Rescued from Politics, Refocused in the Pulpit

This article was originally posted at SBCVoices.com. You can find that page and subsequent comments here.

There was a time in my young adult life I was very involved in politics. VERY involved. I was a pro-life lobbyist in Kentucky. I worked long and hard for Jim Bunning way back when he was a congressman (even marched with him and his precious wife Mary in the March for Life in DC). Almost took a job in Senator Mitch McConnell’s office. Had numerous friends that worked in Washington congressional offices. Was partly responsible for starting a multi-county “Young Republican” club in Eastern Kentucky. While President of that YR club, I (along with my team) organized and hosted the Young Republican State Convention in Kentucky one year. I was ecstatic when Gingrich’s Contract for America swept the November elections of 94. I was active in our city government and was being groomed, so to speak, to run for local office and then maybe eventually something higher. I even met my wife Michelle because, as the Student Activities Coordinator at our local community college, she was the one with whom I had to meet to organize a “College Republican” club on that campus.

All that to say, I was once the guy so eaten up with politics that I could not see past the rightness of “the Right.” I was the guy that argued that the Republican Party was not just the Party of Lincoln, it was the Party of Jesus. I’m so terribly embarrassed by that myopic viewpoint now that it is hard to admit these things publicly.

When I submitted to the pastorate things changed for me. It was not a speedy adjustment but a significant and substantive adjustment. My desires changed and my heart took a beating down like the wet clay on a potter’s wheel. I began to see things differently. By the year 2000 (at age 27 and 3 years into my first pastorate), I became convicted that my allegiance to a political philosophy overshadowed (at best) or dictated (at worst) my interpretation of scripture’s truths.

My shift away from partisan politics was so significant and the swing was so hard that I am on record for arguing (early in my ministry) that we should move away from the notion of the SBC having a “lobbying” arm. In the early 2000’s I told whomever would listen (no blogs back then and I didn’t have MySpace) that we should jettison the idea of the ERLC (formerly called the Christian Life Commission) so that we could make a clean break from feeling beholden to, or inadvertently being identified with any political party (by that I meant the Republican Party in particular). It was clear to me that the southern, evangelical, white church had become inextricably enmeshed, to the point of identity confusion, with the Republican Party, while at the same time, my African-American brothers and sisters seemed similarly trapped on the other side through having been courted and wooed by the Democratic Party. I just wanted us to be out of the sticky, miry quicksand of partisan politics. It appears to me that this dysfunction has now been embarrassingly exposed for all to see... or all who would see, anyway.

Today I find myself thankful to God that we haven’t set aside the ERLC. I am now convinced of the importance of the prophetic voice it has to challenge us from within our own tribe. Whether deliberate or not, the ERLC is serving as a voice to call our convention of churches to reflect on, give critical examination to and maybe call us to retool our thinking about partisan politics on BOTH sides of the aisle. I’m not sure everyone is listening to this call but I sure wish they would. This is good stuff. Let me also just say, this does not mean I am in agreement with every point of everything that is written or espoused at the ERLC but I receive with anticipation and appreciation any encouragement or challenge I get from those in the employ of the ERLC who've been entrusted with this charge.

In place of our churches seeing things through elephant or donkey shaded lenses, should we not be submitting our opinions to a biblical framework which, whether you like it or not, will not always snap into any one particular political grid? This was a long, difficult journey for me but boy was it "liberating" (see what I did there?) Seriously, it was freeing to see something that I was previously blind to. I just didn't know. My motives were altruistic and sincere but I was blinded by politics. I had good intentions, but we all know where that leads.

I call upon my white brothers and sisters to set aside your possibly unrealized penchant for the religious right of the Republican Party and upon my black brothers and sisters, who’ve for too long looked to the Democratic Party for empowerment, to set aside those loyalties and come together to work with a better hermeneutic. One that is scripture-focused and not tinted blue or red but rather where we agree that Jesus is the only “right” we need and he’s all the “empowerment” we will ever want. Let’s remember that in Christ, there is unity, not division.

By the way, I have a small bust of Newt Gingrich and a few books signed by he and Rush Limbaugh that I’m still trying to offload if anyone is looking for a few novelty items. P.S. I’m keeping the small bust of Reagan (cause it's Reagan) and my baseball signed by Jim Bunning… the guy threw a no-hitter in both leagues!

What do I even call this one?

I can't tell you how much it hurts my heart to post some of the things I do. I have earnestly attempted to expose the divisiveness and rancor in the LBC WITHOUT becoming part of the problem itself. My deepest desire is to be part of the solution. However, so much of the material I post is depressing and challenging and I'm afraid it looks like I am part of the problem. I have resigned myself to this undesirable role. When brothers from around the SBC and LBC send me information due to their own concern I will gladly consider that information and post it for the good of our greater cooperative work.

Just today, Dr. Ken Hemphill posted the following to his Twitter account...

Within a couple of hours of this post (which I greatly appreciated by the way) the Executive Director of my State Convention (one of the men who I understand enlisted Dr. Hemphill's candidacy) sent the following email to EACH of the State Executive Directors in the SBC.

At some point this conversation needs to come to head. If Dr. Hemphill and the other State Executive Directors won't call out Dr. Hankins for his divisive and manipulative tactics then we need a more radical change in the SBC than I even knew. I want to believe that some of the men on this list have responded back to this email with a Christ-like challenge and corrective tone. I want to believe that, I hope that is the case. But this is no longer just "questionable judgment" (as some have assigned the recent partisanship) This is crossing state lines, it is intrusive, it is manipulative and it should be shouted down for the division that it is causing. I am so glad that younger pastors in this convention reject such divisive and manipulative tones and I am hoping these young minsters, teachers, leaders, students and pastors from around the SBC descend on Dallas with such an astounding rejection of this divisive activity that the history books will one day retell the story.

I'll even go so far to suggest that you might want to contact your State Executive Director to assess how he feels about this email and what his response has been. Being united doesn't mean we all must believe the exact same things at every turn, but it does mean, at its core, that we make a deliberate effort not to disparage and speak ill of those with whom we coinhabit the Kindgdom of God. To keep any semblance of respect, Dr. Hemphill must distance himself from this pitifully veiled shot at JD Greear via Russell Moore. Further, I pray that some of these State Directors will speak up and publicly shun these tactics... to the Glory of God.

*****************************************
(EDIT NOTE: a friend suggested that even without being hyperlinked, bots can pick up these email addresses so, not wanting these state execs to be constantly spammed, I have removed their addresses from this post. Keep in mind that every one of these addresses were public, state convention email addresses and can be easily accessed on state convention sites)

Date: April 6, 2018 at 12:39:17 PM EDT

Cc: David Hankins

Subject: From David Hankins - LBC

Friends,

Russell Moore is causing controversy again-remember last year? As someone who has worked for decades to improve race relations, especially in the SBC, I find the following troubling:

http://capstonereport.com/2018/04/06/wake-wokeness-j-d-greear-embraces-racialism-rhetoric-white-privilege/31966/

Let me know if you have questions, comments, or ideas.

Let’s keep praying.

