NOBTS trustees vote to ask SBC messengers to settle debate over sole membership

NEW ORLEANS-New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS) trustees voted April 14 to ask Southern Baptist Convention messengers meeting in 2005 in Nashville to settle a long and exhausting debate over declaring the SBC the sole member of the seminary.

By a vote of 33 to 6 with one new trustee abstaining, the NOBTS board voted to present two alternatives from which messengers can choose next year. One option will utilize the “sole member” language preferred by the SBC Executive Committee. Option two will be alternative language still to be written that will confirm the Southern Baptist Convention as the school’s rightful owner.

Trustee Gregg Simmons, pastor of Memorial Baptist Church in Southlake, told the Southern Baptist Texan, “Our trustees continue to have serious concerns about the issue of sole membership and how it impacts NOBTS. We appreciate the Executive Committee giving us the time we need to thoroughly study and pray through this issue. We are and remain staunchly loyal to the Southern Baptist Convention.”

According to an Executive Committee spokesman, sole membership is a legal mechanism that allows a parent organization to establish its ownership (as sole member of the corporation) of a subordinate entity while setting limitations to the parent entity’s control, thereby limiting the legal liability of the parent for the subsidiary. In a letter from EC President Morris Chapman he explained that entities would be kept from declaring independence through this “preemptive measure for future generations.” He used Baylor University as an example of a state Baptist college that took a “devious route ‘in breaking away’ from governance by trustees elected by the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Similar instances cited by EC legal counsel include Shorter College of Georgia and five breakaway entities of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

All SBC entities cooperated by amending their charters with the exception of NOBTS which expressed concern over a change in the level of SBC control and the increase in fiduciary ascending liability.

Although the board intended to draft alternative language for the recent spring meeting, that effort was sidelined at the request of an EC staffer who said he desired a more harmonious private dialogue than a public debate over technical legalities might afford. Several NOBTS trustees said they were caught off guard by a recent EC resolution asking New Orleans Seminary to comply with their request.

“We feel like we have been misled by things told by the Executive Committee that did not happen,” NOBTS President Charles S. Kelley, Jr., told the board, referring to an early commitment that the Executive Committee would accept whatever decision trustees made.

EC chairman Gary Smith, pastor of Fielder Road Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, explained why the issue was brought before EC members in his introductory statements at the Feb. 16 meeting. He noted that several of the EC members who had been involved in the discussion over sole membership would rotate off the Executive Committee soon. “Those of us who have helped orchestrate this discussion will kind of move off the scene,” he stated, describing those current officers as more knowledgeable of the issues than those to be elected next.

“We thought the way to put it to bed is to have a good discussion,” Smith told EC members in February. “We wanted to start the process of you being knowledgeable so that if it was ever needed for it to be discussed by the convention, you would be knowledgeable about it.”

NOBTS trustees attending that EC meeting expressed disappointment at the way Smith moderated the meeting, often entering into the discussion to defend the EC and question Kelley further. “The moderator who began by saying he would be very fair was not fair throughout the entire presentation,” stated trustee Don Davidson of Danville, Va. He compared the discussion to the EC’s handling of another “big issue that night-the Baptist World Alliance vote.” Davidson elaborated, stating, “There was no real openness to listen to any other side.”

Kelley speculated that most EC members had never heard anything about sole membership until that meeting. Noting the contrast, he recounted the process NOBTS trustees followed in studying the charter change for several years. “This board does a good job of having to make decisions. You stay focused on issues, everyone gets a hearing and you never try to shut down discussion before it’s through,” he added.

“We picked up a lot of heat at the meeting,” acknowledged trustee chairman Tommy French of Baton Rouge, La. “Many of those folks are my friends so I’m not going to become their enemy,” he told fellow trustees. “I am not going to conduct myself in a way others have conducted themselves so let us not as a board develop friction between us and the Executive Committee.”

French restated the board’s responsibility to look after the interests of the Southern Baptist Convention, adding that the Executive Committee has a similar task. “They have one opinion and we have an opinion. We’re Baptists. It’s a wonder we don’t have three opinions. Let them do their work and then the Southern Baptist Convention will settle the matter. We’ll still be friends, still work together for the Kingdom of God, this institution and this great denomination.”

