« Evangelical Homiletics Society and Grace Community Church | Main | Interview with Steve Grose »
The Trustee System - Working as Designed
Posted by Tim Rogers | October 18, 2007
It seems that each time one turns around there is another leader under fire. For many that do not believe the trustee system works, these two articles should put that fear to rest. Our trustee system is doing what it was designed to do. They are holding the leaders accountable and they are assuring Southern Baptists that our various entities operate with full integrity.
This first article is the Baptist Press story from the latest Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Board of Trustees meeting. Notice how that issue was resolved: It was handled within the board and they dealt with it behind closed doors.
The next article is a news release from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s semi-annual Board of Trustees meeting. They have affirmed the leadership of their president, Dr. Paige Patterson, and have explained the truth behind many of the absurd accusations about financial mismanagement that have been made in the last several months.
It is a great day to be a Southern Baptist. We have a trustee system that works, allowing our entities to pursue their Kingdom ministries while assuring the churches that support them that their work is done with integrity.
Topics: MBTS, SWBTS, Seminary Issues |
October 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I completely agree, Tim. That is one take away from this whole year’s debate within the SBC. We have a trustee system, it works, and so let’s don’t break it.
I would say, though, that I wonder if 9 hours of executive sessions were necessary at MBTS. There are some things that should be done in private, absolutely, but I make a distinction between things that should be done in private and those things more conveniently done in private.
Especially this is true if trustees are going to keep their light on top of the bushel and not under it. Needless secrecy is the enemy of trust.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Brother Gary,
I believe the MBTS situation was handled in the end with the utmost integrity. The 9 hour executive session had to be necessary as they were discussing personnel issues. It was clear from the news articles in the past weeks there was a personnel issue between the Chairman of the BoT and the President. I believe they are above board in their dealings at MBTS and the Trustees dealt with it.
Blessings,
Tim
October 18th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
The trustee system works fine. It is the trustees that are broken and need to be fixed.
cb
October 18th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Brother CB,
While I will be the first to admit that there may be some trustees that are only in place because they have licked boot straps and eat whatever bologna they want in order to remain in good with others, I just do not believe that is the majority of Trustees. As a matter of fact, I believe the trustees of which I have just described are in a vast minority. These past two reported on trustee meetings, I believe, prove my point.
Blessings,
Tim
October 18th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Tim,
I have no information to the contrary, it may well be that the MBTS meeting was necessarily behind closed doors for the duration. Sure, there have also been some pretty tense personnel issues at Midwestern. I’ve also seen, at Midwestern and elsewhere, an occasional generosity in the definition of “confidential” matters.
I cannot quarrel with anyone who claims to know otherwise about the necessity of a particular session. My point is that it would be better for our boards, institutions, and mission if those closed door sessions were exceptional and a tool of last resort. I tend to think that’s not always the case.
Thanks for your post uplifting a system that works pretty well and where the trustees are no more “broke” than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
Gary
October 18th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
For your readers who are interested, here is a link to the text of the trustees’ statement. There may be links that don’t have comments, but I did not know where they were. The trustees’ statement really deserves a link and I won’t think ill of you if you want to replace this one with a clean one.
Bennett Willis
October 18th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Bennett,
The Baptist Press story linked in the post has the entirety of the trustees’ statement in it, so I’ve removed your link to that other blog…
Thanks for your comment. The trustees’ own words should be read by everyone interested.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Brother Gary,
I do not mean to imply that I “know” any more than the press articles cited, because I do not. I can see from one of my comment statements how one could come to that conclusion. I am not one who has inside 411 to this last BoT meeting.
Thanks for pointing out the stability of a system that works and works well. It is obvious that the system works if people will give it a chance.
Blessings,
Tim
October 19th, 2007 at 8:02 am
I hope the trustee system is working as intended. but we really do not know in the cases of MBTS or SWBTS, where everone is affirmed and approved in the latest press releases. We do know that Trustees utterly failed in the Reccord debacle at NAMB and the agency is several million dollars poorer and has less credibility because of it.
I suspect that the trustee system itself works tenuously at best and that only until the next disaster when, again, outsiders identify and demand correction of the issues.
It is often noted that GGBTS has as many trustees as faculty, go figure, that the IMB spends who knows how much to get their unwieldy 87 (or is it 89?) trustees to meetings all over the country, and the SBC still utilizes the anachronistic “local trustee” component.
