Please do not
read the following as an egotistical statement, but this could not have played
any more into my narrative if I had written the script.
I have been publicly critical of the undue influence of the Executive Director on the Board of Trustees and we now have the most clear example of such action laid bare for us in a relatively recent Town Talk article (I’ve heard that the Executive Director made a threat of a public statement against the President if he didn’t resign but that cooler heads prevailed since such an action would have removed the last vestige of doubt that undue influence had been exerted). This change of opinion, now against the President, has been unquestionably brought about by the Executive Director being personally offended at statements made by the President (we will address that later in this post). Make no mistake… you will likely hear about “new information” or something to that effect, but understand, there has been NO new information… only information that had been ignored or obfuscated by the very ones now upset by a personal attack.
I’d like to take this post to show my concerns by ‘bookending’ the undue influence of the Executive Director from the genesis of my concern to the most recent activity of undue influence…
I have been concerned about the undue influence the Executive Director has exerted over the affairs at Louisiana College (LC) since September of 2012. So concerned, in fact that I (1) drafted a motion to censure the Executive Director (but decided not to present it at that time due to the already strained Board relationship which had formed by that point) and (2) offered a motion on the floor of the Louisiana Baptist Convention (LBC) when it met in Alexandria in November of 2013 which pointed to such influence and argued that the LBC Constitution and Bylaws do not allow for the Executive Director to serve on any of the 4 Boards of Trustees (see Part 1 and Part 2 for the long and tedious details).
My concern over undue influence relating to the Executive Director began when the LC Executive Committee (made up of the three Board officers and the chairs of the Board committees) met the morning of September 17, 2012 for their regular pre-Board Executive Committee meeting (for full disclosure I was not on the Executive Committee at the time. I was appointed to chair a committee in December of that year). Earlier that month (9/7/2012) the full Board received an email from the President letting us know that over the previous summer the Executive Committee had met to develop a recommendation for the Board regarding the issue of Calvinism in the SBC (if you have followed the timeline of when this controversy first started you will recognize the importance of the dating of this email and Board meeting). The following is the text of the original unadopted resolution:
I have been publicly critical of the undue influence of the Executive Director on the Board of Trustees and we now have the most clear example of such action laid bare for us in a relatively recent Town Talk article (I’ve heard that the Executive Director made a threat of a public statement against the President if he didn’t resign but that cooler heads prevailed since such an action would have removed the last vestige of doubt that undue influence had been exerted). This change of opinion, now against the President, has been unquestionably brought about by the Executive Director being personally offended at statements made by the President (we will address that later in this post). Make no mistake… you will likely hear about “new information” or something to that effect, but understand, there has been NO new information… only information that had been ignored or obfuscated by the very ones now upset by a personal attack.
I’d like to take this post to show my concerns by ‘bookending’ the undue influence of the Executive Director from the genesis of my concern to the most recent activity of undue influence…
I have been concerned about the undue influence the Executive Director has exerted over the affairs at Louisiana College (LC) since September of 2012. So concerned, in fact that I (1) drafted a motion to censure the Executive Director (but decided not to present it at that time due to the already strained Board relationship which had formed by that point) and (2) offered a motion on the floor of the Louisiana Baptist Convention (LBC) when it met in Alexandria in November of 2013 which pointed to such influence and argued that the LBC Constitution and Bylaws do not allow for the Executive Director to serve on any of the 4 Boards of Trustees (see Part 1 and Part 2 for the long and tedious details).
