Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Appointment of SBC name change committee 'unprecedented'? Uh, no.

The argument that Bryant Wright’s action on the name change committee is unprecedented is factually incorrect.

Ed Young was first elected SBC president in June of 1992. That September he appointed not one but nine study groups to look in-depth at many SBC matters including theology, Cooperative Program, and many others.

Baptist Press, September 24, 1992

Facts are our friends, I’ve been told. Here are some friends.


Anonymous said...

well, what do you know!?

I never thought appointing a team/committee to look into something was wrong. I'll just be impressed if it gets past the convention floor.

Tim Dahl

Dave Miller said...

Hopefully, this will put a blessed end to the "unprecedented abuse of power" nonsense.

Howell Scott said...


Kudos to you, my friend, for bringing to light the Ed Young precedent of 20 years ago. That's what I get for using the word "unprecedented" without knowing my CR history backwards and forwards. As I have thought about your friendly, non-lawyerly advice (usually the best kind), I think I shall refrain from using the word "unprecedented" to describe Wright's actions as that is clearly not the case at this point.

However, Dave, hate to disappoint you, but I'm not sure I'll put to bed the unconstitutional/end run around the messengers/abuse of power argument just yet. I would still love for somone to point to language in the Bylaws that gives the President the authority to appoint ad hoc special committees/task forces. While I have been strongly opposed to the GCR Task Force's Final Report and Recommendations, I have never argued that they were an illegitimate committee. In fact, I voted to authorized the creation of the task force in 2009. Such is not the case with the "unofficial" task force which has been created to "study" a name change. Sometimes the how is just as important as the why, but trying to make that argument in today's SBC climate is like spitting into the wind :-) Thanks and God bless,


William Thornton said...

Thanks Howell...proving once again what a brilliant blogger I am...no wait...honesty compels me to admit that I merely relied upon part of my memory that hasn't already deteriorated.

Anonymous said...


While good old Dave thinks our concern about unprecedented abuse of power is "nonsense" what is real nonsense is good old Dave's advocacy of unquestioned authority given to President Wright contrary to his perpetual criticism of some SBC leaders as not only “arrogant, demeaning and obstructive” but also “unaccountable,” describing them as “Powerful people [who] never want to be questioned, but they should be. It is a good thing, a godly thing, to hold human beings accountable…” http://sbcvoices.com/dr-nathan-finn-words-we-need-to-hear/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SbcVoices+%28SBC+Voices%29#comment-58810

Good old Dave wants Baptists like Howell and me to stand down while he pops his six shooter anytime he feels like it. Now that, I’d say qualifies for nonsense!

Even so, I wouldn’t pass the Champaign bucket too quickly. Young’s appointments, I’m told, completely fizzled out and did not even finish. In other words, they met a few times until somebody finally got through to Ed Young he had no authority to appoint the committees. Hence, they all dissolved without a trace—no reports, no studies, no nothing. Just an announcement in the BP of their creation. I’m looking into this little landmine you’ve left splattering on us, all buddy. In the meantime, good old Dave will race back to Voices and put your post up there!Goody goody!

Thanks, William. You’re not the North Georgia redneck I always imagined :^)

With that, I am…


William Thornton said...

Thanks for the comment Peter, and Wright may find that his ability to appoint a committee, something I do not see as an issue, to be a fruitless exercise. Getting a majority of the Executive Committee on your side is one thing. Getting two consecutive majorities of messengers is another.

One thing that is unquestioned here is the ability of the loyal opposition to get a hearing among SBCers. A second thing is that all manner of knowledgable SBCers are talking about a name change. A third thing is that bloggers have something to blog about for awhile.

Shoot, we can all pop our six shooter anytime we want. I may be the only one who listens each time both you and Dave do it...and still finds both of you to be likable people.