Thanks to several people who pointed out that I had asked for help in bringing a constitutional amendment and bylaw change to the BGCT in November, and mentioned that I hadn’t included the text of the proposals, here they are.

ARTICLE VIII–Affiliated and Related Ministries

Section 2.  Affiliated Ministries

Delete point A. 2 and replace it with the following:

2.  No more than one member of any church affiliated with the BGCT may serve on all of the affiliated boards, boards of related institutions or agencies, or convention committees, at a time.  This does not include trustee seats of boards of colleges or universities to which the nominees are named directly by the institution.

Add to A.

9.  Once an individual has completed the customary number of terms of service on any board or committee of the Baptist General Convention of Texas they are no longer eligible to be nominated for service on any other affiliated board, board of related institutions or agencies, or any committee of the convention. 

The bylaw change proposal is as follows.

Add to Article VI

Section 9.  Nomination and Term of Service

1.  No member of any church in cooperation with the Baptist General Convention of Texas may serve on the executive board, or a convention committee, concurrently with another member of the same church.

2.  Once an executive board member or committee member has served the customary number of terms, that member is no longer eligible to be nominated for service on any affiliated board, board of related institutions or agencies, or any committee of the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

There have already been a number of suggestions offered to streamline and make these proposals effective, and they are deeply appreciated.  Please feel free to offer further advice.  And beyond that, feel free to come to Houston to the convention and vote your support. 

You can reach me by email at deepintheheart2009@gmail.com.

Advertisements

About LS

I'm 56, happily married for 25 years, B.A., M.A., career educator with experience in education as a teacher and administrator, native Arizonan living in Pennsylvania, working on a PhD and a big fan of the Arizona Wildcats, mainly in football and basketball.

6 responses

  1. Colby Evans says:

    I see one correction you might want to make in A 9. How many terms are “customary”? For some individuals in BGCT service, 10 terms, rotating from board to board, are customary, and they expect to be nominated to something new when they exhaust their welcome on something else. Personally, I’d say two terms max, and then get out and let someone new come in.

  2. Rocky Kilgore says:

    So, according to your amendment, I could in theory be nominated to one of the various boards when I was 25. I would serve two or three terms, into my thirties. Then for the remaining fifty or so years of my life, I could no longer serve on any board connected with the BGCT?

  3. Lee says:

    Rocky,
    With over 2.2 million members, and a weekly worship attendance exceeding half a million among BGCT affiliated churches, why would you want to serve on another board, if you’d already given eight to twelve years of service? Why do you get the privilege of serving, while others who are just as capable, bright, and willing as you would be prevented from doing so because you have an inside connection that gets your name up for nomination? In eight to twelve years, you would have ample opportunity to contribute a wealth of ideas and provide a lot of labor of love. Why be selfish, and keep someone else from that privilege.

    Do your service, and let someone else serve.

  4. Rocky Kilgore says:

    Lee,

    Perhaps I misworded something. I did not see how my question concerning a potential issue that I saw in the proposed amendment could be considered selfish. And I am also not sure how the question could be construed that I did not want to let someone else serve. I was merely attempting to raise a legitimate concern over the wording of your amendment.

    While I agree that we need to encourage a diversity of voices within the BGCT and not let the same people continue to steer the Titanic, I do not believe that the way in which you have worded this achieves that goal with optimal results.

    An example of this would be our current BGCT President, David Lowrie. He serves on the HPU Board of Trustees. Once that term is up, according to the wording in your current proposal, Lowrie is ineligible to serve on any institutional board of the BGCT again. He wouldn’t be able to serve on the Future Focus Committee, and he wouldn’t be able to serve on any other BGCT committee.

    However, I like Lowrie. I think that he is a good man with a good heart and a good, gifted leader. While I don’t want him to serve on every committee or always be serving somewhere, I would like to be able to call upon his wisdom and guidance when he is in his sixties should a BGCT committee need him to serve.

    A better way to word the amendment would be to call for a 3-5 or 4-8 year hiatus between serving on committees. Otherwise, ten years from now, we are going to look for people to serve and on the sidelines will be many gifted individuals with years of experience like Lowrie (or Bill Pinson) who are now considered ineligible only because they already served on a committee.

    I do apologize if my previous wording was written too casually and those obscuring my main concern.

    Thank you for your time.

  5. Lee says:

    I see the point of that, Rocky, I really do. And I will give consideration to the hiatus period being placed in the amendment.

    Your examples are certainly noteworthy, and there are always exceptions that can be used as examples. I appreciate the word David Lowrie has done for the BGCT, and his service to it. He is exceptionally gifted and has used those gifts very unselfishly in BGCT service. But how many other David Lowries are there among the 5,600 pastors, and thousands of church staff members, not to mention tens of thousands of active church leaders, and hundreds of thousands of active church members who would be willing to serve if asked, but never will be because they don’t have the connections or the influence, and the same people keep getting asked? And for every leader like David Lowrie, there are half a dozen others who keep prevailing on their BGCT connections and influence to keep getting seats and continue wielding influence because they are motivated by an agenda. The bottom line is the ability of the convention to make a transition into the future and survive and whether or not its current way of choosing leadership will allow that to occur. From sheer observation, I’m betting it won’t.

    The younger Baptists I know, the ones who are still interested in and engaged in a Baptist church somewhere, and might still be remotely interested in what the convention is doing, are turned off by the politics, and the prestige and prominence games played by the denominational politicians. If that continues, the BGCT will run out of leaders, and in the not too distant future.

  6. Robert says:

    Lee,
    When you say:
    ‘ ARTICLE VIII–Affiliated and Related Ministries

    Section 2. Affiliated Ministries

    Delete point A. 2 and replace it with the following:

    2. No more than one member of any church affiliated with the BGCT may serve on all of the affiliated boards… at a time.’

    do you mean:

    ‘ ARTICLE VIII–Affiliated and Related Ministries

    Section 2. Affiliated Ministries

    Delete point A. 2 and replace it with the following:

    2. No more than one member of any church affiliated with the BGCT may serve on any of the affiliated boards… at a time.’?

    I see your point about the ‘sunset of service’ rule you propose, but am not totally convinced that it might not be good to devise some method (guild perhaps) through which vizened knowledge and advice could be channeled quickly at times when confluences of unexpected occurrences exhibited themselves, such as, for example, if we set a fishing trip and no one came but the tried and true, who would man the oars?.

    Robert R