New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: MBC lawsuits' winners and losers
 
Opinion: MBC lawsuits' winners and losers Print E-mail
By Bob Perry   
Tuesday, July 28, 2009

(ABP) -- The lawsuits filed by the Missouri Baptist Convention against the five institutions that began selecting their own trustees in 2000 and 2001 have gone on for about seven years now. Only the one against Windermere Baptist Conference Center appears to have been settled. With continuing delays, amended filings and appeals, they could continue another seven years. The estimated cost so far is about $10 million.

Bob Perry

Even though the suits are still ongoing, I am ready to definitively declare who are the winners and losers. Here is the scorecard:

Winners of the lawsuits:

1. Lawyers. The vast majority of the $10 million spent has gone to attorneys. The attorneys who advised the MBC to sue, the attorneys who predicted the suits were winnable, the attorneys who pressed the cases and churned them through amendment after amendment and appeal after appeal, and the attorneys that had to be engaged by the defendants. These are the only winners.

Losers of the lawsuits:

1. The non-believing world that has watched a steady stream of news about self-proclaimed followers of Jesus Christ fighting with each other in the public square. These are souls driven that much further from Christ because of the negative image Christians create for themselves. I list these persons first because Baptists have always claimed to have a primary concern for lost souls.

2. The Missouri Baptist Convention has lost in so many ways it is hard to list them all. Here are a few:

— The MBC has lost its biblical integrity by directly violating the clear instruction of Scripture in 1 Corinth­ians 6. The denomination that prided itself in a belief in biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation conveniently rationalized its actions in suing fellow believers.

— The MBC has lost the financial support of many of its churches and many individual Missouri Baptists as it has spent huge amounts of money on the suits. The argument about whether Cooperative Program money technically has or will be used for the suits is pointless. The plain fact is that almost every dollar that comes to the MBC is the result of the sacrificial giving of Missouri Baptists and their churches, who are motivated by a love for missions. Whether the immediate source of the funds was an equity line against the Baptist Building or a rebate from Guidestone Financial Services, the origin of the money was the tithes and offerings of God’s people.

— The MBC has lost the respect of other state conventions. Around the Southern Baptist Convention, they look at Missouri as the bad example of how conventions handle disputes with their affiliated institutions.

— The MBC has lost in court one ruling after another. In spite of continuous rosy predictions from the attorneys and their elected leaders, the convention has lost every significant ruling, every amended filing and every appeal to date. (One appeal was sent back to the lower court for reconsideration, but the outcome turned out the same.)

— The MBC has lost its passion for evangelism and mission. In the process of devoting time, energy and money to the lawsuits, the calling of Christ to fulfill the Great Commission in the spirit of the Great Commandment has been sorely neglected.

3. Rank-and-file Missouri Baptists have lost the services and benefits offered by the five institutions. By the decisions made by the MBC, many do not feel they can enjoy the beauties and inspiration of Windermere, read the news and information provided by an independent Word&Way, or utilize the services of the Missouri Baptist Foundation, The Baptist Home or Missouri Baptist University. The five institutions have continued to strive to serve all Missouri Baptists in the same ways they have since their founding. The banning and boycotting by the MBC has certainly hurt the institutions, but it has hurt Missouri Baptists even more by pulling them away from places and institutions they loved.

4. The five institutions that have been sued have lost. Even if they prevail in court eventually, they have lost precious time stolen by the court cases, precious resources paid for legal expenses and energy that could otherwise have been devoted to the fulfilling of their missions. They have had to live with seven years of stress and undergo the pain of having misinformation and attacks directed their way. They have been accused of “stealing” the institutions when the only action they took involved who would elect their trustees so that they would not be caught up in and undermined by convention politics.

5. Churches and religious organizations that buy liability insurance in the future. One particular insurance company covered the MBC and several of the agencies. That company has been out millions in claims, and that cost will be passed on to future policy holders in increased premiums.

