ABCUSA Reorganization Report -
by Dr. J. Dwight Stinnett Executive Minister of American Baptist Churches Great Rivers Region

 

In November 2008, the General Board of ABC-USA endorsed a new set of Bylaws for the American Baptist Churches USA. This was a necessary step so it could come before the 2009 Biennial in Pasadena for consideration. If adopted, the changes would take effect in January 2010. This was the culmination of three years of work. Actually, it is much longer than three years because several previous attempts at

reorganization never got past the General Board. The plan finally endorsed by the General Board is radically different from the previous attempts at reorganization. It essentially undoes the defining work of the Study Commission on Denominational Structure (SCODS) and the Study Commission on Relationships (SCOR). SCODS and SCOR created the denomination that most of us know as ABCUSA.

In order to understand the reorganization plan that will be considered at the 2009 Biennial, it is probably helpful to consider the denomination that SCODS and SCOR created.

Are We a "Denomination" or Not?

A dear colleague of mine often says “American Baptists are not a denomination.” How can she say that?

Prior to the 20th Century there was no nationwide organization that anyone could point to and say "They are American Baptists." Baptists have been here since the earliest days of the Republic, and played an important role in establishing the principle of religious freedom for our fledgling democracy. But Baptist churches pretty much acted independently or came together for limited and focused purposes.

Baptist churches formed “associations" very early in American life (the Philadelphia Baptist Association in 1707 was the first). Those early associations declared several purposes: (a) fellowship and mutual encouragement, (b) cooperation in ordination through training and the assessment of candidate character, (c) mediation of internal church disputes, (d) assurance of sound theology and doctrine, (e) addressing moral issues, and (f) practicing church discipline.

Some of these associations coalesced to form state "conventions." At the same time, the missionary fervor of the late 18th and early 19th centuries resulted in several co-existing special focus societies based on individual (not congregational) membership.

The Triennial Convention, more properly known as the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States for Foreign Missions, was formed at Philadelphia in 1814. Early debates in the Triennial Convention shaped not only its future, but the future of Baptists in America. Some wanted the Convention to have an expansive role, working not only in foreign missions but also home missions and publication. Others wanted the Convention to focus exclusively on foreign work. Some (mostly in the South) wanted the Convention to be composed of congregations, and thereby integral with churches. Others wanted the Convention to remain a society of individual membership. Eventually, at a meeting in Boston in 1826, the Convention decided to focus on foreign work, and remain a society of individuals unrelated to congregations.

The Tract Society was created in 1824 for the purpose of publishing and distributing evangelistic tracts. In 1840 it was reorganized as the American Baptist Publication and Sunday School Society. It was a “Bible Society, Book Concern, Tract Society, Colporteur Agency, and Sunday School Union.” The Publication Society enjoyed broad support from Baptists in both the North and the South.

The American Baptist Home Mission Society was formed in 1832 in New York to assume the role of mission work within the United States, which had been discontinued by the Triennial Convention (1826). The constitution said that “the great object of this Society shall be to promote the preaching of the gospel in North America.” In contrast to the Tract Society (and later the Publication Society), Baptists in the South were very little involved with the Home Mission Society. The cool reception in the South may have been due to resentment of the Society’s domination (perceived?) by New England Baptists as much as anything. These were all independent organizations, whose membership often overlapped.

Like every other religious group in the United States, Baptists were not immune to the regional, cultural, social, economic, and political upheaval that would finally erupt in gunfire at Fort Sumter in 1861. Baptist battles predated the Civil War, but reflected the same forces that were at work in society. The Triennial Convention, after years of debate and avoidance, finally refused to appoint slaveholding missionaries in 1845. This may have been a contrived test case, but it served the purpose.

Offended Baptists, primarily in the South, left the Triennial Convention (not the Publication Society!) to create the Southern Baptist Convention—a much more cohesive and comprehensive organization, which is what they had wanted from the very beginning. Like the Civil War, which would come in another 15 years there were many reasons the Southerners left. For some slavery truly was the point, for many others congregational independence had been violated, for others freedom from the “tyranny” of New England Baptists was primary, and others wanted a different kind of organization.