We can continue to glad-hand each other and congratulate ourselves on how wonderful everything is working or we can be honest with ourselves and look at reform. I favor the latter.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Brother William,
Welcome to SBC Today. I have always been a proponent of being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Let me ask you something. From you comments it is quite clear that you do not believe the trustee system works. Please give us what you believe to be alternatives to the present trustee system?
Blessings,
Tim
October 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Tim,
There is no alternative to the present system that I know of or support. Your article was about how it is working as designed. I am not certain of that. It certainly did not work at NAMB.
in that case NAMB trustees were asleep at the wheel. The fix for that is obvious and I hope it has long since been done. Surely other trustee boards besides NAMB see the danger of allowing a charismatic CEO to have free reign.
A re-evaluation of the huge trustee boards is in order. Are Southern Baptists well served by boards that approach three figures? Is geographical representation necessary? Is the money spent worth it?
,
October 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am
William,
I have read before your sentiments regarding the size of the IMB, and I understand the concern. But that board has arguably the largest and most important task, and those trustees spend their meetings working. Each regional committee meets each time they come together, and they pretty much stay busy throughout the entire time. It’s not a vacation for them.
We could have a smaller board, and hire more staff to take care of the work done by trustees, but I favor the greater involvement by more people that the current system requires.
Perhaps the situation at NAMB was a needed wake-up call for our trustees, but I think the actions Tim reports on in this post indicate that the trustees have heard that call.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:33 am
William and co.
I agree with what I think you’re saying. Reform should be inherent in what we do; sometimes it seems that that value gets lost in the shuffle. I don’t perceive the conversation thus far as mindless self congratulation, though.
I think we are all tempted to judge the quality of a board by whether or not they fire someone we’ve heard distasteful things about. That’s why I maintain that neither the system nor the individual and earnest Baptists serving on the boards are broken.
Just curious, though, and I hope not too far off stream, if some here doubt the functionality of some boards and board members, what would we do about that? Is there a better system?
October 19th, 2007 at 11:37 am
The second graph of my last comment was unclear even to me.
Our tendency to judge things on partial information, hearsay, and from afar points out the need for some system like what we have. We cannot make informed or constructive decisions as a commitee of the whole.
Sorry for not clarifying in the post above.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Brother Gary,
I do not see your questions as taking us off stream, because this post is about how the current trustee system is working. I agree self-examination is always needed, but I also agree that the current system is the best thing we have going. Some are calling for internet conferencing and things of that nature. I agree some of this could be accomplished with less expense. However, I am not willing to down-size trustee boards so we can have a select few making all of the decisions.
I am not saying that is what others advocate, but that is the logical conclusion when you speak of making smaller boards.
Brother William,
I did not mean to imply that you were advocating a new system, but your argument seemed to be directed at the current system as being broken. If it is broken, how do we fix it? I believe Brother Wes, has given a great response to the NAMB issue.
Blessings,
Tim
October 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Tim,
I wish you were right and I was wrong. I really do, but I am not wrong. The system is good and very good. The “pool” from which the trustees have been “chosen” has been tainted for some time now.
That has been our problem and is our problem and will continue to be our problem unless we change “pools” wherein we choose trustees.
cb
October 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Brother CB,
If the pool from which our trustees are chosen is tainted now, it was tainted back in 1965. It was tainted back in 1975. It was tainted back in 1985. It was tainted back in 1995. And, if the pool was not tainted then, what has changed? Are you telling me that the CR produced Pattersonite Minions? If not how is the pool tainted? You may say it is tainted by those who give allegiance to certain CR leaders. I have been around for some time and certainly am as much in agreement with the direction of our current leaders as anyone. However, I have never served on any board. Todd Littleton served on the BWA committee from the SBC and does not desire to do that again. Ben Cole was so close to Dr. Patterson that he was nicknamed Noche II and now does not desire to serve with him. If the pools are tainted how could someone like those two serve in positions they served in and someone like me not even be asked to lead in silent prayer?
I just disagree that the pool is tainted. I know the above is a slight exaggeration but you get the point. If the pools are tainted then there is no way a Wade Burleson would have ever gotten assigned to the IMB.
Blessings,
Tim
October 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
The trustee system is designed to work hush, hush behind closed doors?
October 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Tim: You forget these same people assigned him because they thought he was holding their view due to his role in the CR. These same people also tried to oust him when they found out he did not hold the same views of getting rid of people.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Sister Debbie,
That is where your whole argument breaks down. The people I mentioned were known as having a mind of their own and not afraid to speak up on the issues. Of course I do not believe there was any inclination that some would do what they are doing now.