My concern over undue influence relating to the Executive Director began when the LC Executive Committee (made up of the three Board officers and the chairs of the Board committees) met the morning of September 17, 2012 for their regular pre-Board Executive Committee meeting (for full disclosure I was not on the Executive Committee at the time. I was appointed to chair a committee in December of that year). Earlier that month (9/7/2012) the full Board received an email from the President letting us know that over the previous summer the Executive Committee had met to develop a recommendation for the Board regarding the issue of Calvinism in the SBC (if you have followed the timeline of when this controversy first started you will recognize the importance of the dating of this email and Board meeting). The following is the text of the original unadopted resolution:
WHEREAS
the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans,
Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve to “without reservation
reaffirm as our confession of faith The Baptist Faith and Message”;
WHEREAS the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve “that we affirm that The Baptist Faith and Message provides sufficient parameters for understanding the doctrine of salvation, so that Southern Baptists may joyfully and enthusiastically partner together in obedience to the Great Commission;”
WHEREAS the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve “that we encourage all Southern Baptist churches to continue in faithful cooperation as we deepen our commitment to equip the saints and reach the lost with the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ;”
WHEREAS the Louisiana College Board of Trustees wishes to insulate Louisiana College from the growing debate over Calvinism so that it may devote full attention to the cause of “changing the world for Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit;”
WHEREAS Comprehensive Standard 3.2.4 of the Council on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) states: “The governing board is free from undue influence from political, religions, or other external bodies and protects the institution from such influences;”
WHEREAS being found out of compliance with such Comprehensive Standards might result in sanction or even denial of reaffirmation by the accrediting body;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees reaffirms that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy shall be the only two confessional statements used to define the doctrinal parameters for instruction at Louisiana College.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the debate over Calvinism, inclusive of labeling for or against Calvinism, will not take place at Louisiana College. (unadopted)
I am told by one
who was an LC Executive Committee member at the time that this resolution was
brought about because “Joe Aguillard was concerned about David Hankins’
influence on the Board” (we now have recordings that strongly validate this
statement). Further, Aguillard was concerned that Hankins had requested to be
placed on the Academic Affairs Committee and wanted to remove all of the “Calvinist
professors” then have the opportunity to examine any resume that came in for
anyone who would be hired in the Religion department. Clearly, that concern appears
to be validated considering the language and structure of the resolution
presented.WHEREAS the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve “that we affirm that The Baptist Faith and Message provides sufficient parameters for understanding the doctrine of salvation, so that Southern Baptists may joyfully and enthusiastically partner together in obedience to the Great Commission;”
WHEREAS the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve “that we encourage all Southern Baptist churches to continue in faithful cooperation as we deepen our commitment to equip the saints and reach the lost with the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ;”
WHEREAS the Louisiana College Board of Trustees wishes to insulate Louisiana College from the growing debate over Calvinism so that it may devote full attention to the cause of “changing the world for Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit;”
WHEREAS Comprehensive Standard 3.2.4 of the Council on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) states: “The governing board is free from undue influence from political, religions, or other external bodies and protects the institution from such influences;”
WHEREAS being found out of compliance with such Comprehensive Standards might result in sanction or even denial of reaffirmation by the accrediting body;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees reaffirms that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy shall be the only two confessional statements used to define the doctrinal parameters for instruction at Louisiana College.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the debate over Calvinism, inclusive of labeling for or against Calvinism, will not take place at Louisiana College. (unadopted)
After dissemination of the resolution via email, the Executive Director (and the President of the LBC at that time, Waylon Bailey) asked to meet with the Executive Committee the morning of the 17th. In that meeting (which was recorded) the Executive Director told the Committee that it should not present the motion to the Board (remember that we already had been presented the resolution and although I had intended to propose two minor amendments, I was happy about the general tenor and tone of the resolution). The Executive Director questioned the origin of the resolution and suggested that if the Board did anything, it should adopt the “Traditional Statement” (which has been attributed to the Executive Director’s son). The Executive Director had the statement with him in the meeting. To the committee’s credit they did not take up the Traditional Statement, however, to my great disappointment, they rescinded the prepared resolution. Thus, the Executive Director succeeded in influencing the committee in an area absolutely outside of his purview. This successful interference is clear evidence of undue influence in that the Executive Director of the State Convention and the sitting president of the Convention asked to meet with the Executive Committee and influenced them to not continue with proposed action. I have heard from a couple of the Executive Committee members who shared with me that they rescinded the motion out of respect for the position of those who asked to speak. Subsequently, I rewrote the motion and offered it as my own the next day.
