Thank the Lord that money meant for ministries will no longer be wasted on lawyers.

Windermere's trustees still have to face another Judge, and that's Almighty God. I don't think He'll be one bit pleased with their chicanery. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes when they face Him.

Dear Ken,

Unless you question the salvation experiences of these Baptist Trustees, officers, and lay people (and the Bible reserves that authority for God), then surely the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus has already deemed them blameless and clean in God's eyes regardless of differing opinions on the governance of a earthly institution. Regard this comment as a plea for rational disagreement in a spiritual family.

"Differences of opinion", nothing. When Windermere was first established as a separate corporation from the MBC, the MBC was assured that they would continue to elect Windermere's trustees. I can cite the relevant portions from the MBC minutes, and have done so on other threads. Windermere's trustees openly and blatantly defied MBC bylaws with this action. I can cite the relevant portions. The MBC openly expressed its disapproval of Windermere's actions by resolution, and Windermere's trustees are still thumbing their noses at Missouri Baptists.

If you think the grace of God gives Christians license to cheat and defraud one another, then I think you need to go back and read your Bible.

Do I question the salvation experiences of Windermere's trustees? I hate to say it, but I fail to see how Christian people can act with so little integrity. In other words, yes, I'm starting to think that Windermere's trustees need a good dose of salvation.

Since the trustees of Windermere acted in the only way their consciences allowed, doing what was best for the future of the conference center, I believe they will hear "Well done, good and faithful stewards." Alas, I am not God, and even happier that Ken does not speak for Him.

No cheating or fraud occurred here, and now the courts have agreed. However, a great deal of lying and political manipulation (with healthy doses of gossip, slander, and misrepresentation) gave the MBC power structure over to Fundamentalists. To mix a biblical allusion with the popular metaphor, it is unfortunate when those in glass houses choose to throw the first stones.

Our church is attending a children's camp at Windermere in June and I look forward to carving out some time to celebrate the end of this mess while there.

Hi JamesH:
I really hope Windermere is able to put this mess behind and move toward its ministry potential. Windermere is one of the most wonderful places in the US. Maybe I will see you there. I spend many weekends and one vacation there each year.
Like you, I believe the Lord looks favorably on Windermere and its Christian leadership.

At the 1999 MBC meeting, Jim Hill presented his “New Directions” strategy, which included a plan to create Windermere and Word & Way as separate corporations. Gary Urich spoke against this part of the plan, fearing that they might attempt to separate themselves from the MBC. Bob Johnston assured messengers that the Nominating Committee would continue to elect the boards of trustees for both agencies (1999 MBC minutes, p. 69).

Bob Johnston served as a trustee for Word & Way when they changed their charter and separated from the MBC.

At the 2000 MBC, the “New Directions” plan was brought up for a final vote. James McCullen asked that the MBC postpone creating Windermere and Word & Way as separate corporations due to recent controversy with the Baptist Home. Randy Fullerton spoke against postponement. He said that the trustees for both agencies would still be appointed by the MBC Nominating Committee (2000 MBC minutes, p. 67).

Randy Fullerton was a trustee for Missouri Baptist College when they voted to separate themselves from the MBC.

Doyle Sager assured messengers that the Executive Board had researched the issues and that messengers did not need to worry (2000 MBC minutes, p. 67). Sager later praised Windermere’s trustees for removing themselves from MBC control.

Double-cross: “To betray by acting in contradiction to an agreed course of action” (American Heritage Dictionary, r.v. “double-cross”).

Will someone explain how Windermere's trustees can justify their actions in light of these selections from the MBC Constitution and Bylaws?

“All charters and charter changes shall be approved by the Convention upon recommendation by the Executive Board” (MBC Constitution, Article IX, section 2).

“The Convention shall elect or approve members of the governing board of each agency” (MBC Constitution, Article IX, section 3).

“[The Nominating Committee] shall nominate persons to serve on the Executive Board, on the governing board of each agency, and on each commission” (MBC Constitution, Article X, section 2).

“The governing board [of MBC educational and benevolent institutions] shall either have been elected or approved by the Missouri Baptist Convention” (Executive Board bylaws, Article XIV, Paragraph C, clause 2).