Blessings,
Tim
October 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Debbie,
The trustee system was not designed to “work hush, hush behind closed doors.” It was designed with the highest of hopes to glorify God and promote the reaching of people with the gospel all over the world. In recent years it has been tainted by people seeking to fulfill their own agendas.
Tim,
I did not mention Dr. Patterson’s name. You did. Now, you think long and hard about that very thing.
To answer your question about Wade Burleson and his trusteeship I remind you he was first chosen by people that thought he would help to rid the IMB of Dr. Jerry Rankin. They were wrong. He “bucked” and bucked hard. Then some very stupid trustees of the IMB sought to remove him from the Board. Remember Jerry Corbaley and his little motion? Remember Tom Hatley and his little rantings?
It was that very event that brought cb and Ben Cole into this little fracous in the beginning. We knew Wade was telling the truth about the happenings at the IMB. It is for that reason I gave him my respect and support as a trustee. He did not lie about what was taking place. He would not shut up and he would not sit down.
The IMB trustee Board was a stacked Board with the specific intent of removing Dr. Rankin from the “Big Chair” and every insider knows it.
Tim, the trustee have been chosen from a tainted pool for some time now. Believe what you please. It is not going to change until guys like you and others take trustee positions and refuse to sell out your accountability before God and the SBC.
You are a good man Tim, but, you are wrong about this trustee situation.
cb
October 19th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Tim: CB is absolutely correct in why Wade was chosen. They quickly found out that was not the case however.
Believe me I do know the facts better than you do in this case.
October 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Tim,
One more thing about your comment #17. If Ben Cole was so close to Dr. Patterson as you say he was (and he was) why did Dr. Patterson recently say he hardly knew Ben Cole?
Tim, something is terribly wrong. With all my heart I wish it was not so, but it is. Something is wrong and if the SBC is to survive that which is wrong must be changed.
Guys like you, Wes, Robin, Joe and others are going to have to cowboy up and make a difference rather than “beating a drum that is very out of tune.”
cb
October 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Brother CB,
You said, and Sister Debbie agreed; “I remind you he was first chosen by people that thought he would help to rid the IMB of Dr. Jerry Rankin.” Who says? Brother Wade spoke earlier about a trustee that approached him about this very issue of which you write. However, the only trustee that approached Brother Wade about being nominated has told me no such conversation took place. Believe what you wish, but that statement is stretching for something that is not there. If this happened why not produce the names of the Trustees that did this and lets deal with it. No, this information will never be produced because once it is, then it will be proven that it never happened. As long as everyone remains nameless, then we can keep this rumor circulating in order to paint others in a negative position.
As to Dr. Patterson’s statement about Brother Ben, you probably need to ask him that question.
Blessings,
Tim
October 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Tim,
Wade has revealed the names and it was more than one. Also, I know the pattern used to enlist for I have served as one who enlisted and I know the questions asked and the answers sought.
Tim, Wade Burleson did not lie about this matter. He told the truth. The very fact he was nominated in the first place proves it happened. Had he not been one who was thought by others to be willing to “play the game” he would have never gotten the nomination. That is just the way it is, Tim. I cannot change the reality of that, nor can you.
As for the question about Dr. Patterson and Ben, remember you brought it up. I just filled in the blanks. My point was that something is very wrong somewhere. You take a long look at the realities of all this and then tell me where the problem is.
Tim, I don’t mind a fight and you know it, but this is just too close to my “gut” and you are my good friend so I am going to leave this one to you. Say what you want. I’ll not comment on this particular thread again. I’ll be glad to discuss this with you privately, but even I cannot continue this before the whole world. If I say more it will take this conversation to places and personalities I do not want to go. Believe it or not, Tim, some things are hard for me to say, although, I know them to be true and I am willing to face God with it and already have.
cb
October 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Tim: I believe Wade. The fact that this trustee denies that conversation shows just how tainted the trustees are.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Brother CB,
You and I are great friends and I certainly do not desire to send something into a public arena that you feel should remain private.
Allow me to follow-up on something about this question. I missed where Brother Wade gave the identity of the trustees that told him this about Dr. Rankin. Can you direct me to that location?
Sister Debbie,
I thought nothing less that your total blind allegiance to your Pastor’s position.
