Change on the horizon: Louisiana Baptist leaders
eye a change in convention structure as local associations prepare to assume
full responsibility for directors of missions
Change on the horizon: Louisiana Baptist leaders
eye a change in convention structure as local associations prepare to assume
full responsibility for directors of missions
A Louisiana Baptist committee has offered suggestions to help local associations
in the state take full administrative and financial responsibility for their
directors of missions at the first of 2005.
The suggestions are designed to assist associations through a time of transition
“in a timely manner with as little hardship as possible on all parties
concerned.”
They were released January 23, just days after the Louisiana Baptist Convention
Executive Board endorsed the decision for directors of missions to return completely
to associational control. At that time, the board also approved a committee
to work out a transition plan for the process. The shift of control will mean
the end of a structure that had been followed for some 40 years in which directors
of missions were employed by the state convention.
The move requires no further action from the Executive Board or state convention
messengers, Doster said. However, leaders acknowledged changing the plan will
not be easy for some accustomed to the existing structure.
But they also maintained that the move is necessary and will prove to have
a positive impact on all involved.
“The heart of this issue is – is it the right thing or the wrong
thing for the directors of missions to go back under the full employment of
the associations?” said Philip Robertson, state convention president and
pastor at Philadelphia Baptist Church in Deville. “Its unfortunate
that weve had to go through what weve had to go through and that
weve ended up in this situation. But … I really feel that Louisiana
Baptists, in their heart of hearts, can see the benefits of this move.”
LBC Executive Director Dean Doster agreed, saying he had found people to be
“okay” with the change – generally.
“I think once the information we have put in place is disseminated, people
will understand what were trying to do,” he said. “Were
not trying to hurt anybody. … And were not trying to undermine the authority
of the convention or the will of the convention. Were just trying to fix
a process.”
The recent suggestions are designed to help do that.
Currently, there are 19 directors of missions serving 45 associations. In all
but three situations, two or more associations are grouped together to share
a director of missions.
To ease the transition period, the committee has suggested that associations
remain in the groupings they now comprise and keep a director of missions for
their particular cluster.
Currently, the state convention also pays the salaries and benefits of all
19 directors of missions. Beginning in 2005, that responsibility will fall to
the associations.
To prepare for that transition, the state committee suggests that associational
plans be developed for funding the directors. It offers two possibilities –
for local churches to increase funding to the association in order to pay for
the director of missions and/or for churches to redirect some of their state
Cooperative Program funds to the association.
The committee also suggests that associations keep their directors of missions
in the state convention insurance program, as would be permissible. Finally,
it notes that if the transition cannot be made by 2005, local associations may
negotiate the process with the state convention.
It also notes that churches and associations are free to choose a transition
plan other than that suggested.
The suggestions were mailed to Executive Board members, directors of missions
and associational moderators. Directors of missions and associational moderators
also received information on salary and benefits for their particular worker
and a calculation of what percent those represent of 2003 Cooperative Program
gifts from the association.
The letter was followed a few days later by a mailing from Doster to all pastors
in the state. That second letter also outlined the suggestions from the transition
committee.
Still, state leaders acknowledged the transition period will not be easy. They
also agreed that education is key.
One of the first questions they face from many is why the move is being made
so soon after the directors of missions issue was addressed during the 2002
convention.
Doster and Robertson say they both left the 2002 convention feeling the matter
had been settled. For most of that year, a special committee had studied the
directors of missions issue in detail – and Robertson served on that committee.
Initially, the committee had proposed a five-year transition plan for local
associations to take full responsibility of directors of missions from the state
convention.
However, opposition quickly emerged. In response, the committee offered a compromise
– associations would assume supervisory responsibility for directors of
missions, but the state convention would continue to fund the positions.
The plan narrowly was approved at the convention.
However, just 10 months later, Doster said he realized the state convention
was involved in a “very swiftly-moving, unmanageable process.”
Doster said the 2002 change had been approved with a common consent understanding
that the number of directors of missions would be held at 19. But now, associations
were looking at the possibility of dividing and hiring additional workers. One
such group asked the state to fund the person – and each director added
would cost the state almost $80,000.
Also, once the associations in question learned the state could not fund an
added worker, they sent a letter to local churches, urging a redirection of
state Cooperative Program funds to the local level.