Here is the text of the resolution (in its final form) which I presented after being made aware of the Executive Director’s undue influence:
Resolution on Soteriology
presented by Jay Adkins
presented by Jay Adkins
WHEREAS
the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans,
Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve to “without reservation
reaffirm as our confession of faith The Baptist Faith and Message;”
WHEREAS the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve “that we affirm that The Baptist Faith and Message provides sufficient parameters for understanding the doctrine of salvation, so that Southern Baptists may joyfully and enthusiastically partner together in obedience to the Great Commission;”
WHEREAS this affirmation came as a response to the question of Calvinism and its impact on the Southern Baptist Convention;
WHEREAS the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve “that we encourage all Southern Baptist churches to continue in faithful cooperation as we deepen our commitment to equip the saints and reach the lost with the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ;”
WHEREAS the Baptist Faith and Message is deliberately inclusive and has been judged sufficient in its scope regarding a number of debated theological issues in such areas as eschatology, ecclesiology, and soteriology;
BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Trustees reaffirms that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy shall be the only two confessional statements used to define the doctrinal parameters for instruction at Louisiana College;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that within instruction on soteriology at Louisiana College the Board of Trustees affirms instruction on, while not advocating for or against, Arminianism and/or Calvinism, the debate of which has encouraged rigorous and healthy exchange of ideas through the history of the church, sharpening theological discourse to the glory of God.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees reaffirms the appointment and retention of faculty at Louisiana College who hold soteriological positions which are within the doctrinal parameters of the Baptist Faith and Message. (unadopted)
WHEREAS the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve “that we affirm that The Baptist Faith and Message provides sufficient parameters for understanding the doctrine of salvation, so that Southern Baptists may joyfully and enthusiastically partner together in obedience to the Great Commission;”
WHEREAS this affirmation came as a response to the question of Calvinism and its impact on the Southern Baptist Convention;
WHEREAS the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, did formally resolve “that we encourage all Southern Baptist churches to continue in faithful cooperation as we deepen our commitment to equip the saints and reach the lost with the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ;”
WHEREAS the Baptist Faith and Message is deliberately inclusive and has been judged sufficient in its scope regarding a number of debated theological issues in such areas as eschatology, ecclesiology, and soteriology;
BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Trustees reaffirms that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy shall be the only two confessional statements used to define the doctrinal parameters for instruction at Louisiana College;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that within instruction on soteriology at Louisiana College the Board of Trustees affirms instruction on, while not advocating for or against, Arminianism and/or Calvinism, the debate of which has encouraged rigorous and healthy exchange of ideas through the history of the church, sharpening theological discourse to the glory of God.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees reaffirms the appointment and retention of faculty at Louisiana College who hold soteriological positions which are within the doctrinal parameters of the Baptist Faith and Message. (unadopted)
The Executive
Director had to leave the meeting before we were able to deal with my motion
and I consented to postponing my motion at the request of a Board member that
was concerned that the Executive Director was absent and might want to speak to
it. In hindsight, I wish I had not consented. We might not be in the place we
now find ourselves had I pushed for dealing with that motion which was simply a
restatement of what we would have voted on had the Executive Director not
intervened. For transparency’s sake let me say that upon arriving home I sent
an email to the Executive Director expressing why I continued on with presenting
the motion. The following is the text of that email dated September 18, 2012:
Doctor Hankins,
In the interest of friendship and fairness I wanted to give you a head's up as to what I did today toward the end of the LC meeting. I'm sorry you were not there as I had hoped to have the dialog with you. I was unaware that you had plans to leave and the last thing I wanted is to have you think that I purposely presented a resolution in your absence. In fact, when you left I thought about not doing so simply because you weren't there (and said as much to the assembly). Also, as I hope I've shown you, I would never say anything about you that I would not say to you. After having prayed and struggled with the decision last night I felt I needed to continue on with my direction.