It would be wonderful if these suits would end right now, but whether they do or not, both the MBC and the five sued institutions have lost. They have lost things, both tangible and intangible, that may never be recovered.

-30-

Bob Perry is the leader of the Congregational Health Team for the Baptist General Convention of Missouri. He is the founder and president of Organizational Health Associates.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP's staff, board of directors or supporters.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (23)Add Comment
I wonder...
written by Slick, August 06, 2009
I wonder where that 10 million could have done for the cause of Christ instead of being spent on bickering. Look at all the great universities that used to be proud to be Bsptist--Wake Forest, Mercer, Furman, Samford and others that decided long ago to leave the control of thier state conventions and elect good trustees who could and did advance the institutions they served. Those institutions have thrived. About the only colleges and universities that still maintain state convention affiliations are those that lack the resources for a court fight and who are basically dependent on state convention money for survival.
You neglected a few key facts.
written by Ken, August 07, 2009
I was a pastor in Missouri for eleven years, and I served on the MBC Executive Board for two years. Like most critics of the MBC, Mr. Perry has conveniently omitted some key facts. For instance:

- When Windermere and Word & Way were established as separate corporations, they promised that their trustees would continue to be elected by the MBC. I can cite from the MBC minutes where such assurances were given. In other words, the trustees lied to the MBC.

- The MBC Constitution and Bylaws explicitly say that all charter changes for MBC agencies must be brought through the Executive Board and then approved by the MBC. The trustees of the five agencies acted in open defiance of these bylaws.

- At least three of the five agencies violated their own charters.

- The MBC passed a resolution in 2001 explicitly disapproving of the actions of the five agencies. This resolution was approved by at least a 75 percent majority. Thus, trustees are continuing to thumb their noses at rank-and-file Missouri Baptists.

- The MBC tried to settle this matter through binding Christian arbitration, but the agencies refused.

- While the MBC has experienced some division in recent years, they are still united in their support of the legal efforts against the agencies. At last year's MBC meeting, someone made a motion to drop the lawsuits, and the motion was defeated overwhelmingly.

-

In short, Bob Perry's article is little more than propaganda. He is blaming everyone except the ones who really deserve the blame: the trustees of the five agencies. The trustees acted without integrity, and they refused to settle the matter out of court. Thus, they are the ones who bear the blame for the resulting lawsuits.
It was opinion
written by Glenn, August 07, 2009
As one who generally reads more that comments on material on this site, may I offer that Mr. Perry's observations are clearly identified as opinion about the so-called winners and losers. One may disagree with his observations (I admit to agreeing with his observations) but they are just opinions. The writer of an editorial, letter to the editor, or opinion piece is allowed to state his opinion and is not obligated to report so-called facts that may or may not have any bearing on his opinion. Readers are going to disagree with opinion pieces.
response
written by Dr. J, August 07, 2009
Mr. Perry article is very responsible. What a shame to waste $10 million of gifts and offerings on needless, unbiblical lawsuits.
Glenn
written by Ken, August 07, 2009
"The writer of an editorial, letter to the editor, or opinion piece is allowed to state his opinion and is not obligated to report so-called facts that may or may not have any bearing on his opinion."

Where did I ever say Perry was "obligated" to do anything? He certainly has a right to his opinion, but I have just as much right to point out when he is misrepresenting the truth.
Not interested in arguing with you
written by Glenn, August 07, 2009
Sir, may I respectfully say that I was not quoting you. I was sharing my comment on the issue. I am not interested in carrying on any discussion with you because I have read many of your other comments and so many of those seem angry and mean-spirited. Perhaps those characterizations are inaccurate describing you—unfortunately the written word often fails to carry the writers true emotions and disposition—and I am not calling you angry or mean-spirited. But I have to say that you do quite often come across as argumentative and combative quite unlike most of those who post here and who attempt to engage in civil discourse, even when they do not agree. My point was and remains that Mr. Perry was stating his opinion and was not giving a full dimensional account of everything that took place in Missouri. Again, I mean you no disrespect even if I generally find much in your writings with which to disagree.