David

P. O. Box 311

Alexandria, LA 71309

318.448.3402 - Office

Disaster Relief and Hemphill "Rallies" in the LBC

Friends,

Today, I was forwarded, by a number of people, an email that apparently went to all SBC ‘Blue Hats’ in Louisiana. I’ve actually served as a Blue Hat as well as a White Hat during Katrina (this is all Disaster Relief speak for those of you who wouldn’t know) but I didn’t personally receive this email from the LBC building.

I’m not sure how to even process what I’m seeing. I think that someone at the Baptist Building in Alexandria either actually thinks we are all stupid or truly doesn't care what we think at all.

Coming off the heels of the story about the inappropriateness of the LBC designing, developing, and hosting the official campaign website of Ken Hemphill we now have this equally, if not more, frustrating action of our Disaster Relief workers being encouraged not only to attend these “campaign rallies” for Hemphill but for them to be “asked to prepare food for these rallies.” My head is about to explode.

This time, however, it’s not just some coding and an inanimate server that is at issue, it’s an important and highly respected ministry arm of our shared efforts to help in time of great disaster. What about the actual CP funds use here? Maybe the whole thing is being bankrolled by a “campaign contributor” but what of the DR kitchens that I assume will be used? What of the food? What of the ask itself? These people are preparing what I assume is free food for all those in attendance and we know that free food always draws a crowd (especially for college students). What about the rallies for Greear? will the LBC pay for that? Can we invite him and feed people in at least the appearance of fairness... or is the North Carolina DR team handling that?

See for yourself…

Subject: FW: Disaster Relief 

There was an email sent earlier to the Blue Hats please notice the change of time for West Monroe at McClendon Baptist Church. 

Now is the time to come to the aid of your state… Sound familiar?  Well it is a time to prepare and one of the ways we prepare is to contact our volunteers listed in our data base and see if we can get a response. 

On Tuesday March 27, 2018, we are preparing to feed meals at LC in Pineville for Lunch and Supper at McClendon BC in W. Monroe. 

The purpose of these meetings is to see if our contact system is working properly and set a time for you to meet a candidate, Dr. Ken Hemphill, that is being nominated for president of the SBC in Dallas this June. 

We have been asked to prepare the food for these rallies and it will be a training event for our feeding teams as well as time for responding using the same procedures that we hope to use during a disaster.  If you can attend please wear your yellow shirt and cap. 

Location:  Louisiana College,  Pineville, LA
Time:        11:30 AM
Date:         Tuesday, March 27, 2018 

Location:  McClendon Baptist Church, W. Monroe, LA
Time:         6:30 PM
Date:         Tuesday, March 27, 2018 

This is being sent to our Blue Hats and asking them to contact their yellow hats trying to have as many as possible attend these events. Thanks for your commitment and help during this preparation time. 

If you can attend please RSVP by email to:
(emphasis added)

I’m leaving the recipient and sender’s names out of this email out of compassion for their inboxes… because, I’m sure that none of this was their idea anyway.

Although Ken Hemphill has agreed to move his website off the LBC server this is clear and unequivocal evidence that the abuse of power to which I’ve been referring over the last few years has not changed.

LBC leadership does not get it. They have (he has) won for so long they do not think they can lose – so they simply continue to do whatever they want. I’m not sure how this convention will ever recover from this myopic worldview.

May God raise up men in this state who will help us throw off the shackles of this ungodly and worldly tyrannical mindset. Will it ever change?

The Louisiana Baptist Convention is Broken and it’s time for everyone to admit it

If I have learned anything during my time as a pastor in Louisiana it is confirmation that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely (originally from a letter by John Dalberg-Acton 1^st Baron Acton to Mandell Creighton dated April 5, 1887). Please no jokes about the political irony of living here in the home state of Huey Long where “Every Man is a King.” For years I’ve wondered… what will it take for my fellow LA Pastors to see through the obfuscation, manipulation and bad stewardship which we allow to continue unchecked in Alexandria. I’m flummoxed as to what will it take to make significant changes in leadership in our state convention?

·         If the outright rejection of engagement with even the possibility of a 50/50 CP split is not enough to convince you we have problems (the LBC keeps a higher percentage of CP money in the state than any other state convention in the south [I inadvertently left out "in the south' in my original post. My apology for the confusion] and we were told that such a split would only be considered if our Louisiana churches gave more to Alexandria);

·         If the inordinate amount of money given to Louisiana College and the earlier SACS validated concern of undue influence is not enough to convince you we have problems (Louisiana College gets more money from the LBC than NAMB gets from the LBC and at the time of my research a few years back they received more than any other state convention connected college or university);

·         If the lack of transparency in financial accountability from the Executive Committee is not enough to convince you we have problems (I’m not suggesting fiscal illegalities or mismanagement of that kind, but some pastor friends have regularly attempted to get information or reports regarding LBC expenses but to no avail);

·         If the heavily anti-reformed (arguably fundamentalist) tilt of the Baptist Message and its apparent distrust for certain SBC entity heads is not enough to convince you we have problems (over the last few years not one published article regarding the entities have offered anything but negative critique regarding leadership at the IMB, NAMB and the ERLC as well as a possible SBC presidential candidate);

…then maybe this will be the issue that will finally convince you we have a problem.

For years there has been an unwritten practice that candidates for the Presidency of the SBC do not actively engage in campaigning. Certainly, we know that campaigning goes on between friends and acquaintances at the coffee house, in the seminary student center, during Sunday school classes and at association meetings, but the practice has generally been relegated to those private, person-to-person meetings and not been espoused by the candidates themselves. However, that is certainly not the case in Louisiana. Political expediency rules the day here in the Pelican state’s Baptist Convention. (In my opinion, this unwritten practice feigns humility and as far as I’m concerned I’d rather forego it and have a deliberate statement from the candidate’s mouth as to why I should vote for him and not for the other guy, but that’s just me.)

In a full plenary session of the Executive Committee of the LBC in 2016 Dr. David Hankins, during his Executive Director’s Report, presented a statement (with the caveat that he’d never done this before) on something akin to “5 reasons why Baptists shouldn’t vote for JD Greear.” For transparency’s sake, I was not at this meeting but I was contacted by a number of attendees and told about the shocking display of impropriety which took place before the historic convention in St. Louis. I wish I had specifics to offer regarding his talk, but none of that portion of his speech was reported on in the Baptist Message the following week. When asked why that portion was not reported on in the print media it was said, “Well, we can’t print everything that happens in the meeting.” Keep in mind, it wasn’t just something that was said, I understand that it was the key portion of his address.

Forward to yesterday afternoon (March 15^th). I was sent information that the LBC is the host of and likely designed the website for Dr. Ken Hempill’s 2018 presidential campaign, www.kenhemphill2018.com. Can you imagine? A large state convention’s Executive Director publicly and in his official capacity during a plenary speech, forcefully and deliberately lobbying against a candidates and then two years later, that same state convention actually HOSTING the CAMPAIGN website for their particular candidate on the state convention servers. It is unheard of and it is inappropriate.

Think about this friends, Pastors in Louisiana who are either still deciding who will receive their vote, or for those who, God forbid, intend to vote for Dr. Greear, our state convention is the online (and arguably print) headquarters of the “traditionalist candidate.” In all honesty, given what we have seen from the Baptist Message and the actions of LBC leaders, this turn of events should not surprise anyone. Yet, I remain shocked by this action. I must ask, does ANYONE else in this state have a problem with this terribly inappropriate use of our convention resources and the clear lack of concern for those of us who might be on the other side of this isle as it relates to the coming election?