“We didnt have a system in place to do that, and we were going to
have arbitrary reduction and redirection of Cooperative Program by everybody
because we couldnt fund these new directors that were going to be requested,”
Doster noted. “We saw it coming. And in order to head it off before we
had a nightmare and a collision in the budget, we (acted).”
The first step was that Doster declined to sign the contracts submitted by
associations, a decision made on advice from the convention attorney. “The
process was not working,” he said. “We made a mistake in what we put
in place, and it was contrary to what we could do.”
In addition to budget concerns, Doster said he realized it was inconsistent
to have employees operating under different levels of supervision. And since
associations had supervisory control of directors of missions, that was the
case.
“It was inconsistent, an inconsistent policy,” Doster said.
Thus, after seeking input from other state leaders, Doster decided last fall
on his plan to end all state funding for directors of missions in 2005.
However, he did not communicate that plan until early this year, choosing even
not to bring it to the 2003 state convention. He said he made that decision
because he wanted to wait and give a full years notice of the change to
associations and directors of missions and because he did not want to complicate
the convention, which already faced the issue of whether to sell the Baptist
Retirement Center in Arcadia.
Instead, on January 3, Doster communicated the plan in a letter to Executive
Board members and directors of missions.
Robertson affirmed the chain of events, saying it simply is not true that all
the facts were not disclosed at the convention, as some have seemed to imply.
“None of this was anticipated in 2002,” Robertson emphasized. “It
was stuff that began to come to light after it was invoked and became policy
that nobody anticipated and that put Dr. Doster in a very untenable situation.”
The subsequent action was not intended to be a unilateral decision or a circumventing
of the will of the convention, as some have suggested, Doster added.
“My spirit was to inform everybody, to allow them to have the opportunity
so I didnt make … an arbitrary decision without their information and
input,” he explained, noting he brought the matter to the Executive Board
even though it was not a policy issue and did not require their approval. “So,
my spirit was the opposite of what some want to make it.”
Robertson offered an analogy at that point.
Suppose the Louisiana Baptist Convention voted to buy a tank, thinking it would
help them reach the state with the gospel, he said. And when the tank was delivered,
Doster acted in his role as executive director and convention manager to test
drive the tank, only to have it break down.
“Then, certainly, it is not only his right but his responsibility not
to buy that tank, not to conclude the sale, …” Robertson said. “Well,
we put out something in place that we thought was a good step, … that would
work, and then, we discovered there was going to be unanticipated problems.”
That is exactly what it amounts to, Doster agreed. “It is in no way circumventing
the will of the convention, …” he said.
Indeed, by bringing it to the Executive Board, Doster said he did bring it
to the convention ad interim.
Doster also acknowledged his earlier view that the pre-2002 directors of missions
system was the best available. He explained that analysis came from the viewpoint
of an executive director. “I … was trying to do the work from the perspective
of a state convention, which I love,” he said.
“But now, Im going to move to this side. I also love the associations
and the churches, and I honor their autonomy, their right to what they want.
And heres what they want. They want a director of missions who will service
them in ways they feel like they should be serviced, who will perform in ways
they want him to perform.”
Thus, both the pre-2002 structure and the idea of total associational control
of directors of missions can be viewed as the best – depending on ones
point of view, he said.
As for Robertson, his point of view remains unchanged. He called for total
associational control of directors of missions in 2002 and continues to advocate
that approach now.
One of the reasons is because the Bible teaches that a person cannot serve
two masters – and that is what directors of missions were being asked to
do under the previous system, he said. “We had a situation that put our
directors of missions in a very untenable situation because we were saying to
them, You work for the state convention. But then we were also telling
our associations, They work for you. How can a man operate in that
capacity?”
Doster and Robertson said they believe the new directors of missions system
will be beneficial.
“I feel like its going to reinvigorate associational life,”
Robertson said. “I feel like our local churches are going to have more
cause to be involved in associational work. I just feel very strongly … that
this is the best direction to go in. … I would call on Louisiana Baptists
to support it.”
Robertson said most of the concerns he has heard related not to the end –
but the process involved.
Meanwhile, many associations already are moving to make the transition, and
their key concern has been to receive help so they can do so in a timely manner,
Doster said.
“So, weve agreed for them to keep … whatever money it takes from
the churches to fund a director of missions and just send us whatever else they
deem feasible to honor the system of cooperation,” he said. “And what
its going to do is allow us both to start up from that level and to build
from there.”