The lasting effect was the regionalization of Baptists in the United States, essentially into those loose societies, associations, and conventions in the North and the singular, overarching Southern Baptist Convention in the South. Baptists in the South would resist forming their own publication society (the Sunday School Board) until 1891. Until then they happily continued to use American Baptist Publication Society resources. This pattern of regionalization would persist for the next 100 years.

In the North, independent Baptist societies and special interest groups multiplied through the latter half of the 19th Century. But growth for independent societies with no unified or coordinated purpose, competing for finances and attention, became increasingly problematic. By the close of the 19th Century, the Publication Society was in serious financial difficulty. After false starts and failing efforts, a petition signed by less than 200 powerful Baptist leaders in 1906 demanded a unified meeting of the societies in Washington DC for the express purpose of creating a national body.

A Denomination Emerges

In the midst of power politics and uncivil meetings, the Northern Baptist Convention (NBC) was ultimately birthed. While action began at the 1907 meeting, the Convention was not actually incorporated until 1910. The name would be changed to the "American Baptist Convention" in 1950, presumably as a pre-emptive move against the Southern Baptist Convention. Although it was a “convention” in name, it was not at all like the Southern Baptist Convention. It retained its fundamental societal character.

In 1910 there were five cooperating societies held together contractually with the Northern Baptist Convention. The state conventions became affiliating organizations. All retained their status as independent corporations with their own governing boards. The existing Executive Committee was transformed into a General Council of less than 50, and was vested with all the authority of the Convention (which was not much) between sessions. The annual Convention meeting was the only representative body.

The stated reasons for the creation of the NBC were:

1.	To provide unity and cooperation in worldwide evangelistic efforts,
2.	To offer theologically-informed public witness on issues of social and denominational concern, and
3.	To promote a distinct national identity.

While all three points are worthy of elaboration, the third underscores that a national identity was lacking (not surprising considering our history to this point), and that such a national identity was worth promoting.

The move was not universally applauded. Some feared the specter of “popery.” Others thought it usurped the mission and evangelistic tasks of congregations. Still others simply preferred the freedom of choice afforded by the societal approach which had existed up to this point. In many ways the debate was the same as the Triennial Convention in Boston in 1826.

The NBC was only marginally effective at best. The creation of the Convention raised expectations that, to a large extent, it was not structured to deliver. Societies continued to operate independently. Social and theological rifts in America took their toll on the Convention. Financial difficulties continued. Frustrations mounted. In an article published in 1952 (not even 50 years after the creation of the Convention), William Lipphard declared the NBC a “failure.”

While dissatisfaction persisted, there were sporadic attempts at organizational changes—some modest, others dramatic. Finally, a Study Commission on Denominational Structure (SCODS) was appointed in Boston (1968). The Commission documented many of the concerns across the denomination. The final proposal was presented and accepted at the Convention in Denver (1972). Because this resulted in a radically different organization, there was a planned follow-up study. This group, the Study Commission on Relationships (SCOR) was appointed in 1972 and reported in 1976. At the meeting in San Diego (1977) a new set of Bylaws was adopted. This is essentially the organization we live with today:

Our name was changed to “American Baptist Churches USA” (ABCUSA).

The annual convention meeting was abandoned for a Biennial meeting that retained very little of the legislative/policy power of the Convention (this was transferred to the newly formed “General Board”).

The two constituencies of ABCUSA were identified: local congregations and covenanting regional organizations (state conventions). This often overlooked action was significant given our history.

Written covenants between the disparate corporations became the basis of our life together in a document called the “Covenant of Relationships.”

The General Board was created as a proportionately representative body with legislatively established and maintained diversity. This body functioned as the legal Board of Directors for the corporation known as ABCUSA, but was forbidden to create or implement programming on its own. That function was reserved for the “national program boards.”