I reworked two of the paragraphs of the original resolution presented by the ex comm. and presented it as my own. This was done for 3 main reasons. First, I think it is a needed statement articulating that we encourage academic freedom and debate and as such it is not a pro or anti Calvinist statement. Second, I feel that it is a well written statement the whole board needed to consider and believe pulling it off the agenda was an unfortunate action. Finally, it opens the door to what was (one of) the elephant(s) in the room. Trustees have been hearing about this topic but there had been no forum in which to discuss it. After a relatively short time of discussion I wholeheartedly supported the motion to "lay on the table" with the option to “take from the table” at a possible special called meeting as allowed in RONR 10th ed. p. 201-210. (probably should have been a “postpone” but you know how that goes in Baptist meetings).
I want you to know I have the utmost respect for you and appreciate your standing up for Louisiana in so many arenas. But as I told you when we spoke I have deep feelings about this and couldn’t shake the need to share it with the body.
I just thought it appropriate to let you know about my action so that there is no misunderstanding or charge that I did this with some sort of malicious intent. I am attaching the motion with my revisions. I will most likely ask for a called meeting in mid-October but I want to be sure you can be there. Would you mind letting me know your availability?
I was told that you were traveling today which was what caused your early departure. I hope you have a safe trip to and from. Blessings!
In Christ,
Jay Adkins
You can clearly
see that at the time my respect had not fully waned. I was congenial (and
honestly a bit naive) yet I felt strongly about this issue. I did not receive
an email response.
Is there a problem with either of these resolutions? Are they unclear? If there had ever been a threat to LC by a “Calvinist Conspiracy” do these statements not sufficiently articulate a balanced and reasonable position forLouisiana College
As an aside, the college President, knowing that the Board was dealing with the issue since my resolution had been postponed, posted the now infamous ‘President’s Pen’ which was hermeneutically questionable, soteriological confused and spoke against some sort of Hyper-Calvinism that was not even part of the discussion at the time. I was very upset that such a preemptive statement was made on the school’s website when the Board was dealing with that very issue. Again, place this in the proper timeline and you’ll get an eye full.
Friends, regarding the issue of the Executive Director’s undue influence on the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College, I have a litany of examples from which to draw (4 particularly egregious instances which took place in Executive Session). I will be happy to (but will only) share these items if urged to do so by SACS, through subpoena or if requested to do so by the Executive Committee of the Louisiana Baptist Convention.
I have already made the statement that it is my belief that if it were not for the Executive Director of the LBC the current President of Louisiana College would no longer be in that role (Part 1). The Executive Director has protected and even defended the President through numerous accusations and has been doing until recently. The following is timeline is very important. Please do not miss the clear turning point where (and why) the Executive Director changed his position from one of supporting and defending the President to that of calling for the resignation of the President.
On Wednesday, March 19th a pastor was in the office of the Executive Director to talk about the LC issue. This pastor tells me that the Executive Director defended the college President the whole time. Now track along with me… the next day, Thursday, March 20, the Executive Director became aware of audio recordings (and its general content) that purported to have the LC President speaking disparagingly about the Executive Director and a family member (this has now been attested to by the Town Talk article). Now, here it comes… Friday, March 21, I’ve been told that the Executive Director called Louisiana College Board Chairman, Tommy French to demand that the college President had to go.
Again, may I say that you will likely be told that some new evidence has been uncovered which shows that the President was lying about something that mislead the Board or individuals on the Board (or something to that effect). Again I say to keep in mind, there is NO new information. Every bit of information pertinent to the issues we needed to address has either been presented in the past or was prohibited from being presented by obfuscation and vocal objection.