And may I respectfully ask others who read these comment to correct me if I have erred in what I have written above?
Thank you, Glenn
written by Slick, August 07, 2009
Glenn—thank you for your comments about arguing. The whole point of the opinion piece was to show what arguing had done for the Kingdom. In this case it seems like more harm than good. The article was not about who was right. It was the writer’s opinion of the overall impact. Please share more often in these discussions—even if we don’t agree on some things!
Glenn
written by Ken, August 07, 2009
"Sir, may I respectfully say that I was not quoting you."

Then why did you raise the point at all? I simply pointed out that Mr. Perry omitted a number of key facts, and you gave me a rather condescending lecture about this being an "opinion piece." I was quite aware of that, thank you.

"But I have to say that you do quite often come across as argumentative and combative quite unlike most of those who post here and who attempt to engage in civil discourse, even when they do not agree."

You come across as rather condescending. We can play this game of trying to impugn each other's motives all day, but I'd prefer to stick to the facts - facts that Mr. Perry conveniently omitted. I feel that he was unfair in his criticism of the MBC, and I simply pointed out their side of it. What is so terrible about that? Any "mean-spiritedness" in my post was strictly in your head.
Moving forward
written by brotherroy, August 07, 2009
To those who suggest the article is propaganda and/or opinion, the answer is yes, and it may be both. That is not the point. The primary point is that there are many winners and losers. Ken suggests that the agencies were and are in the wrong. This may be true, however the MBC has been consistently losing in the courts. The facts on the ground suggest it is time for the MBC to move on; declare they have done what they can to regain the agencies, but have failed. They should then look to begin some type of reconciliation process with these agencies. They continue to exist in the same state, and both the MBC and these agencies serve Missouri Baptists. Somebody has to step up and make an effort at reconciliation. This is not about regaining control of their boards - that is over. You don't have to like it, it may always be wrong in your eyes, but it is over. Time to move on. The old SBC "moderates" lost much in the Baptist battles, and while it is hard to move one, it must be done. Unfortunatly, the leagacy will be as a case study in denomination conflict - with both other Baptist and the broader society wondering if this could have been avoided.
Good Article
written by torch58, August 07, 2009
As a former Missouri Baptist pastor myself, I'm of the opinion that Bob Perry has done a good job with this article. He encapsulates in his own words the devastating consequences of the Missouri Baptist war which was climaxing during my tenure in that state.

Unlike Ken, I do not think that "lies" or "omissions of fact" are "key" elements to the usefulness of this story for Missouri Baptists and their future efforts in the cause of Christ. If so, Ken fails to mention in his blog names like Roger Moran who made a living off inuendo and misrepresentation at the behest of MBC leaders and board members. He fails to mention the official actions of the MBC in its disfellowshipping of fellow Missouri churchs (like the one I served in St. Louis) despite the language of local church autonomy and voluntary cooperation contained in the very charter and bylaws of the MBC.

If, as Ken suggests, "lies" and "omissions" are "key" in this tragic story, we all find ourselves once again making the childish arguments of who lied to whom first.

Rahab the harlot lied, concealing the identity and whereabouts of Israeli spies. I don't presume to know what was in God's mind at the moment she told that lie. I do know something about the outcome of that lie and I do know what is stated as fact about the nature of her faith in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews.

The lesson, as highlighted so well by Bob Perry, is both simple and profound. Learn from your mistakes and avoid their repetition.