The historic societies were now identified as the Board of Educational Ministries (BEM), the Board of National Ministries (BNM), and the Board of International Ministries (BIM). The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board (MMBB) had already been created as a denominational board in 1911. Thus, MMBB was different from the other mission societies in its origin and legal structure from the very beginning.

While the historic societies remained distinct legal entities, these boards were ostensibly under the control of the General Board. Society membership was defined as the elected representatives on the General Board. Further, there was interlocking membership between the program boards and the General Board. General Board approval was required to hire Executive Directors, but the General Board ultimately could not hold them accountable. This interlocking structure was a creative way to bring the societies together while protecting their legal identity, but it proved to be very problematic. Board members frequently complained of confusion over roles and conflicts of interest. It also proved very difficult for the General Board to create broad goals and hold the program boards accountable for their implementation.

The position of “General Secretary” was intended to become “the focal point of the structure” built around a single denominational staff, including the directors of the historic societies as “Associate General Secretaries.” This person served — and serves now — as the CEO of the corporation known as ABCUSA and had a staff identified collectively as the Office of the General Secretary. The General Secretary and staff were employed by and accountable to the General Board. The plan created high expectations of the General Secretary in terms of denominational leadership and coordination, but structurally made effective leadership impossible. From the very beginning, General Secretaries struggled with implementing denomination-wide vision and goals while working with legally-independent program boards led by equally independent Executive Directors. Further, General Secretaries were frustrated by working with a representative General Board which was internally divided by loyalties and passions.

Special interest ministries and programs were gathered under the ill-defined and unregulated umbrella of “Administratively Related Organizations” (ARO). This included eleven entities that were “too dissimilar to constitute an operationally definable set.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite the mistakes and some questionable decisions, two moves in the work of SCOR/SCODS qualify as inspired. The first was to define the membership of the historic mission societies as members of the General Board, who were the elected representatives of the churches. This drew a clear line of accountability to the churches that comprised ABCUSA for the first time. Most people forget that before this the societies were composed of individuals, with no direct accountability to churches, and that the boards were self-sustaining.

The second inspired move was to use “covenant” as the glue to hold 35+ autonomous and semi-independent groups together. This was a biblically-based framework which resonated with most American Baptists, and allowed us to be together in a profound way without discounting congregational independence.

Today we have a generation of American Baptists who have known nothing else, and do not realize how American Baptist identity as a denomination was created in this era for the first time. Three things in particular shaped the emergence of a national identity for American Baptists.

The number one success story of this era was United Mission. This shared funding program, as much as anything, created the ABCUSA identity that matured through the 70s and 80s. At the same time, the success of United Mission set the stage for the financial crisis that emerged as we moved from the 20th to the 21st century. United Mission capitalized on our passion for international missions. But other components of American Baptist life came to depend on United Mission. Most regions neglected teaching, reporting, and creating passion for their own mission and ministry because they “rode the coattails” of International Ministries. At the same time, many did not recognize that regions were often functioning as “mini-mission societies” whose visible role was to support the work of International Ministries.

Among those participants in American Baptist life with near-exclusive dependence on United Mission funding was the General Board and all its work through the Office of the General Secretary. Consequently, the General Board became very vulnerable as the costs of maintaining an adequately representative system and a general staff rose at the same time as significant numbers of pastors and churches increasingly devalued, and even resented, the work of the General Board.

In addition to United Mission, the adoption of policy statements and resolutions by the General Board contributed significantly to a national denominational identity. Taken as a whole, these statements presented ABC identity as a biblically-oriented people, striving to hold both the personal and social demands of the gospel together. However, these statements became a source of dissension as we came to the close of the 20th century. Repeated reductions in the size of the General Board (in response to financial pressures) resulted in a board that was less and less representative of the constituent churches. This, coupled with a changing political climate, an ethos of institutional mistrust, and the growing social fragmentation resulting from tribalization, contributed to a nagging dissatisfaction with both the process and practice of policy statements. Further, the inability to implement such statements led some to question their value, especially when seen alongside the dissension that accompanied them. The irony is that the same practice which contributed so greatly to establishing an American Baptist identity became a significant source of dissension and dissatisfaction.