Kelley outlined three options that the board might consider in response to the EC resolution:

-delay a further decision until next year so that NOBTS trustees could determine whether there is a better alternative to sole membership for a Louisiana SBC entity.

-ask this year’s messengers to pick from two amendments pre-approved by the board-one of them would be sole membership in some form and the other would be “our best alternative to sole membership.”

-accept the EC recommendation or some variation at the spring meeting, laying aside all objections.

Trustee Don Taylor of Alameda, Cal., modified Kelley’s first two options to move that the board “delay a further decision until next year at which time we will put two alternatives before the SBC, pre-approved by the Board, and ask the Convention to choose which [one] it prefers. Whichever one the convention chose would be enacted immediately without further action by the board. One alternative would be some form of sole membership that takes into consideration the unique issues of Louisiana law. The other would be our best alternative to sole membership.”

Trustee Craig Campbell of Russellville, Ark., wondered why a Feb. 16 legal opinion included in their packets had been held until the April meeting. Kelley said it did not arrive in time for the EC meeting, adding, “This is the first time we’ve been together as a board for me to share that with you.” He suggested the letter be included with other information supporting their recommendation to messengers.

When asked to supply a copy of the legal brief to Baptist Press, Kelley said the attorney had restricted distribution to the trustee body. In stating his preference to “have our package together” before distributing documents publicly, Kelley said, “I’ve gotten to a point in which I do not have confidence in my ability to predict what the Executive Committee staff will do with any information given them. I didn’t want to do anything until we do it as a body and you have it.”

Trustees also received a paper prepared by NOBTS professors Ken Keathley and Lloyd Harsch entitled “A Program of Cooperation.” It served as a rejoinder to a paper by EC Cooperative Program Vice President David Hankins entitled “The Relation of the Southern Baptist Convention to Its Entities.” Hankins wrote in response to a paper written and distributed by Kelley, “The Baptist Way: A Personal Perspective.”

During a lively discussion that prompted comments by at least a dozen trustees, preference was expressed for the longer time frame in which to develop alternative language in consultation with attorneys representing both parties. When one trustee asked whether the Executive Committee had the authority to raise the issue at the upcoming Indianapolis meeting, Kelley referred to a Nov. 23, 2003, letter from EC Vice President for Convention Policy D. August Boto confirming that any motion directed to an SBC entity must be referred to that entity for a response at the following year’s convention.

A half dozen trustees voted against the motion, with several citing its complexity as the cause of their negative vote. Trustee Rudy Gray of Seneca, S.C., thought the wording appeared to offer as many as three options, prompting his negative vote. Eddie Brackett of Wendell, N.C., added that he and others who voted against the motion had not changed their minds regarding sole membership either, but preferred a more clear-cut alternative.

Trustee Tom Johnson of Fredericktown, Mo., was the only member who said he did not regard the issue of sole membership to be so great a threat. “I think the one side is applying a lot of pressure and I don’t appreciate their tactics,” he said in a phone interview, referring to the mail he had received that lobbied for sole membership.

Taylor expressed frustration over the lack of answers to questions he raised in response to a Feb. 25, 2004, letter from Chapman. “I find myself coming to the meeting ill-equipped to move from the position that I had felt was the right decision and that is to hold out against adopting sole membership.”

By accepting their responsibility to make decisions, Kelley said the board demonstrates “the genius of Baptist polity” as “we always leave our most important decisions in the hands of a group-never in the hands of any one individual.”

Kelley admitted his own struggle between the first two proposals that differed in the time frame for presentation to messengers and whether to offer a choice. “The way I was brought up is to focus on one simple thing-that you do what is right as well as you know how to do it. My conscious tells me that the right thing to do is give the Southern Baptist Convention an alternative to sole membership for accomplishing the same thing.

While acceptance of the language preferred by the Executive Committee would be “easy and quick,” Kelley argued against a precedence of acquiescence. “In a way it would condone what the Executive Committee has done in issuing to us a time deadline” which he labeled a violation of SBC bylaws by directing the affairs of another entity.