C. Scott Shaver
The Woodlands, Texas
Thanks
written by brotherroy, August 07, 2009
To torch58, thanks for your contribution. As long as everyone remains committed to their "narrative" forward movement cannot happen. At some point, it is not about who lied to whom first, etc., etc. At some point, a decision must be made to move forward. What if the MBC decided to put down the lawsuits, reach out to those agencies, and say, how can we work with you to serve Missouri Baptists? I am not saying this is easy, it is hard. But what a witness. The same could be said of the agencies, but I mention the MBC because they are pursuing the lawsuits (not laying blame, just saying that has to end for all to move forward).
torch58
written by Ken, August 07, 2009
"He fails to mention the official actions of the MBC in its disfellowshipping of fellow Missouri churchs (like the one I served in St. Louis) despite the language of local church autonomy and voluntary cooperation contained in the very charter and bylaws of the MBC."

MBC bylaws give the MBC the right to decide who will and will not be members. Furthermore, the disfellowshipping was done by vote of the full MBC. Can the same be said regarding the actions of the five agencies?

As for the deceptive actions of agency trustees, don't take my word for it. I can show you from MBC minutes where messengers were assured that Windermere's trustees would continue to be elected by the MBC. They went back on their word. How can we call that anything but a lie?

In short, your arguments are just the usual red herring.

brotherroy
written by Ken, August 07, 2009
I must point out again that the MBC tried to settle this matter through Christian arbitration, but the agencies refused. They have used all kinds of delaying tactics to keep this issue from being settled. I hardly think such a blatant lack of integrity is a positive witness for Christ.
Ken
written by brotherroy, August 07, 2009
Ken, you are missing the bigger point. Your facts are correct, the agencies acted in bad faith, misled, arbitation was suggested and rejected, all true. And as long as both sides insist that they are correct, or acted to preserve something, etc., the fight goes on. My point, break the cycle of recriminations, drop the legal actions, not so much because it is unchristian, but for more practical reasons, it is not working to anyone's satisfaction. Then, maybe an act of willingness to listen to the other side might occur, and that can lead to resolution, at least a cease fire. As long as either side fights, cease fires are not possible. Someone has to take a step towards peace.
brotherroy
written by Ken, August 08, 2009
"Ken, you are missing the bigger point."

No, I'm not. I just don't agree with what you call a "bigger point." This is not about "recrimination"; it is a simple matter of ethics. The fact is, these five agencies want Missouri Baptist money, but they don't want to be held accountable to Missouri Baptists. That is not how the trustee system was designed to work. I don't think the MBC deserves criticism for trying to get back what rightfully belongs to them.

Call me a cynic, but if the MBC drops the legal action, I can practically guarantee that it will not lead to reconciliation. If the agency trustees were interested in reconciliation, why did they not agree to settle this matter through Christian arbitration?
Here's a simple solution...
written by Ken, August 08, 2009
People say the MBC should drop the lawsuit against the five agencies. Okay, fine. However, I think the MBC should insist one one condition: the five agencies must restore their original charters and allow the MBC to elect their trustees.