Further, I now have evidence of an even more egregious action of undue influence involving a recent meeting in the Executive Director’s office which included 4 very influential pastors (including 3 Past Presidents of the LBC whose names I will not divulge) in which it has been reported that the Executive Director used that meeting to attempt to convince these influential pastors of the need to now remove the President of the college. To add insult to injury, I have recently been told about a phone call placed by the Executive Director to at least one of the members of the nominating team this past year. During this call the Executive Director mentioned names to be placed on the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College urging their adoption by saying something to the effect that these people, “will protect the President.” Can this be defined any other way than as an exertion of undue influence?
We also now have audio recordings that confirm that (1) there never was a “Calvinist Conspiracy” plotted by the faculty (but a simple exchange of ideas between students), (2) that two LC employees have lied about being told they were to advocate for Calvinism and (3) that the President was very concerned about the Executive Director’s undue influence on the Board.
Louisiana College
Let’s be clear on this point. Whistleblower charges from two respected Vice-Presidents, the continual flop of publicly trumpeted programs, facilities in disrepair, SACS issues, a revolving door of VPAAs and a preponderance of evidence presented by a trusted law firm who’s also worked with our own New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary that purported questionable actions of the President were not good enough to call for the dismissal of the President but an audio recording that defamed the Executive Director is enough evidence? That is a significant question that must be asked and considered by the Louisiana Baptist Convention Executive Committee.
Has there ever been a more clear incident of undue influence perpetrated by a Baptist State Executive Director on another Baptist body like that of the Louisiana Baptist Convention Executive Director?
For this post I simply wanted to ‘bookend’ what has been, for me, the first and then most recent displays of undue influence on the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College. This will be my last post on this subject before our coming meeting of the LC Board of Trustees. I have heard that the Executive Director might not be in attendance for this meeting. I have no idea as to whether or not that might be the case. If he is not there, be assured that it does not mean he has not had influence on the outcome of the meeting.
One parting final word… those of us who dissented a year ago, although still carrying our concerns, accepted that we were in the minority. Since April of last year we had remained silent… that is up until this past week (remember, the concerns I’ve personally expressed have been focused on the Executive Director’s role in this debacle). Make no mistake, this recent issue has come back into the open, not due to the persistence or frustration of any dissenter but by the President himself. Being unable to let things go and move forward HE has now caused all this to come to a head.
Scripture speaks of God “hardening the heart” of the Pharaoh. That sort of an action by God, although confusing to or uncomfortable for some, is neither difficult nor untoward for those of us who lean reformed in our theology. Could it be that God has hardened the heart of a couple of individuals inLouisiana
With that said (and this will be my last public statement until after the coming meeting) I ask that you pray with us for our April meeting. Please pray for wisdom, clarity, openness, reason and logic to be the traits on tap… and may God be glorified.
Is there a problem with either of these resolutions? Are they unclear? If there had ever been a threat to LC by a “Calvinist Conspiracy” do these statements not sufficiently articulate a balanced and reasonable position for
As an aside, the college President, knowing that the Board was dealing with the issue since my resolution had been postponed, posted the now infamous ‘President’s Pen’ which was hermeneutically questionable, soteriological confused and spoke against some sort of Hyper-Calvinism that was not even part of the discussion at the time. I was very upset that such a preemptive statement was made on the school’s website when the Board was dealing with that very issue. Again, place this in the proper timeline and you’ll get an eye full.
Friends, regarding the issue of the Executive Director’s undue influence on the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College, I have a litany of examples from which to draw (4 particularly egregious instances which took place in Executive Session). I will be happy to (but will only) share these items if urged to do so by SACS, through subpoena or if requested to do so by the Executive Committee of the Louisiana Baptist Convention.
I have already made the statement that it is my belief that if it were not for the Executive Director of the LBC the current President of Louisiana College would no longer be in that role (Part 1). The Executive Director has protected and even defended the President through numerous accusations and has been doing until recently. The following is timeline is very important. Please do not miss the clear turning point where (and why) the Executive Director changed his position from one of supporting and defending the President to that of calling for the resignation of the President.