Blessings,
Tim
October 19th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Not blind Tim, I just know his integrity.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Sister Debbie,
Ok, I will go with you knowing his integrity. I will ask you the same thing that I asked Brother CB. I could have missed it so I will concede that he was told he was needed to help end Dr. Rankin’s career. Show me where he has revealed who those trustees were that told him that. To my knowledge he has never revealed t hat information. Until he does we are supposed to do the same thing that you and others say is wrong. We are supposed to “just trust him” in this particular situation. Who are these nameless trustees that told him this?
Blessings,
Tim
October 20th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Brother Tim,
Do you really want the names or just another angle from which to attack? It seems to me that in past every time someone has asked for evidence or a name and it was given then the cry went from “unfounded comments” to “you are being mean or evil by posting this for everyone to see.”
Why do you think that the most “usable” people have been and are being “recycled” so many times? In a denomination with a pool of “16 million” people it is definitely questionable for the same group of names to keep showing up as trustees on various boards and agencies.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
To all who have made the claim that certain trustees contacted Wade Burleson beforehand asking him to join their efforts to get rid of Jerry Rankin, please produce the names of the accused trustees with your names attached.
Until you do so, this is a moot point and not even on topic for the post. Any further insinuations that do not produce names will be deleted. SBC Today does not welcome vague accusations that tarnish the integrity of an entire board.
There are other sites in which this activity is welcomed if you desire to engage in these exploits. Please go there to do so!
October 20th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
You guys can do a search of Wade’s blogs (2 years worth) just as much as we can and it is not a moot point. Tim must have known at least one name, he did talk to one did he not? Give me a break Robin. If you want to be unreasonable and delete this, it’s your blog but not much interaction takes place on this blog because if we disagree, we are deleted.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Sister Debbie,
Who have I spoken with about this?
Blessings,
Tim
October 20th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Tim: I refer you to comment number 24.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:10 am
Robin:
I agree with you.
If, in fact, one or more IMB trustees worked behind the scenes to hand pick new trustees (such as Wade or anyone else) for the express purpose of booting out the president of the IMB then I think that the charge is serious enough that it should be surfaced and not just papered over.
There comes a time when honesty and integrety trumps trying to hide stuff from public view in order not to ruffle feathers.
Put another way, I don’t think the majority of rank and file guys sitting in the pews would tolerate trustees working behind the scenes to handpick new trustees that are pledged to a particular political outcome. This is the SBC, not the mafia.
There comes a time when sweeping stuff under the rug — while maybe expedient in the short term — has serious consequences which cut to the core the integrity of the trustees.
If, in fact, the trustees are/were on a secret mission to undercut the leadership of the IMB then they need to come clean or be exposed. Enough with back room power plays to enlist new guys who would be complicit in the scheme.
If there are no facts to substantiate these rumors then those who float them need be silent.
Its time to put up or shut up.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with trustees communicating together in confidence regarding any matter — including the tenure of the president of the institution they are governing. However, trying to hand-pick the board to suit their agenda is way over the top. I thought we got rid of the “good ole boy” network.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
October 21st, 2007 at 12:45 am
Roger: When this was made public, it died down and did not take fruit. I don’t think it would have been successful anyway. As I said you can do the research as well as I can. My memory is what is serving me. I am not going to spend an hour or more researching this since it occurred over a year ago, only to have this refuted or as Karen has said. Been there done that. Believe it or don’t believe it, but I would think just the fact that CB(who knows many things that you do not due to his contacts) and I have told you should be enough. I understand if it is not, but if I can research it so can you.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:06 am
Sister Debbie,
The trustee to whom I referred spoke to me at the convention and told the that to his knowledge, he was the only sitting trustee that spoke to Brother Wade before he was officially voted on by the convention. The nominations were made public and as a courtesy of the IMB Trustees he spoke with Brother Wade. Nothing in that conversation ever went to anything concerning Dr. Rankin’s tenure.
As to your comment about researching the past two years of Brother Wade’s posts. You do not have to, because he has never said who it was that approached him. He will not say because it never happened and this is another of the silent stories that have been started to further a cause. Just as we have seen of other stories when asked for evidence. The evidence produced was evidence obtained without proper authorization and that very evidence was old and had already passed the test of an independent audit.
Blessings,
Tim
October 21st, 2007 at 7:08 am
Debbie:
You answer to me is pathetic. Take responsibility for what you say or don’t say it.
Roger K. Simpson
October 21st, 2007 at 8:32 am
To all
It seems this conversation has further derailed to accusations against our trustees that are questioning thier integrity. SBC Today is leaving the comments as is as a reminder of what we are not about: nameless, proofless accusations.
Again, there are other sites that promote this, we do not. Therefore the discussion is being shut down.