If the five agencies would agree to that one condition, this controversy would be settled overnight. If they do not agree to it, then it will prove they're not as interested in reconciliation as they would like people to believe.
Ken
written by brotherroy, August 08, 2009
I did not mean by "recriminations" that the actions were not significant, and wrong. I don't think these agencies want money, nor are they going to get any more from the MBC. What they wanted was to be free from control from the MBC, and it looks more and more like they will ultimately prevail. I don't fault the MBC for seeking to restore their control. I say again, the lawsuits are not accomplishing that. At what point should they be dropped? When all possible legal appeals have been exhausted? Okay, I can see they logic - finish what was started. Or, my point all along - begin to look for another option. Do I think the break-away agencies are interested in talking? - I have no idea. And a clarification. By "reconciliation" I was not referring to returning to the situation prior to the break, I don't think anyone sees that happening. I mean moving forward in light of the new reality. You don't have to agree, and apparently the leaderhsip and perhaps most member churches of the MBC believe in pursuing legal remedies. I understand that has been the only option, I simply say, it is done. Time to move on.
brotherroy
written by Ken, August 10, 2009
The agencies have been moaning and groaning all these years about the lawsuit. If they truly want it to end, all they have to do is restore their original charters. That is all the MBC has ever asked them to do. The simple fact is, the agency trustees don't give a rip about reconcilation. They just want to get away with what they did.
Ken
written by brotherroy, August 10, 2009
I think you are correct, the agencies certainly want to get away with what they did. And they may. If they do, will they be interested in developing any kind of relationship with the MBC? I don't know, they may feel there is nothing to be gained. They will not be receiving any more financial support from the MBC. People will differ over whether or not the lawsuits should ended. I see both sides. I suppose one question would be. What does the MBC do when the lawsuits are over? They have not asked me for advice, nor do I have any idea what they do at that point. But it might be good to begin to think about that future. In some ways, there is a divorce analogy here. I went through a divorce, did not want it, could not stop it, and we were both at fault to some degree for how our relationship broke down an ended. At some point, I had to make a decision - how to go forward? I did eventually find the way, but there was a lot of pain. It is not an exact analogy, but I offer it as a different lens through which to see this conflict.
brotherroy
written by Ken, August 12, 2009
Your analogy regarding divorce is actually quite apt - perhaps moreso than you realize. Let me carry it a little farther. Suppose a man's wife cheats on him, and ends up leaving him for another man. Suppose he later finds out that she secretly had the house signed over to her, even though his money paid for it. Suppose she also steals a lot of his other property in the process. He tries to settle this matter out of court, but she absolutely refuses, so he ends up suing her to get back what is rightfully his. Then suppose all of his fellow church members gang up on him and tell him he's wrong to take his wife to court. They call him "unchristlike" and "divisive." Some are even cruel enough to tell him it's his own fault that his wife cheated on him.

That's pretty much the scenario we see in the MBC. The agency trustees stabbed the MBC in the back, stole property that did not rightfully belong to them, and refused to settle the matter out of court. They practically dared the MBC to sue them, and now people like Bob Perry are criticizing the MBC for calling the trustees' bluff.

Some have even said it was the MBC's own fault. I have little patience for people who make that argument. The fact is, the moderate/liberal faction was losing control of the MBC. Rather than take their losses like adults, they decided to "take their toys and go home" - except they took a few "toys" that didn't rightfully belong to them.

Where does the MBC go from here? I don't know, but I don't think they've exhausted all the possibilities yet. People talk about all the money that's been spent on the lawsuits. Personally, I think Perry's figure is highly exaggerated (like most critics of the MBC, he doesn't seem willing to let facts stand in his way). Yet the trustees stole around $250 million in assets from the MBC. I don't think the MBC should be blamed for trying to get back what is rightfully theirs.
response 2
written by Dr. J, August 12, 2009
The attorneys for the MBC are the big winners. The Lord's ministries are the losers.
Dr. J
written by Ken, August 12, 2009
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The MBC wanted to settle this issue through Christian arbitration, but the agencies refused.
Ken
written by brotherroy, August 18, 2009
I agree, I don't think the MBC should be blamed for trying to recover agencies that removed themselves from MBC control. I don't fault the MBC, I accept that Christian arbitration was proposed and rejected. There were no other options at that point. Not being a lawyer, I don't know when the legal options will be exhausted. I don't think they are there yet. The divorce analogy is helpful, and I appreciate your addition. I would add that in my experience, I had friends who told me that I should sue, that I gave up too much (which was true with regard to property). But in the end, I decided that taking the mother of my daughters to court would be damaging to them. I don't think this part of my story carries over well to the analogy we have been following. What an individual may or may not do is not always helpful when it comes to larger entities and their legal claims. I wanted my wife to drop her divorce and reconcile, but at some point it became apparent that was not going to happen, and I could not stop it. Calling on the agencies to reconcile seems futile, but through history, a voice calling in the wilderness has been heeded, even as scorn is often heaped upon the prophet.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.