On Wednesday, March 19th a pastor was in the office of the Executive Director to talk about the LC issue. This pastor tells me that the Executive Director defended the college President the whole time. Now track along with me… the next day, Thursday, March 20, the Executive Director became aware of audio recordings (and its general content) that purported to have the LC President speaking disparagingly about the Executive Director and a family member (this has now been attested to by the Town Talk article). Now, here it comes… Friday, March 21, I’ve been told that the Executive Director called Louisiana College Board Chairman, Tommy French to demand that the college President had to go.
Again, may I say that you will likely be told that some new evidence has been uncovered which shows that the President was lying about something that mislead the Board or individuals on the Board (or something to that effect). Again I say to keep in mind, there is NO new information. Every bit of information pertinent to the issues we needed to address has either been presented in the past or was prohibited from being presented by obfuscation and vocal objection.
Further, I now have evidence of an even more egregious action of undue influence involving a recent meeting in the Executive Director’s office which included 4 very influential pastors (including 3 Past Presidents of the LBC whose names I will not divulge) in which it has been reported that the Executive Director used that meeting to attempt to convince these influential pastors of the need to now remove the President of the college. To add insult to injury, I have recently been told about a phone call placed by the Executive Director to at least one of the members of the nominating team this past year. During this call the Executive Director mentioned names to be placed on the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College urging their adoption by saying something to the effect that these people, “will protect the President.” Can this be defined any other way than as an exertion of undue influence?
We also now have audio recordings that confirm that (1) there never was a “Calvinist Conspiracy” plotted by the faculty (but a simple exchange of ideas between students), (2) that two LC employees have lied about being told they were to advocate for Calvinism and (3) that the President was very concerned about the Executive Director’s undue influence on the Board.
Let’s be clear on this point. Whistleblower charges from two respected Vice-Presidents, the continual flop of publicly trumpeted programs, facilities in disrepair, SACS issues, a revolving door of VPAAs and a preponderance of evidence presented by a trusted law firm who’s also worked with our own New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary that purported questionable actions of the President were not good enough to call for the dismissal of the President but an audio recording that defamed the Executive Director is enough evidence? That is a significant question that must be asked and considered by the Louisiana Baptist Convention Executive Committee.
Has there ever been a more clear incident of undue influence perpetrated by a Baptist State Executive Director on another Baptist body like that of the Louisiana Baptist Convention Executive Director?
For this post I simply wanted to ‘bookend’ what has been, for me, the first and then most recent displays of undue influence on the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College. This will be my last post on this subject before our coming meeting of the LC Board of Trustees. I have heard that the Executive Director might not be in attendance for this meeting. I have no idea as to whether or not that might be the case. If he is not there, be assured that it does not mean he has not had influence on the outcome of the meeting.
One parting final word… those of us who dissented a year ago, although still carrying our concerns, accepted that we were in the minority. Since April of last year we had remained silent… that is up until this past week (remember, the concerns I’ve personally expressed have been focused on the Executive Director’s role in this debacle). Make no mistake, this recent issue has come back into the open, not due to the persistence or frustration of any dissenter but by the President himself. Being unable to let things go and move forward HE has now caused all this to come to a head.
Scripture speaks of God “hardening the heart” of the Pharaoh. That sort of an action by God, although confusing to or uncomfortable for some, is neither difficult nor untoward for those of us who lean reformed in our theology. Could it be that God has hardened the heart of a couple of individuals in
With that said (and this will be my last public statement until after the coming meeting) I ask that you pray with us for our April meeting. Please pray for wisdom, clarity, openness, reason and logic to be the traits on tap… and may God be glorified.
Semper Reformanda…
Soli Deo Gloria!
-Jay Adkins
Soli Deo Gloria!
-Jay Adkins
No comments:
Post a Comment