Lastly, this era witnessed an unparalleled explosion of ethnic diversity in the denomination. As we entered the 21st century, we found ourselves to be the only denomination in the United States without an ethnic majority. While this cannot be entirely attributed to the structural design envisioned by SCODS/SCOR, it is true that there were organizational decisions, practices and policies that all led to this wonderful distinctive of American Baptist identity.

We are, however, confronted with the challenge of moving on to the next level. The simplistic philosophies, strategies, and tools for dealing with ethnic diversity that were formulated in the 60s do not seem adequate for the complex task of creating bona fide community life in the multicultural setting that confronts us today.

It can be said that the work of SCODS/SCOR resulted in a national denominational identity for American Baptists. The documents written by these commissions make it clear that they rightly recognized they were proposing a “significant change from a collection of societies to a national organization.” This was a remarkable achievement.

Today it seems to me a miracle that the plan was adopted. Still the rhetoric promised much more than the structure was able to deliver. SCODS/SCOR was seeking a structure to “carry out programs in terms of comprehensive goals and objectives.” But they underestimated barriers and overestimated cooperation.

Growing Dissatisfaction and Crisis

As in the case of the NBC, the creation of ABC-USA brought mixed responses. There were unrealistic expectations and fears. Many old concerns continued; new ones appeared. Finally, a negative feasibility study for a denomination-wide financial campaign triggered action by the General Board.

The Review Commission on Denominational Structure and Process was created by the board in 1997. It was charged to “study, assess, and make recommendations with respect to the present and future structure and process of the denomination.”

The Commission engaged an independent organization to conduct a denomination-wide survey. From that survey, the Commission summarized several issues that would inform their thoughts about organization. They considered four options:

1.	Maintain the status quo,
2.	Return to the societal model,
3.	Modify the present structure, or
4.	Design a unified mission organization.

The Commission pursued the fourth option: merging the existing national corporations into one corporation with a single board. The proposal failed, primarily because of the concerns of national staff and the historic mission societies over the loss of independence and identity. Incidentally, these were the same reasons a similar proposal failed in 1908.

However, the issues that led to the Review Commission in the first place persisted and were complicated by the looming demise of BEM. A second study group was formed in 2001.

It reported that uncertain and troubled relationships seemed to be a root issue in the denomination. After a lot work involving professional consultants and facilitators, the study group presented a modest proposal to the General Board in 2002. In other words, the study group took approach 3 that had been considered and rejected by the Review Commission.

Unfortunately, the same dynamics that doomed the work of the Review Commission were present in the study Group. Some on the General Board expressed the concern that the proposal did not go far enough. Others opposed even the minimal level of organizational integration that the proposal envisioned. In the final analysis, some of the proposals were implemented administratively and the legal relationship of Administratively Related Organizations to the General Board were clarified. But most of the substantive proposals that would require Bylaw changes were allowed to fade.

In the meantime, the Board of Educational Ministries failed, discord within the denomination grew, there was a second negative feasibility study for a denomination-wide campaign, and the financial pressures, especially on General Board operations, became critical.

While much has been made of the role of the sexuality debate during this time, many of us believe that it was merely the presenting symptom of deeper issues in American Baptist life. Both feasibility studies, which were referenced above, found growing alienation and mistrust with the national denomination. The conflict, and our inability to deal effectively with it, exposed very different (even incommensurate) interpretations of how our structure should work.

It also exposed some of the ways in which our organizing documents were inconsistent with one another. In one sense, these radically different understandings of identity and inconsistent documents reflect who American Baptists are—a loose amalgam at best. In the final analysis, we must confess that our present structure is not equal to the promises it has made and cannot adequately address conflicting values among us.

The most recent attempt at reorganization originated in denominational staff meetings in 2005. The Regional Executive Ministers Council (REMC) and General Executive Council (GEC; consisting of REMC plus key national staff) both met in San Antonio. The denominational conflict over homosexuality, which had been on slow simmer since the Commission on Denominational Unity Report in 1997, had come to a full boil in the Fall of 2004 and threatened to explode in the Summer of 2005.