I’ve attempted in times past to point to the manipulation and hubris of the actions of some of our state leaders, but most of those words fell on deaf ears. Surely now my brother Pastors will finally speak up about this action. Surely this is such a clear violation of common cooperation and convention work that someone will do something about it. Or will it be more of the same… good pastors, not wanting to rock the boat for fear that they might be blackballed from the cool kids table, or worse yet be passed over for that big church in the parish seat?

Please Pastors do the right thing and call for change. Call for change in the tired and entrenched leadership, call for transparency, call for a laying down of arms, call for the inclusion of all our churches that voluntarily function in accordance with the BFM, and call for an end to the divisive and mean-spiritedness which has gone on for too long in this state convention.

I am calling on pastors of the LBC to contact the Executive Office of our state convention and demand that (1) convention employees cease their open (meaning in their official capacity as a convention employee) campaigning for one candidate over another, (2) to cease the open negative speak about one candidate over another and to (3) immediately cease hosting the “campaign website” (I can’t believe I’m even writing these words) of any candidate for the Presidency of the SBC, unless of course, they want to host sites for BOTH candidates as a ministry and service to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, something tells me it won’t get that far.

In the same paragraph of the earlier mentioned Lord Acton quotation he also wrote, “There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” It’s time we open our eyes and admit that the Louisiana Baptist Convention is broken and is in desperate need of real and lasting cultural change. We CAN do something about it! The question is, who has the backbone?

In case you need any proof, I've done the research for you... The LBC is hosting both the campaign website (top three pics) as well as hosting the campaign video interviews on the LBC Vimeo page (bottom pic). 

Voting for the New Secretary of the SBC

This is a shared post by me and my dad, CJ Adkins.

     We learned late yesterday that Donald Currance of Missouri will be nominated for the position of registration secretary for the Southern Baptist convention. Although we are heartbroken about Jim Wells and his illness, we are also encouraged that someone with the experience Don has is willing to step up into that difficult and important role.

     We have known Don for over 11 years and know him to be a man of great integrity, and one who is very, and I mean very, thorough in any position he has held. Important to this particular nomination is that he has served as an assistant to his dear friend, Jim Wells, for 12 years, and and at three different times has been named Acting Secretary of Registration at various times during Jim's's illness.  

     Don is not the type of fellow who seeks the spotlight and has worked faithfully in the background of Convention life to help maintain the reputation of excellence in the areas of his duties. Many people do not realize how much is involved in this particular position. The role is one that oversees not only the important area of Convention Registration, but also the work of the Credentials and Tellers committees. Don has also served the convention in other areas as well, including serving two 5 year terms as a member of the board of trustees of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

     He is recognized by those who know him as one who has great attention to detail, is faithful to his responsibilities, and is of unquestionable character. He and his wife, Cheta, are the parents of two teenage daughters. 

     To carry on the excellent work that has marked the terms of Jim Wells, we would like to encourage all of our messenger-friends to cast their ballot for Don Currance of Missouri.

A Band of Bloggers Selecting a Squad of Expository Exegetes

The only reason I began blogging was to provide an outlet for the voice of truth and reason regarding an organization I was affiliated with from 2008 to 2014. Since then the Crescent Crier has helped me disseminate information on numerous subjects, provided to me another pastoral outlet for cultural commentary (and other philosophical musings) and has served as a conduit to introduced me to some dear new friends. As time has passed it stands now as a testimony vindicating me (and a few other friends) in regard to my warnings and concernes that went unheeded in 2013 & 14. ;) However, what has developed recently from that endeavor is one of the more humbling and exciting opportunities to ever cross my path.

The unbelievable has happened. This past June a "small-church" pastor, who was best known for overseeing the most perused blog in SBC life, has amazingly been elected president of the Pastor's Conference of the Southern Baptist Convention. Formerly, that post has been held by some of the most famous and well-loved pastor/preachers from some of the largest churches in the world's largest Protestant "Denomination." Today, that post is held by Dave Miller, pastor of Southern Hills Baptist Church in Sioux City, Iowa. This election is one for the Baptist history books! (I don't have time today to flesh that out but suffice it to say that a "blogger" was elected to the helm of what was once thought to be the preeminent position in SBC life)

I'm convinced Dave did not win this election simply because he was a widely-known guy who publishes a well-read clearing-house type of blog. It was his vision, his proposal, the concept he was espousing that I believe won this election. You see, Dave and a few friends had decided to suggest something out of the ordinary. Rather than the same old Pastor's Conference full of the same well-known mega-star preachers (not that there's anything wrong with that--I still love to hear most of those guys), Dave proposed that we do things "radically" different for our coming meeting in Phoenix next year.

Dave believes there are faithful pastors all across our convention who might not be serving the largest churches (they might even be in some of our smaller churches since our convention is predominately made up of small and medium sized churches) but who are, week by week, faithful to the text, who happen to also be very good preachers. What if we were to invite these solid expository preachers (through a nomination process) to preach at this event while also walking through one of Paul's Epistles? Dave suggested that we could divide up one of the shorter epistles into 12 divisions that could be easily handled by good exegetes. Think about it, we would be modeling to the Pastor's Conference what we claim to be the best model of pastoral teaching - expository "through-book" messages - while also exposing our convention to the solid biblical preaching of bunch of "regular guys" who labor in places just like those in which you and I labor. WHAT AN IDEA! This was the vision set forth... AND IT WON!

I mean really, taking nothing away from the big time guys (a few of which are dear friends of mine), what a great, even over-due idea that is both encouraging to hear and exciting to consider. Maybe it will only happen this one time in the history of our convention but I just think this is a profound and appropriate message to deliver to our churches and to the pastors and guests attending the Pastor Conference in Phoenix next June.

So this is where my involvement comes into play. For whatever reason, Dave has chosen to invite me to be one of about 12 guys in this "Band of Bloggers" (or maybe better described as a Bunch of Bloviators) to help give some oversight to the event. I am both humbled and totally confused as to why I was on his list to begin with. Since the Convention meting in St. Louis we have been the the midst of constant communication (and when I say constant, I mean my text messaging apps have been working overtime) about everything from who we will choose who to invite as speakers, to the worship leaders, to the book we will walk through (by the way it's Philippians), to how we will divide up the text. Those of us who are helping with the organization of the event will not be considered as speakers, so that gives us great freedom to talk openly, pray through and work diligently to find the right men who'll be filling these spots for us.

HERE is what we need from YOU. We need you to help us find these men. Please go to www.sbcpc2017.org and you will find a google form (everyone seems to be using these now) with all the pertinent information you need regarding what we are looking for and how to nominate those men you'd like to hear preach in this year's SBC Pastor's Conference.

I am also doubly excited to know that the Caskey Center for Church Excellence at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is a sponsor of our event. For those of you that know about my struggle in the organization I mentioned in the beginning of this post (which actually gave rise to this blog and thus my involvement in this Band of Bloggers) you might notice the irony of having this wonderful organization serve as a partner with us for the Pastor's Conference. It is not likely to mean much to anyone but me... but.. talk about things coming full circle. ;)

Won't you join us in praying for a great event that will unite, encourage, strengthen and bless the all those who'll gather with us in Phoenix.