“They could chalk it up and say, ‘Well, it worked,’” Kelley speculated. “They put that kind of pressure on an entity, keep that in their toolbox and do it again.”

French recalled the lesson of the Three Little Pigs who learned to build a house out of brick. “I’m not afraid of the big bad wolf-never have been, never will be, I don’t think.” He added, “All the stuff that goes on I’m not going to let it worry me. I’ll do what I think I need to do as a member of this board.”

Having lived in Louisiana for over 45 years, French said he had learned, “You better listen to Louisiana attorneys.” He challenged trustees to demonstrate the innovative character of New Orleans Seminary by selecting the best option.

“I just want to say this is not only a house made of bricks and mortar, but providence and prayer,” stated trustee Joel Hanberry of Cut Off, La. “I came to this meeting ready to raise a white flag and adopt [sole membership].” After prayerful consideration, Hanberry said, “I’m convinced we need to delay action.”

Several trustees dismissed setting a 2004 deadline due to the difficulty of quickly informing messengers of the issues at stake. “I’ve heard messengers don’t give much thought and typically adopt Executive Committee recommendations,” added trustee Jim Davidson of Ruston, La. Estimating the floor discussion would last about 15 minutes, Kelley agreed that the additional year would provide more time for Southern Baptists to understand the issues.

“There will be a misinformation campaign,” warned Davidson, drawing his conclusion from letters he received based on “misinformation or, at best, misunderstanding.”

“If I make it as well known as possible and say in advance that sole membership is going to be on the table in 2005 it makes it harder for the kind of disinformation campaign they’ve been doing,” Kelley answered, referring to EC analysis.

Trustee Jerry Garrard of Tallahassee, Fla., questioned whether the board “could get a fair hearing on the convention floor.” He asked whether the Executive Committee might propose removing a disagreeable trustee body, recalling a conversation with SBC President Jack Graham following a called trustee meeting last fall. Garrard said Graham expressed concern that the issue might surface at the convention and indicated he “would hate for us to have to elect convention trustees right there on the floor.”

In a telephone interview with Baptist Press, Graham responded to Garrard’s statement saying, “My position from the beginning has been that if the trustees of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and the members of the SBC Executive Committee are unable to resolve this issue, that it should be brought to the floor of the convention and let the messengers decide. It is inaccurate to suggest that I propose, favor or fear that NOBTS trustees should or would be removed.”

After being told of Graham’s response, Garrard told the Southern Baptist TEXAN that he never thought Graham was advocating the removal of trustees and yet he remembers the subject being raised. “I am in no way questioning President Graham’s intentions or motives,” Garrard insisted.

Another trustee asked whether compliance with sole membership threatened the progress that had been made through a conservative resurgence. “Whoever’s at the top would have an easier time staying at the top,” Kelley answered. “You have a means of shutting off grassroots reformation movement that was unthinkable to an earlier generation.”

“That’s my biggest concern,” responded trustee Glenn Simmons of Scottsdale, Ariz. “Everything is okay right now but what about two years from now when somebody has to stand up and say, ‘I’m not going to take it anymore.’” While Simmons raised the possibility that litigation might halt excessive power, Kelley opposed the idea.

“I could not endorse anything like that. My great concern is not our relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention,” Kelley said, “but how this is being used to strengthen the power and authority of the Executive Committee.” Calling it unintentional, he said the push to adopt sole membership “is a step in that direction and a step away from historic Southern Baptist practice.”

Expressing disappointment over “the tactics the Executive Committee has used,” Kelley added, “Soul membership is developing a mentality that did not exist in Southern Baptist life. There was no strategy that we accomplish anything by removing or eliminating a board of trustees.”

Trustee Dan Crow of Ellicott City, Md., charged the Executive Committee with framing the issue of endorsing sole membership as a test of allegiance to the Southern Baptist Convention. “Not to comply is to say that we are wanting to insurrect,” he added. “We are the outsider trying to take away an entity of the SBC. It’s offensive in the very suggestion of that to me as a trustee of that institution. Honestly, how can we not be angry about that?”

French succinctly answered, “Be angry and sin not.” As the discussion drew to a close, he said, “It doesn’t matter how they frame it, we have to do our work.”