Many of us went to the REMC and GEC meetings in April 2005 hoping we could find a way to avoid a denominational meltdown. The meeting did not end well. One of the seven statements produced by that meeting included:

The GEC recognizes that mission is most effective when appropriately contextualized to its cultural setting. Therefore, the GEC recommends to the General Board the establishment of a task force to (a) examine the nature of our present cultures and the impact of postmodernism, and (b) assess implications for potential organizational change for ABCUSA.

In November 2005, the GEC adopted the following resolution:

Building upon its action in the Spring of 2005, the GEC has observed a confluence of events that are symptomatic of a need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the very character of what it means to be a denomination in this day, and that we accordingly resolve to put in place a process to review the Covenant of Relationships to include a review of our values, structure, and decision-making processes that would form the basis of a new relationship together.

In April 2006, the GEC identified four key issue areas that needed to be addressed in the midst of the denominational crisis. These were:

1.	Denominational leadership,
2.	Denominational structure,
3.	The “representative process” for the General Board, and
4.	Denominational relevance to congregations and pastors.

In June the General Board charged the GEC to prepare a reorganization proposal. The GEC set an ambitious timeline in which a reorganization proposal would be presented to the General Board in November 2006 so it could be considered at the Biennial in 2007.

The GEC also proposed eight criteria which should inform the reorganization effort, and these were endorsed by the General Board:

1.	Protect and secure the local church as the fundamental unit of mission by preserving historic Baptist freedoms and enacting a balance of autonomy and interdependence.
2.	Demonstrate respect for ethnic/gender/cultural/theological/generational diversity and inclusiveness in all processes and purposes.
3.	Increase the potential for fundraising through United Mission and other sources.
4.	Implement substantial cost reductions for General Board operations.
5.	Enable ABCUSA to establish, celebrate, implement, and monitor outcomes of mission and ministry.
6.	Resolve the division over homosexuality or at least move the denomination forward on this issue.
7.	Provide for commitment to clear accountability, holding each other responsible for maintaining covenants.
8.	Provide central office functions for the denomination.

The GEC was unable to meet its own deadline, so work continued. In June 2007, the GEC presented its recommendations to the General Board, which then assumed responsibility for it. With some modifications, the General Board endorsed proposed Bylaws at its meeting in November 2008. These would be considered at the Biennial meeting in Pasadena in June 2009 and, if adopted, would take effect January 2010.

The Proposal

It is important to understand that it is only Bylaws which will come before the Biennial in Pasadena, and that those Bylaws deal only with the General Board of ABCUSA. Other changes can be anticipated in the Standing Rules and also the Covenant of Relationships. It is a mistake to think that passing these Bylaws will result in a sweeping reorganization of all American Baptist entities. Regions, Administratively Related Ministries, colleges and seminaries will not experience structural changes as a result of this work.

The structure is basically a move back (but not all the way) to the societal model that existed before SCODS/SCOR. In other words, this proposal corresponds to Option 2 that the Review Commission on Denominational Structure and Process considered and rejected in their report. If adopted, what will these new Bylaws change?

1.	The interlocking boards created by SCODS/SCOR would be undone. BIM, BNM, and MMBB would once again become self-sustaining boards. Each board would have a special category of directors whose authority would be limited to assuring ABCUSA connections could not be broken. Other than leaving ABCUSA, these boards will be pretty much free to do whatever they wish. While we have no details from these boards, it is certain that all would be much smaller.
2.	The General Board would become the Board of General Ministries (BGM) and remain the legal corporate entity of ABCUSA. It would no longer be a proportionately representative-board. Six members would be ex officio (President, Vice-President, Budget Review Officer, Past-President, Inter-caucus President, and the General Secretary). Other members would be elected at the Biennial, with one person coming from each covenanting region, and five persons “at large” nominated for diversity. With one “special” director (see #1 above) that makes a total of 46 on the board. The Board of General Ministries would be charged to “manage the affairs of the ABCUSA,” through 19 specific tasks. Seven of those tasks are identical to responsibilities given to the present General Board. Twelve are modifications, expansions, or clarifications of present tasks. One task of the present General Board has been deleted—that is the power to “formulate, adopt, promulgate, review, amend, rescind, and implement American Baptist Policy Statements and Resolutions….” In its place, a new process is proposed (described below; see point 7).
3.	The General Secretary would remain the CEO of ABCUSA, and the Office of General Secretary would remain the staff of BGM. Functions specified in the Bylaws would be essentially as they are outlined now.
4.	The National Staff Leadership Council (NLC) would replace the present General Executive Council (GEC). It would consist of the President of ABCUSA and staff members of covenanting organizations. Initially, the NSLC would have about 60 members. Membership in NLC would be managed by the NLC itself.