An Open Letter to My Gay Friends

(for those friends from childhood to those who’ve attended the church I serve as pastor)

I've noted much talk ABOUT, AT and PAST people in social media today. I’d like to add a little variety and speak TO some friends of mine.

I can’t imagine the elation you feel today as this historic day unfolded. For many of you, I assume you feel a slight sense of relief from certain stigmas that are all too often inappropriately thrust upon you (not that there will ever be a shortage of mean spirited people hurling insults). Others, might be happy about the financial benefits that have for too long been withheld from you and your significant other. For still others it might simply be a sense of ease at the rendering of equality delivered from the nation’s highest court.

Knowing I’m the pastor of an evangelical church, I’d imagine you have an idea of where I stand on a number of social issues. However, I’m afraid that some of you might assume a certain characterization of me that might not be accurate. I would hope those of you that know me would corroborate my love and compassion for all peoples of all backgrounds and all worldviews.

With that said, I wanted to expand on a few statements I made on social media today. My tweets (and one rather lengthy Facebook post) were primarily geared toward the church and in particular the faith family that I shepherd. Here are those tweets in their entirety (the Facebook message will be later in this post)

The postmodernity in which we are deeply submerged will continue to lead into further & further confusion. Of this we ought not be surprised

An important reminder from @drmoore. https://youtu.be/qsp59P1sFro 

Remember that the church, from its conception, was the awkward & ostracized voice faithfully defending truth in a difficult cultural milieu.

Just had a long, involved conversation w/my 10 yr/ld about modernity, postmodernity & their structures (or not) & implications #payattention

If Love "winning" is what matters I'm just wondering when it be true that #Lovewins for plural & even paedophilial marriages? #notaboutlove

The last tweet was more of a rhetorical question regarding the interesting use of the hash tag #Lovewins. Admittedly, it might appear to be a bit argumentative but that wasn’t my intention. I do wonder however if the philosophical implications of simplifying the understanding of marriage to the "emotion of love" itself has been fully plumbed by those using that tag. But alas, I’m not here to debate the merits of the topic with you. Our differences are deeply held philosophical differences and I won’t insult you by trying to engage in such an exercise today.

Rather, I’d like to make sure you understand what I am NOT feeling/saying to you today (or any other day for that matter).

Granted, I have read a number of mean-spirited, “the-sky-is-falling, the world’s going to hell” posts today. I regret that… and for what it is worth, I would like to apologize for those confused and misinformed people. I can only comment tonight on where my heart is. With that spirit allow me to share what my concern is NOT about…

My concern…

1.      … is not about Hate. A few friends have posited today that those who oppose gay marriage are full of hate and wish ill toward the gay community. Although the sin of hate is prevalent in a number of persons and perspectives, I can assure you, friends, there is not a bone of hate in my body toward you. Surely I have shown that to those of you who know me. That two people disagree on some important and even philosophically foundational topics does not mean that one must hate and belittle the other because of the differences. I’ve never been able to understand why this argument (and logical fallacy) is so often utilized. Part of growing in maturity means being able to rein in one's feelings in order to have reasonable, civil and even loving dialogue about serious concerns. In fact, while writing this document I’ve just had civil discussion with an old friend about this very issue. Although we disagree on a few things, we also agree on a few. Sure there are (and will continue to be) those on both sides that will be irrational and will eschew civility while continuing to spew vitriolic speech… but how about we just ignore those folks? I will not participate is such action.

2.      … is not about Homophobia. Another charge I’ve noted which has been leveled today is that those who oppose gay marriage are afraid of homosexuals and their efforts. Again, and I can only speak for myself, I am not afraid of you nor will I ever interact with you with fear or trepidation. You come visit NOLA and Michelle and I will pick you up, take you to dinner, enjoy time together and wish you well with hugs and kisses in the exact same way we do for all our friends (and even some strangers). Some of you can verify this statement to be true. I love you and “perfect love casts out fear.” I will not fear you and I ask you to not fear me.

3.      … is not about “keeping” the Christian worldview as the only or even primary worldview. The church, especially in America, has functioned under false pretenses for far too many years. Although this country was clearly founded on Judeo-Christian principles, it has never been a “Christian” nation. Sure, it has paraded around as one. But Jesus himself noted that those who follow him will be in the minority. He even warned those who would dare follow him to first count the cost, because following him will likely lead to ostracization and possibly even martyrdom. It was like that in the first century and it has been like that ever since for the true church. Thus, I have no expectation that the laws of my country and lifestyles of my fellow countrymen should be in line with my own personal walk, in fact, I'd believe just the opposite. My view has rather quickly been identified to be, not only in the minority, but odd and increasingly irrelevant. I’m not terribly happy about that but I’m more ok with it than you might think I am. I’m even strangely at peace about it.

4.      … is not about being against equality for everyone. Making this an issue of equality, although profoundly successful in terms of defining the popular argument, is not how I understand the issue. For me, it is first and foremost a foundational question of logic and ontology and not that of a comparative analysis of two subjects. Let me see if I can explain. Are my children and I equal? Are my wife and I equal? Am I equal to one who is of another ethnicity or from another country? Am I equal to a fighter pilot? How about a police officer? A stay at home mom? The President? Supreme Court Justices? Absolutely! We are all equal… in every way a human being is equal to one another in worth, value and the love of the Creator. However, because of backgrounds, circumstances, citizenships, training, biology and a host of other determining distinctives there are numerous way in which we are not “equal.” I’ve visited France a couple of times but I do not have the right to vote there. I ride along with the police as a chaplain but I do not have the right to carry a side arm on those ride-alongs (even though I am certified to carry a concealed weapon). Sure my wife and I are equal, but due to my biological make up I am not able to carry a child to term, nor can I know a mothers love for her children (nor, for that matter, can I even get the reduced insurance rates my wife does, because I am a male and apparently the girls drive better than the boys do). I do not have the right to climb into a jet and fly into battle. I do not have the authority to pass laws or enact judgment regarding those laws. You see, for me these are not issues of equality… they are issues of ontology. The equality of the worth and value of every human life are not in question here nor should they ever be in question!

I hope you see where I am NOT coming from. Now, if I may, allow me to share with you that about which I am concerned…

Some might not believe this will be an issue over which I should be concerned. In fact, I have seen my concern specifically mentioned today as something those who are opposed to gay marriage should not be concerned about. However, common sense and history itself might suggest the contrary. Specifically, this is the question of what will be expected of churches such as mine that, due to deeply held religious beliefs, will decline to host and perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. You know, maybe better than most, that humans don’t often treat those in the minority with the compassion and tolerance each person deserves. As my worldview becomes increasingly at odds with the culture around us I wonder how our religious rights will be treated. Will we be forced to adhere to what the culture (government) says we should believe rather than be allowed to live out our faith life?

Because of these questions and the litigious nature of our culture (as already noted in the courts regarding this very issue) churches feel it necessary to act with compassion, faith and determination to prepare ourselves for what is not only likely to come, but what is philosophically bound to come due to the continued “postmoderization” of our culture and current trends. It is from this context that, in July of 2013 after reading the majority and dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court upon the act of striking down DOMA, I authored and submitted to our church the following resolution. I also posted this on Facebook today, not to be a provocateur but in response to questions I have received from churches and pastors from around the country regarding what we might do to prepare ourselves for what is next. Here again is the text.

