SBC leadership enough to have left the convention.

I invite you to disagree with their decision. I also invite you to argue your points and not demean their character.

 

If you don't think there is some kind of hidden agenda driving the GCR, you have not been paying attention for the last 20 years! This is just the latest creation of the "we know better then you" attitude prevalent in with the SBC leadership.

If only there was some way we could know for sure their dealings where above board and in the interest of Kingdom work...if only someone had recorded these meetings...oh that's right they did and don't want anyone to see what they said for 15 years!

No need to assign motives, they have made their motives perfectly clear.

Any day now I would look for those who disagree with the GCR to be accused of being liberals and and malcontents for not wanting to be a team player in the "work of the Lord". It's just the next step in the playbook.

 

Agreed, but withholding the money that enables them to pursue these different agendas also seems to get their attention!

 

Post #26 coming from an obviously angry BGCT man.

 

Post #29 from an obvious sheep of the SBC, just like they like. Vote yes and don't ask questions.

 

Sorry, but you are wrong. I wouldn't vote yes. And, I know a good number of SBC folks who don't plan too. Of course, I'm not there so all I can do is pray that the right decision is made. Either way it goes it's not a hill to die on as far as I'm concerned.

 

It was voted upon and overwhelmingly passed.

 

go2church,
Too bad you don't know what you're talking about. There were questions and then the messengers voted. And I'd rather be a sheep than the wolves of the old liberal southern baptists.

 

I was questioning the objectivity of a man who is in the Baptist General Convention of Texas which is openly hostile to the SBC. How you got RCC out of that is beyond me?

 

Because Convention President Hunt made the following commitment before last year's vote:

Baptist Press, June 8. 2009

But according to the OP article,

To his credit, Great Commission chairman RonnieFloyd honored Hunt's promise via the recordings.
The journalists who came to document the proceeding will be able to document the proceedings...they just have to wait 15 years:laugh:

 

That's very fair and I agree with you.

 

It was not overwhelmingly passed

 

I was not there, but I relied on a couple of people who were there. So, I do not know if I am correct or not, but I just reported what I heard.