The eligibility requirements (set in the Bylaws) include that the organization:

have an autonomous board and be financially stable,

have a paid Executive, and

demonstrate its willingness to support the statement of purpose of ABCUSA, cooperate wholeheartedly in such relationships and projects at all levels of denominational life which seem advisable, be identified as an organization related to and participating in the life of ABCUSA by the use of the name and/or logo, be primarily devoted to providing programs and/or services to the ABCUSA, and be accountable to the ABCUSA Policy Statements, Resolutions and Public Witness Statements, together with any internal covenants within the NLC.

 

 

 

 

 

The purposes of the NLC are: (a) Building and fostering authentic relationships within the NLC. (b) Participating in continuing education related to respective roles. (c) Facilitating implementation of denominational priorities. (d) Demonstrating progress on those priorities in their respective boards. (e) Conducting trend analysis. (f) Suggesting means of improving the functioning of the denomination. (g) Participating in theological reflection.

5.	The Biennial would continue to be a “family” gathering, primarily for worship, education, and celebration. Certain governance tasks would continue to reside with the Biennial, such as election of BGM members, election of officers, and changes to the Bylaws of ABCUSA. In addition, the Biennial would feature “Mission Summit” opportunities. Those opportunities are open to all who attend the Biennial. The purpose of the Mission Summit is “to discern and articulate broad priorities for American Baptists for the upcoming biennium and beyond.” Those broad priorities would be contained in a published report.
6.	The Mission Table would be the ongoing organization charged to refine and pursue the broad priorities identified by the Mission Summit. The Mission Table is a large “mission think tank” chaired by the President of ABC-USA. Its membership includes national and regional staff, representatives from American Baptist seminaries and American Baptist colleges, and one local church participant from each region (selected by the Nominating Committee of ABCUSA). I think it adds up to 100-120 people. The intent is that the participants in the Mission Table would carry back to their respective boards and organizations those goals and priorities identified by the Mission Summit. However, the Mission Table has no authority to implement those goals and priorities.
7.	The existing practice for Policy Statements and Resolutions would be totally revised. Public Witness Statements could be proposed by any of the covenanting boards (BGM, BNM, BIM, or the regional boards). In order to become a Public Witness Statement of American Baptists, the proposed statement would need to be affirmed by three-fourths of the covenanting boards. MMBB would not be part of this process. Existing ABCUSA Policy Statements and Resolutions would remain in effect until, and if, three-fourths of the covenanting boards agree they should be rescinded.

The Covenant of Relationships will continue to be the means by which BGM, BNM, BIM, MMBB and the regional boards will be held together. This work is yet to be done. And so will we return to the topic that set this ball rolling in 2005. As in the case of the Standing Rules, we can expect some changes in these agreements defining how we will live and work together.

Does this proposal meet the criteria endorsed by the General Board? Decide for yourself.