        "Because of our exegetical interpretation and subsequent understanding of the biblical testimony, upon which our church was founded and functions, First Baptist Church, Westwego makes the following clarifications regarding the church’s policy on the performance of marriage ceremonies and recognition of marriages.

        Whereas, First Baptist Church of Westwego (FBCW) is an independent congregation of believers, who voluntarily associates in mission endeavors with the Southern Baptist Convention, but who is completely unfettered by any denominational hierarchical structure,

        Whereas, FBCW is not beholden to any outside ecclesiastical jurisdiction but is self-governing and sets its own policies and procedures regarding aspects of church life,

        Whereas, functioning within this autonomy we do accept and adhere to the traditional understanding of a complementarian marriage passed down through orthodox Christianity as being between one man and one woman,

        Whereas, the biblical testimony of Ephesians 5:22-33 clearly shows that the relationship between Christ and his church is pictured in the relationship between a husband and wife, in which, as the husband is the head of the wife so Christ is the head of the church, and as the wife submits to the leadership of her husband so the church submits to the leadership of Christ,

        Whereas, scripture clearly presents the tenet that a romantic relationship alone is not a sufficient condition for marriage but that the marriage relationship, of husband and wife, is the foundational unit of the family structure and in biological terms is the base unit in which natural conception might happen begetting human life,

        Be it resolved, that FBCW laments and seeks to correct the low standards to which marriage has been held, even among evangelical churches, in recent years,

        Be it further resolved, that FBCW does not recognize same-gender, polygamous, or child marriages as valid forms of biblical marriages (as is testimony from the New Testament),

        Be it further resolved, that FBCW does not permit its facilities to be used for these types of ceremonies,

        Be it finally resolved, that although the pastors of FBCW have the autonomy to set their own standards for their acceptance or rejection of an invitation to officiate a wedding ceremony (be it that of a member of the church family or a couple from outside the church family) the Pastors of FBCW are not permitted to participate in same-gender, polygamous, or child marriage ceremonies."

Presented and adopted on this 14th day of July, 2013.

In the end, I want you to know that I recognize that you have felt ostracized and that even this wording/action from our church might not set well with you but I drafted this resolution to protect a deeply held foundational truth for me and those I lead, not because I hate you, or am afraid of you, or that I expect everyone to think like me or that I am against equality for all people. The difference is about our philosophical worldviews and competing ontologies. My view has been born out of a relentless heart for the work of the Gospel and the hope of the reconciliation of all men to our loving God. Jesus Christ came to set the captive free and with Paul, I can say that I am the “chief of all sinners” and in my adult life have tried to devote my life to one of peace and faithfulness to Christ as Lord. I wish that same peace for all who read this letter today.

I am ready and prepared to be in the minority. I just hope my increasingly extraneous worldview will be as tolerated as you’ve always hoped your’s would have been (and so often was not). I will always and unashamedly love you and continue to consider you a friend.

In the Love of Christ,

Jay

My New Orleans Baptist Association...

Editorial Note and UPDATE: I have come to understand where the author of the original blog received his limited information. Although I am very disappointed with the circumstances surrounding this stir and I remain indignant that this piece was written, much less published without an attempt at engaging the Executive Director or the Administrative Team of NOBA. That was simply not the way Christ tells us to deal with others... at all. In fact, it is contrary to Scripture. I do however, now know that there was no intention on the part of the author or publisher to present false information. He seems to have been speaking from what what he was told. What is clear to me is that he only had bits and pieces of information. What remains disappointing is that such an article was written in the first place considering our work is a local Baptist work and historically, entities and individuals outside of an association do not have a place to nor should they be lodging complaints or directives toward an association that is not their own... especially about properties owned by the association. Because of that I want to make a couple of adjustments to my post. Anywhere I suggested or insinuated that someone was deliberately presenting false information I am retracting. Understand that I am NOT retracting the facts I have carefully presented nor am I discounting my disappointment with the article and its deployment but knowing that there was no deliberate attempt to deceive is enough for me to soften my language in some areas.

**********************************

Well, I didn't see this coming. I assumed my first blog post since the LBC would be about another topic. However, yesterday I received word of a blog post on B21's site (an organization that I genuinely appreciate) that was very disconcerting to me. You can find that post here. I encourage you to read it before reading my response. The following is the text of my rebuttal which was sent to B21 this morning. Although I serve as the moderator of NOBA this response is from me as a local pastor and member of the New Orleans Baptist Association of churches.

You know friends, a lot of headache and confusion can be avoided if fact checking, Christlike respectful due diligence and transparency would be employed.

***************************

A Rebuttal to Dean Inserra’s “Send New Orleans: An Opportunity and a Challenge”
from Jay Adkins, Pastor of FBC Westwego and NOBA Moderator

I have the great privilege to serve as the moderator of the New Orleans Baptist Association of Churches (NOBA) but what follows is just my personal reaction to yesterday’s blog post at B21 regarding the New Orleans Baptist Association. I’ve lived in the metro NOLA area for 13+ years and have been amazed at what a unique, diverse and challenging place this is to live and to serve. You learn things in NOLA that I’m convinced you can’t learn anywhere else. I often joke with our pastors that we are the “Island of Misfit Toys” of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are all so different. Our theologies are varied, our worship styles—assorted and our skin color—diverse yet we find great joy and community in our unity (tell me another association where the “big church” pastors are just as involved in associational life as are the “small church” pastors… including a former President of the SBC). Maybe it is because we know that those outside our Island don’t quite “get it” the way we do. Maybe it is simply the fact that spiritually-initiated wartime trench-oriented relationships are some of the strongest and most meaningful bonds forged. Whatever the reason, New Orleans is a different place and to that I say vive la difference. It is from that background that my desire to be transparent and truthful has been cultivated and it is from that perspective that I must respond to the recent B21 article from Dean Inserra titled, “Send New Orleans: An Opportunity and a Challenge.”

I was called today by a NOBA employee to let me know about this article. More concerning for me than even the content of the article is the fact that B21 didn’t contact our Executive Director, me who serves as moderator, nor any member of the Administrative Team to offer an opportunity to address what has been written about our local work. I believe the integrity of B21 is at stake here (a ministry that I both appreciate and am often encouraged by). When such an article is to be published, journalistic (not to mention spiritual) integrity requires that a full vetting take place and at least some sort of contact be made with the organization being addressed so that an appropriate rebuttal, or at least clarification, could be rendered.

I appreciate Dean Inserra’s leadership in guiding City Church of Tallahassee to adopt NOLA as a partner. We love our partners and we appreciate the thousands of short term missionaries and partner churches who have given their time, toil and treasure to help us engage our mission field, but one of the many things I have learned while pastoring a church that has housed thousands of volunteers is that a “trip down” and a “tour around” our area, albeit important to introduce our ministry to perspective partners, could not possibly provide the necessary backdrop to our unique work in what is considered by many to be one of the most complex and diverse Baptist associations in the SBC.