“All proposed charters or amendments to the charters of the agencies of the Convention shall be submitted to the Convention, upon recommendation by the Executive Board, for approval before they become effective. This provision shall also apply to subsidiary corporations of all agencies” (MBC Business and Financial Plan, section 15).

"However, a great deal of lying and political manipulation (with healthy doses of gossip, slander, and misrepresentation) gave the MBC power structure over to Fundamentalists."

Is that so? I've shown you the evidence and documentation for the accusations I've made. Let's see yours.

Ken, I find it unforunate that you believe proof-texting convention minutes and applying your own commentary concerning the motivations of individuals speaking 10 years ago qualifies as "evidence." I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig through pages of minutes.

Allow me to counter your interpretations of past events with a couple of my own. New Direction sought to move the MBC toward a ministry-focused structure and had as its primary goal supporting the efforts of local churches in their ministries. However, it was not concerned with maintaining power or with who was in "control." Since it was not concerned with centralizing power, it is no small wonder that Fundamentalist scuttled it as soon as they were able to.

Having said this, "New Directions" did not have as its goal the actions of these faithful board trustees. I do not believe any of the institutions would have made the changes they made had not Fundamentalist leadership pushed through sweeping changes to Nominating Committee rules and manipulated the convention political process in their power grab.

Calling your own interpretation of past events "evidence and documentation" does not grant credibility. Buy implying deception in the motives of the faithful ministers with incredible track records of integrity (such as Fullerton, Sager, and Hill - I know all three well), your credibility suffers.

I'm willing to admit that this is my own perspective on what happened, though I certainly believe I am correct. I'm guessing I've not convinced you. My goal is not to convince you - that won't happen. However, it should be said that more happened in the past to motivate the actions taken than only what you mention. This will be all I have to say on the topic.

"I do not believe any of the institutions would have made the changes they made had not Fundamentalist leadership pushed through sweeping changes to Nominating Committee rules and manipulated the convention political process in their power grab."

The MBC bylaws give the Nominating Committee the authority to draft guidelines for the nomination process. The chairman had two parliamentarians review the new guidelines, and both of them said the guidelines were not in violation of convention bylaws. Furthermore, the guidelines were upheld by the MBC, and were later incorporated into MBC bylaws.

By contrast, the MBC openly expressed its disapproval of Windermere's actions by resolution (I know, because I submitted the resolution, and it was adopted by at least a 75% majority). The fact is, Missouri Baptists do not approve of what Windermere's trustees did.

"Buy implying deception in the motives of the faithful ministers with incredible track records of integrity (such as Fullerton, Sager, and Hill - I know all three well), your credibility suffers."

I cited the facts with documentation. If you don't believe what I said, you can check out the MBC minutes for yourself. After the dishonest actions of the people in question, they have no room to question anyone's credibility.

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig through pages of minutes."

In other words, you don't want to be deterred by facts. You've made charges that you can't substantiate, and that doesn't help your credibility.

You still haven't answered my main question. How do you reconcile the actions of Windermere's trustees with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Missouri Baptist Convention?

"I do not believe any of the institutions would have made the changes they made had not Fundamentalist leadership pushed through sweeping changes to Nominating Committee rules and manipulated the convention political process in their power grab."

Here are the "sweeping changes" that the Nominating Committee adopted:

1. No more than two people from the same church may serve on any MBC board.

2. No person may serve on more than one board at the same time.

3. All board members must be from churches that support the Southern Baptist Convention.

Which of these guidelines do you find so objectionable? How do these "centralize power"? The fact is, before the guidelines were adopted, the MBC boards were controlled by a few churches. When the Nominating Committee sought to break up that control, the churches got mad and left the MBC. They also circumvented MBC bylaws and stole five MBC agencies.

I saw the snide comment you left on the other article, but you didn't answer any of the questions I've raised. I notice you haven't answered them on this thread, either. That pretty well proves my point.

What part of "This will be all I have to say on the topic" do you fail to understand? As your discussion has continued with Kaylor on the other article, it has become clear you are either unable or unwilling to grasp a logical argument. I will, therefore, move on.

"What part of "This will be all I have to say on the topic" do you fail to understand?"

But it wasn't the last thing you had to say on the topic. You can't tell the truth about ANYTHING, can you?