1.	Protect and secure the local church as the fundamental unit of mission by preserving historic Baptist freedoms and enacting a balance of autonomy and interdependence. The local church was never at risk. This proposal changes nothing about that, because it never could in the first place. However, the historic mission societies will regain their freedom.
2.	Demonstrate respect for ethnic/gender/cultural/theological/generational diversity and inclusiveness in all processes and purposes. While there was never any intention to alter the denominational commitment to inclusiveness, it must be admitted that it would be impossible to (a) reduce BGM numbers so radically, (b) move from the proportionately representative General Board to a self-sustaining board, and (c) at the same time radically reduce legislative functions (which have been key to maintaining diversity) without having some impact (real or perceived) on inclusiveness. While all the boards, when considered collectively, may demonstrate diversity reflective of the denomination, there is no failsafe assurance that will be the case for any single board.
3.	Increase the potential for fundraising through United Mission and other sources. This remains to be seen.
4.	Implement substantial cost reductions for General Board operations. It is true that the cost of operating the Board of General Ministries will be substantially less than the cost of General Board operations. Many of those savings are real. Others had already been realized because of significant cuts in staff and services. But others are achieved by redistributing costs. In any case, this change in structure is a temporary solution to the funding problem of the Board of General Ministries.
5.	Enable ABC/USA to establish, celebrate, implement, and monitor outcomes of mission and ministry. The provisions are there as adequately as they are now.
6.	Resolve the division over homosexuality or at least move the denomination forward on this issue. The problems (and there are many) swirling around the issue of homosexuality are very nearly intractable and brought the structure work to a stalemate. At a meeting in April 2007, the members of the GEC agreed that the simplest and most effective way for us to move forward was for each of us to agree that we would honor and implement the ABCUSA resolutions and policies relevant to the issue with regard to persons serving at the national level. Further discussion led us to the conclusion that this should be true for all ABCUSA resolutions and policies, because once a resolution/policy is adopted by the General Board, all board members and the staff of the Office of General Secretary must implement those resolutions/policies whether or not they agree with them. The final form of the agreement, commonly referred to as “The Tucson Covenant” is: We covenant as GEC members to give due consideration to all ABC Policy Statements and Resolutions in recommending persons to serve at denominational levels.
7.	Provide for commitment to clear accountability, holding each other responsible for maintaining covenants. An honest effort was made to include as much accountability as the structure would bear. However, we must admit that there is not much possibility for the kind of accountability that many would expect. This particular issue is probably better addressed in the Covenants of Relationship.
8.	Provide central office functions for the denomination. The provisions will be there as adequately as they are now.

Possibility not Promise

This is real change. The self-realization that we are a “federation” has many consequences. Things will be gained, but others will be lost. I believe that one of the subtle expectations related to this is that in moving away from each other we will create space for us to stay together. The dissension and irritation we have with one another may be diminished. At the same time this movement lessens the breadth and depth of who we can be and what we can do together. Obviously, denominational relationships are changing. The important question is: How will this movement influence our denominational identity which was created by SCODS/SCOR?

If we are consistent with our organizational philosophy as we work through the Standing Rules and the Covenant of Relationships, we will see the Board of General Ministries emerge as an administrative unit whose primary role is the Biennial and Mission Summit. BGM is not the General Board reborn. It is not representative and has no credibility to speak for the churches or to influence the direction of the denomination. Some will applaud this change, others will lament the loss.

The Mission Table and the National Staff Leadership Council will emerge as the focal points of energy, but their roles will be different. The Mission Table will translate, refine and focus the “voice” of the denomination heard at the Mission Summit. The Mission Table will speak dreams and hopes. The National Staff Leadership Council, having heard those dreams and hopes, will set about the task of making it happen. If the Mission Table tries to force its dreams into reality, or the National Staff Leadership Council turns a deaf ear to the voice, then frustration will rear its ugly head again.

Given our history with organizational change, we can expect a few to applaud this new structure, but many others to be critical. Some will wonder why something wasn’t done another way, and others will worry about unseen pitfalls and imaginary demons. Probably most will ask “What difference does it make?” The answer, to a large extent, depends on our expectations for a denomination.

There is much about the proposal that I do not like. I see several significant problems arising. And I also know that there will be unintended consequences (as there would be with any change). I am worried most about unrealistic expectations. Knowing who we are, the wagon train of baggage we have, and our conflicting values, this is probably the best we can do. I support the proposal as a possibility, not a promise.

<<Back to Articles