I am certain Dean offers these critiques from a place of true concern, nor do I expect him to understand the history and very involved background from which this dialogue springs however, the substance of the complaint in this blog post is so scant and misguided that it is difficult to know where to begin in response. Let me do this piece-by-piece, starting with the most direct statement made by Pastor Dean…

First, Dean posits,

That sounds great, doesn’t it? Church buildings used by church plants from our own denomination to battle lostness in a Send city is a slam-dunk, right? It should be, except for the challenge presented by the New Orleans Baptist Association (NOBA). As proof of God’s continued work in this city, NOBA now owns several of these vacant buildings. Tragically, it seems the Association is not interested in using these properties as facilities for church planting, the reason given that they would rather sell the buildings in order to fund local social justice ministries. (emphasis his)

Nothing could be further from the truth. NOBA has not sold a single church building. Further, to my knowledge, the association hasn’t sold a church building in the 13 years I’ve pastored in the area.

NOBA owns exactly 6 “church” buildings. All but 2 of them (4) are currently used by an established congregation, mission or church plant. Furthermore our ample association office complex has been the home of a number of other church plants throughout the years an is always available for planting. It is my hope that the 2 church buildings that currently do not house any congregations (Hopeview – which has been used as a roughed out volunteer center post-Katrina and Lake Forest – used as a warehouse for NOBA’s rebuild material) will one day either return to use as local church facilities (Lake Forest) or be sold and the proceeds used for church planting (Hopeview). In fact, NOBA has already invited the submission of a proposal for a future plant in the Lake Forest facility but nothing has been received. As for the Hopeview site, after consultation with church planting and church health strategist as well as local pastors, NOBA concluded that it was not feasible to return Hopeview to service as a church for a plethora of reasons; deemed it surplus property; and has listed it for sale. NOBA has received no proposals for the expected proceeds from the sale of Hopeview, nor has NOBA taken action regarding the disposition of said proceeds, which I hope to see used for planting purposes. (By the way, in an earlier tweet I made the mistake of saying “no church building we have is being sold” I should have said, “has not sold a single church building” I want to be very careful with my words and point out my mistake here). Dean made reference to one particular building on Magazine. That building, which he seems to think is empty, houses Valance Street Baptist Church and is the oldest SBC church building in NOBA. They have had a pastor for longer than I’ve lived here and have only recently entered into a partnership with NOBA to help it become a stronger work by…. wait for it… submitting to become a NOBA church plant/replant. It is not the association’s prerogative to force a church to anything, especially as it has do with property.

Now, if Dean is referring to the sale of two former compassion ministry sights (Carver and Rachel Sims) then that is another story. First of all, these buildings are not and never have been “church properties” (although a small mission church did for a short time utilize one of the large cavernous facilities) Second, these buildings were given to NOBA during the time NAMB was ridding itself of compassion ministry sites. When representatives from NOBA went to visit NAMB’s leadership to share our newly minted and ratified areas of focus—church health, church planting and compassion ministries—we identified our desire to reach into underserved communities with the gospel witness through compassion ministries including the possible introduction of a health clinic. NAMB loved the idea. Thus, for a number of years we have planned on selling these two properties to help further our compassion ministry efforts in the Lower Ninth Ward – where today we have the first of what I hope to be a number of gospel centered medical ministries in which our doctors tend to physical needs while also praying for and encouraging its patients. Tell me of another Baptist association that has a medical clinic.

Dean also argues, “the money invested in these ministries will be spent and gone for good.” Again, he is mistaken. Our hope is that this is an investment which will have a financial return to our association to further our vision. To suggest that we are impeding church planting by investing funds into compassion ministries is tantamount to suggesting that a church is not about global missions if it also is involved with funding local ministry. Dean also suggests, “One would think that starting and maintaining healthy churches would be the priority for a local association, rather than social programs.” Wow, I’m not sure how to respond here. Dean is simply presenting the fallacy of a false dilemma. Why can’t we do both? Further, we are not just talking about “social programs.” We are talking about meeting the physical needs of a neglected and underserved community (something that Jesus himself did). The fact is, not every penny spent by NOBA will go to church planting. NOBA has a gospel-centered strategy to expand the kingdom of Christ across the greater New Orleans region that involves three prongs: Church planting, Church health and Compassion Ministries; or as some have described it—Sharing Jesus, Starting Churches and Shaping Culture.

Pair that with the fact that, if you will allow this analogy, the “church-planting” faucet (so to speak) is wide open. A significant amount of funds are available from the SBC, the LBC and church partners from all around the country for church planting. There are however, NO funds for compassion ministries through CP efforts (however, since my original post one brother has let me know that there are some funds for local churches to engage in compassion type ministries). That we need to defend why we want to use this one-time asset (which was dedicated to compassion ministries) for the furtherance of our compassion ministry is very frustrating to me, especially when it comes from someone in another state who clearly has some but not all the information. I’ve already had friends from around the country contact me about this. That this post might jeopardize our current and the possibility of future partnerships is upsetting and such irresponsible misinformation is disappointing to say the least.

To suggest that NOBA is not passionate about church planting is absurd. NOBA and its churches have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to church planting and church planters in an effort to see this city inundated with the Gospel. We have used both NOBA owned and our locally owned buildings to house plants. My small church has relationships with two plants outside of our state (Utah and Vermont) and one in the next community over from ours. No one, and I mean NO ONE has any more heart for this city than those of us who daily work and labor here. To suggest otherwise is, and I’ll say it as nicely as I can, without understanding. The men and women, pastors and servants of NOBA work together in a way I have seen no other association do in order to fulfill our cooperative call to exalt Christ. We do so with joy in our diversity and singleness of heart in our effort.

You want to know about church planting / church life in southeast Louisiana? Come for a visit and talk to those of us who have walked it. I’d encourage you to get to know the pastors who have grown up here, those of us who were here through Katrina, and those who have come here to plant and pastor since that deluge. We will continue to prayerfully seek God’s direction for our association to impact our neighbors around our home. At least, if you’re going to publish something about our work, talk to one of us first… please.

Part 8 - The Disposition of my 2013 LBC Motion and My Response

     In November of 2013 I offered a motion on the floor of the LBC meeting in Alexandria that addressed the contradiction that exists between the Louisiana Baptist Convention By-Laws and the Charters of the four LBC entities that are governed by Boards of Trustees (specifically as it relates to Louisiana College). Please go HERE to take a look at that rather lengthy motion. The motion was sent to the LBC Administrative Committee for consideration. In May of 2014 they passed along their recommendation to the Executive Board to “decline any action” on my motion. That recommendation was adopted.

I had hoped for a simple ruling… I wanted to see:

1) Clarification and enforcement that according to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Louisiana Baptist Convention, the Executive Director of the LBC is not permitted a position on any of the four LBC Boards of Trustees,

2) The Convention respectfully requests the four LBC entities to appropriately amend their Charters as to not contradict the LBC Bylaws, (in much the same way the SBC requested charter changes of its entities regarding the sole membership issue) and

3) From this time forward the Executive Director interact with those entities as an invited guest while maintaining a friendly and collegial relationship with those entities.

There are some who charge my motion was a personal attack against the current Executive Director. I continue to insist that this was never the case and have shown through my research that this is simply a constitutional issue. While serving as a member of the LC Board of Trustees I first noted what would be considered external influence on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College in September of 2012. I noted continued exertion of undue influence in numerous subsequent meetings. However, in an effort keep my concern from looking like a “personal agenda” I specifically (and deliberately) did not identify any particular untoward action in my motion, nor did I charge the Executive Director with undue/external influence because my concern was primarily with the office and the corresponding articles in the LBC guiding documents and not with the individual as a person. Rather, I simply pointed to what I was afraid might come about (which of course, now has come to fruition) if the convention continued to ignore this issue and if SACS noted a similar concern.