Doster noted that a redirection of funds at the associational level should
not hurt the state Cooperative Program at all. While the state would be receiving
less money, it also would have given up an annual cost of more than $1.4 million.
Robertson said he actually hopes the move will help the state Cooperative Program.
“My prayer is in the long run, that associational giving will compensate
the directors of missions and … whatever was redirected will be made up and
brought back in and that you will actually see a benefit to the Cooperative
Program in the long run,” he said.
However, he and Doster acknowledged a few have implied they may cut the Cooperative
Program more than necessary in order to make their dissatisfaction known.
Robertson said he hopes that does not happen.
“I have confidence in our churches and I have confidence in our people
that theyre going to do the right thing and that theyre not going
to want to hurt the Cooperative Program,” he said. “Irregardless of
where you may fall in the political spectrum, the answer to that is not hurting
the Cooperative Program because theyre not going to hurt what they think
theyre hurting. Its just going to hurt our work.”
Doster and Robertson said they also do not expect the relationship between
the state convention and local associations to be damaged – but enhanced.
Primarily, it will remove all suspicions that the state convention was “lording
it over” local associations under the previous structure, Doster said.
“As long as Ive been here, I constantly have people to say, You
guys are telling us what to do,” he said. “Now, we never intended
that. I dont think we did that. But thats besides the point. The
perception was (there).”
Robertson agreed. “Once all this cloud has passed on, I really feel like
theres going to be a greater relation (between the state and local associations),”
he said.
The two leaders acknowledged there will be a learning curve as local associations
once again have to take full responsibility for their work.
“But I think one of the positive things were going to have is that
were going to have churches taking ownership of associational work in
a new and a fresh way,” Doster said. “I think were going to
have churches that are far more educated about the … process of cooperation.
Were going to have a clear line drawn for the autonomy of the local church
and each entity, including the state convention and the association.
“I think, ultimately, were going to have far better planning between
the association and the state convention because we will then have the churches
supervising the director of missions and trying to cooperate in the unified
plan with the state because they own (and fund work at both levels).”
Both leaders also acknowledged there is some concern for smaller associations.
However, Doster said he hopes associations work together in order to move ahead.
He noted that some smaller associations have questioned being able to afford
a director of missions. However, Doster said if one looks at the current groupings,
there is not one of them that cannot manage the transition.
To prove it, Doster has compiled a list of the groupings and recorded the total
each forwarded through the state Cooperative Program in 2003. The lowest total
from any of the groups was $306,656; the highest was $2,887,231.
For the smaller grouping, funding a director of missions at the average cost
of $76,000 entirely from redirected funds would require a shift of 24.4 percent
of receipts from the state convention to the associational level. For the larger
grouping, the percentage would be 2.6 percent. Other groupings are scattered
in between those two.`
Meanwhile, Robertson said he is not concerned that smaller associations in
groupings will be neglected by directors of missions simply because they do
not contribute as much to his funding. “I have more confidence in our directors
of missions than that,” he said. “I cant imagine any of our
current directors of missions that would intentionally neglect a smaller association
because they know that association is not paying as much of their salary as
another one.”
Besides, the whole idea of putting full responsibility back at the local level
means associations can deal with such a situation and fix it, Doster said.
“Our committee is very passionate about the fact that we will not leave
behind any associations,” Robertson added. “Were committed to
working with them.”
Robertson also cited the importance of taking care of directors of missions.
“We want to do everything to make sure our current directors of missions
are not hurt, …” he said. “Theyve worked hard and served Christ.”
In the end, the two state leaders say they hope Louisiana Baptists will take
the time to understand the action and the reason it had to be taken.
“We have to look at the fact that all of us are working cooperatively
and that there are many entities involved and no one interest should supersede
the interests and the well-being of the whole,” Doster explained. “And
I believe if we will give consideration to that and look at the suggestions,
well see that we have a good plan in place to implement this in a timely
manner with as little hardship as possible.”
Robertson echoed the idea, calling on persons to look at what is trying to
be accomplished objectively and with unnecessary distractions or biases.
“I just think theres merit in what were doing,” he said.
“And I think if people are willing to really look at it, they can see the
benefits. Theyll see the positives. This is a move that will benefit our
state; it will benefit our associations.”