     My motion was passed along to the Administrative Committee of the LBC. After not receiving an invitation to address the group regarding my motion, I sent a formal request to be allowed to speak. I was permitted to speak for a very short time (one person who timed me suggested I was in the room for 5 minutes). It should be noted that the Executive Director was in the room (along with a few other convention employees) with the Administrative Committee for a long time before I entered, he was in attendance while I addressed the group and he was in attendance for an extended amount of time after I left. Also of note is that I asked a number of questions to the group (which no one answered) and although I gave them an opportunity to ask questions, no one did. Wouldn’t it have been judicious to at least dismiss the Executive Director for that short amount of time so that at minimum some sort of investigative query could have been conducted and specific questions asked of the one who was lodging the concern? Of course, that did not take place and the group did not interview me and ask questions in order to help clarify my position.

     It is clear to me that to some degree the fate of my motion had already been decided. After the group recessed there was a lunch and then it was on to the full Executive Board plenary session. The following is what was presented from the Administrative Committee to the full board regarding the disposition of my motion:

(26:05) The last recommendation that we have is to move that the Executive Board of the Louisiana Baptist Convention declines to recommend any action regarding the motion made by Jay Adkins messenger of First Westwego referred to it from the 2013 LBC annual meeting for the following reasons:

     Number One: the charters of LBC boards are not in conflict with the LBC governing documents by naming the Executive Director of the LBC as a member of the respective boards, those charters being explicitly authorized to identify those who compose the members of the board to wit… this is a quote from the LBC bylaw Article Three, Section One… “that the composition and duties of the boards of trustees of agencies and institutions of this convention shall be clearly set forth in the convention resolutions authorizing their establishment and included subsequently in appropriate form in their respective corporate charters. All corporate charters and amendments thereto shall be expressly approved by the convention or by the Executive Board of the convention.” Article Three, Section One gives us an explicit exception in the prohibition of salaried employees of the convention serving on committees or boards of the convention… see LBC bylaw Article Four,  Section Ten… Which reads “No salaried employee of this convention and its boards and committees shall be eligible for election as a voting member of the boards or committees of this convention except as provided in the constitution of the Convention or these bylaws.”

     Reason number Two: Is the provision in the Louisiana College charter naming the LBC Executive Director as a member of the college Board of Trustees is not evidence of undue influence under the rules of this convention or of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges… the college’s accrediting body. Both the Louisiana College Board of Trustees and the Louisiana Baptist Convention, as the sole member of the college corporation, have approved this provision. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges has not cited this provision as a violation at LC or at other Southern Baptist Schools with the same provision.

     Reason number Three: The recent 2006 edition of the Executive Director of the LC Board of Trustees, a practice common to other state convention schools is particularly useful to the LBC in light of the numerous actions in the last 25 years of Baptist College Boards defeating the rights of their parent conventions and going independent, the process of the LBC Executive Director as a voting member of the board serves as a strong reminder that the board serves at the pleasure of the LBC.”

Although I assumed there would be a dismissal of my motion I cannot tell you how utterly befuddled I was when I heard this particular response. This meeting took place in May of 2014 and I intended to write a response rather quickly especially considering some upcoming events (SACS was coming to visit the LC campus soon and I knew that they would be issuing a report some time in June. I also knew I had a family vacation to Europe coming up on which I wanted to focus). I was so frustrated by the Executive Board’s response to my motion that I felt pressed to do something that I had prayerfully considered doing in the past but had yet not done… something I was so ready to do that I had already printed out the paper work and spent hours transcribing the audio of a number of board meetings. You see, back in the early spring of 2013 I made a very informal and anonymous call to SACS in order to find out how someone goes about submitting an official complaint to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. I found out that they only take transcriptions of recorded events and will not receive audio files as submissions. Further, and more importantly, I was told that before someone submits an official complaint they should seek to exhaust every avenue of opportunity in order to bring attention to and rectify the disconcerting situation. That is exactly what I have been doing. I sought resolution with the LC Executive Board, I tried with the full LC Board, I tried on the floor of the Convention, I tried with the Administrative Committee and then finally I tried (although wasn’t given a hearing) with the full LBC Executive Board. Before I lodged an official complaint I was told to exhaust every avenue… and that is what I have done.

     Now are you ready for the big reveal? Friends, to this day I have NOT made an official complaint to SACS. Yes, I know… that is probably shocking. I’m certain that there are those who think that I was the one that sent info to SACS which caused the 3.2.4 Comprehensive Standard charge against the Executive Director for external influence… but the funny thing is… it wasn’t me. Don’t get me wrong. I told people that I was going to do such a thing because I had intended to do so… but you see I was trying to do the right thing. I was trying to “exhaust every avenue” before making such a complaint.

     At the end of the May Executive Board meeting I had resolved to finally make that official complaint to SACS about this issue since I assumed I had finally come to exhaust all avenues. I made a hurried attempt to get things in order and then I prayed. I know that sounds like a “Sunday school” thing but it is important that you know that I have always done that before posting anything regarding this whole situation. You might note that I normally wait a week or so before I post something about which I have experienced and over which I have had deep concerns. I spend that time praying, writing, editing and then praying again. I do not post rashly but deliberately and with careful words. As I rushed to get things in order to send to SACS I spent some time praying and, although I’m not one of those guys that says God “speaks” to him and have the capacity to divine and then dispense a holy curse upon someone, I do believe God directed me to wait. I was uncomfortable with that direction but it was as if he said to me, just be patient. So I sat the stuff aside and unplugged for the summer (see HERE for that story). I’m glad I did since now I can say that SACS identified the problem I have called attention to without my pushing the subject. External influence on the part of the Executive Director has been cited by SACS and LC has, in part and along with other issues, been punished for it. Keep all this in mind while you read the rest of my post.


Now to address the LBC Administrative Committee’s startlingly deficient response to my motion.

     Randy Johnson, chair of the Administrative Committee, stood to give three reasons as to why the Executive Board should recommend declining any action regarding my motion. Of the three reasons given the first is an unfortunate display of bad hermeneutics, the second has arguably been nullified by the SACS findings, and the third is a complex amalgamation of logical fallacies including parts of (1) appeal to emotion, (2) appeal to authority, (3) appeal to consequences, (4) red herring & (5) false dilemma. Let me explain.

     The first reason given to decline recommending action on my motion was “the charters of LBC boards are not in conflict with the LBC governing documents by naming the Executive Director of the LBC as a member of the respective boards, those charters being explicitly authorized to identify those who compose the members of the board to wit… this is a quote from the LBC bylaw Article Three, Section One… “that the composition and duties of the boards of trustees of agencies and institutions of this convention shall be clearly set fourth in the convention resolutions authorizing their establishment and included subsequently in appropriate form in their respective corporate charters. All corporate charters and amendments thereto shall be expressly approved by the convention or by the Executive Board of the convention.”

     There seems to be two primary hermeneutical faux pas happening here. First, there is an apparent suggestion that Article 3, Section 1 allows the individual entities to appoint whomsoever they choose to their boards as long as these appointments are “expressly approved by the convention…” This could not be further from the truth. I have noted HERE that according to Roberts Rules of Order, NR (10th ed.), p. 332, 15-8:

Motions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution or bylaws of a society...  are out of order, and if any motion of this kind is adopted, it is null and void.

Thus, even if the LBC ratified the charter changes of the convention entities those changes would be null and void if they “conflict with the constitution or bylaws” of the convention. There IS such a conflict as noted in Article 4, Section 10 which says,

“No salaried employee of this Convention and its boards and committees shall be eligible for election as a voting member of the boards or committees of this convention except as provided in the constitution of the Convention or these bylaws.”

If the bylaws state that no salaried employee can serve (or be elected to) boards or committees of the convention, then the action of the convention ratifying entity charter changes which makes an allowance for such a seat is a direct violation of the bylaws and RONR necessarily applies. Thus, the aforementioned changes are null and void. Clearly this response to my resolution is deficient.

     Another hermeneutical problem is to suggest that Article 3, Section 1 is the “exception clause” which nullifies Article 4, Section 10’s prohibition of salaried employees serving on boards or committees (specifically for the Executive Director). Now think through this with me. If 3.1 is indeed an exception clause then it is an exception clause for ANY salaried employee. Therefore, any salaried employee would technically be eligible to serve on committees or boards of the convention. If that is the case, why the prohibition from 4.10 in the first place? Let me say that a different way… the rule states that no employee can serve (be elected) unless there is a provision “in the constitution of the Convention or these bylaws.” The exception then should be a specific one. In other words, if there is an exception, it must NOT be a blanket one, it would name who would be allowed to serve. This sort of exception is found in the applicable article for the Executive Director in Article 3, Section 9 where it does identify a particular exception for the Executive Director where he is allowed to serve as “a member and secretary of all standing committees of the Convention.” It further notes that the Executive Director can call on members of his Executive Board staff (salaried employees) to assist him in that task. THERE, my friends, is an example of an exception clause and it is there that the Executive Director is allowed a seat on the standing committees and NOT on the Boards of Trustees. The argument from the Administrative Committee is simply a case of bad hermeneutics or at least a dereliction in due diligence to rightly interpret the bylaws.

     The second reason given for the dismissal of my motion is that “the provision in the Louisiana College charter naming the LBC executive Director as a member of the college Board of Trustees is not evidence of undue influence under the rules of this convention or of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges… the college’s accrediting body. Both the Louisiana College Board of Trustees and the Louisiana Baptist Convention, as the sole member of the college corporation, have approved this provision. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges has not cited this provision as a violation at LC or at other Southern Baptist Schools with the same provision.”

     Boy isn’t this interesting? Now it is absolutely true that SACS has no rule about Baptist State Executive Directors being ineligible for serving on Baptist College Boards of Trustees. But that wasn’t what my motion was about. My motion was about the possibility of the exertion of undue or external influence upon Louisiana College by the Executive Director. What has now been cited by SACS is that the Executive Director has indeed exhibited external influence and LC is now on probation, in part, because of the Executive Director’s actions. Therefore, this second reason why the Administrative Committee would dismiss my motion does not apply. Had the Executive Director not been in a voting member on the LC board of trustees then he would not have been in executive session meetings where I have recorded evidence of more egregious displays of external/undue influence than even SACS knows about at this point (since I have yet to make an official complaint). Spend some time in thought about that subject.

     Finally, and the weakest argument given as to why my motion should be dismissed is because having the Executive Director serving on the Boards of Trustees “is particularly useful to the LBC in light of the numerous actions in the last 25 years of Baptist College Boards defeating the rights of their parent conventions and going independent, the process of the LBC Executive Director as a voting member of the Board serves as a strong reminder that the board serves at the pleasure of the LBC.”

     Where do I begin? I suppose I’ll begin with the most basic of responses then move on to the fallacious rhetoric. Louisiana College and the other LBC entities have changed their charter to reflect that the LBC is the SOLE MEMBER of the entity. Friend, there is no way LC could “defeat the rights of the parent convention by going independent” regardless of whether or not the Executive Director is on the board. It simply cannot happen. The presence of any state Executive Director on any Board of Trustees for any state convention entity does absolutely nothing to “better-secure” the convention to an entity whose sole member is the convention itself. It is redundant, superfluous, and completely unnecessary. Furthermore, I take umbrage with the attempt to use logical fallacies (such as (1) appeal to emotion - the fear of past experiences of conventions who’ve lost colleges (2) appeal to authority - authority of the LBC and other schools, (3) appeal to consequences - having a school go rogue, (4) red herring and (5) a false dilemma - suggesting that the Executive Director’s place on the board would do anything to tighten up the link between the school and the convention when sole membership makes that connection legally binding) to argue that my motion should be declined. This response is not only embarrassing for whomever wrote this section it again points out that those who drafted this response to my motion do not understand the convention-entity relationship. Further, an undergrad philosophy student could have picked apart this section after one semester in class.

     Since the time I first publicly spoke on this subject I have been very careful to not “politic.” I have not made phone calls to stir the pot, I’ve not encouraged people to gather in small groups and I’ve purposely steered away from meetings around the state regarding concerns. I’ve simply spoken my piece, tried to present the truth and answered questions when asked. With that said, I am very much looking forward to addressing the response to my motion on the floor of the convention meeting in Lafayette this November. I now would like to encourage everyone interested to pass along this blog post, make phone calls, spread the word and then come to the convention and make your voice heard on any subject over which you have concerns. The only way things change is when those with courageous voices, a consistent vote and CP value speak up and make their concerns known. Be sure to have your church select you a messenger and join us for the LBC at First Baptist Church of Lafayette on November 10-11. I see this meeting as the final "avenue to exhaust" (for me personally and for my responsibility as a Louisiana Baptist) before I submit an official complaint to SACS. I hope the convention will do something that will remove the necessity of a complaint submission and a public release of information and audio recordings which validate the very concerns I have tried to tactfully address over the last 2 years.

Boiled down summary:
1) I have not yet submitted an official complaint to SACS and LC is now on probation. If I do submit a complaint it will further validate the SACS concerns.
2) The response to my motion from the LBC Admin Comm is deficient and does not apply and I will point that out at the convention.
3) If there is no change I will be forced to submit an official complaint to SACS and then will for the first time publicly disclose information as well as audio recordings of external and undue influence of the Executive Director on the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College.


in veritate et gratia,
Jay Adkins

Just a Quick Note...

     I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days with a meeting in Pineville, Louisiana. With that said, I will hold my post about the LBC Executive Board's response to my motion until later in the week (or even later). Please pray for us and that all the right changes are made... otherwise there will be no substantive change whatsoever.
     Until that time let me recommend you review my earlier post about the event to which SACS appears to refer when it cited LC in regard to Comprehensive Standard 3.2.4 (external influence). Further, take a look at my original 2 posts about the role of the Executive Director and LBC Bylaws and the LC / LBC relationship. That should catch you up and prepare you for what I hope to be one of my final posts related to my involvement with Louisiana College. The LBC, on the other hand, is a different subject all together.

Ego Paene Effectis