As an American Baptist for more than 50 years (until we withdrew to form TM a couple of years ago), I think that you need to attend to the reaction by the Executive Minister cited at the end of my post. What was NOT explained (evidently) is that you all cannot afford the current structure and that a failure of the vote will almost certainly translate into further layoffs in Valley Forge. Already a number of my long time friends have been cut due to budgetary constraints.

You raise good questions and I think they are on target. Yes, better PR on the new bylaws could have led to a “yes” vote. Still, others have commented that we are still spinning our “wheels” on structure and missing out on mission.

But, while musing on the shock of an electoral defeat this dramatic, a thought came to me. The vote was close, very close to passing (just 12 votes shy). And, the numbers of delegates were few, less than 700! What if the decision to hold the biennial in the heart of the old ABCPSW, in the middle of the worst recession in decades, without pruning the rolls of old ABC churches now more TM than ABCOSH, was partially responsible for tipping the balance against the proposal? [Nothing in this posting is intended as asserting that this did indeed happen. I was not there and do not know. However, it represents an interesting possibility to consider.]

Certainly there were plenty of people motivated to be suspicious of authority, who felt underinformed about the proposal, or who did not relate to the electronic means of learning more about the details from an internet site. Add to this the progressives on the left who were sincerely offended that the proposal would freeze in time all past resolutions (e.g., the one they find most odious of all regarding homosexuality being incompatible with Christian teaching). Central Baptist (Wayne) had drafted a strong set of talking points which reflected the concerns of the AWAB churches and was (as Associated Baptist Press reported) faithfully represented at the biennial.

However, an often neglected factor may have played a role as well. When PSW voted overwhelmingly to withdraw from the ABC, Dr. Salico explained that he and Dr. Medley had agreed to give congregations 18 months to discern which affiliation they wanted to maintain. However, it was hardly a couple of months when that agreement was interpreted (abrogated? forgotten? modified?) as something very different. Congregations were told that unless they took an official vote to disaffiliate, they would continue to be counted as ABC churches in good standing.

Even in the old bastion of conservatism, ABCPSW, feelings regarding the ABC were sharply divided in most churches. Few pastors would necessarily want to be so controversial as to raise the issue in debate, lest dissent would sour into division. At this point, the website for ABCOSH lists MANY churches I personally know to be officially opposed to all things ABC with pastors disinterested in continuing any relationship at all (other than one with BIM). However, many of these churches have not (nor will they ever) bother to vote themselves “out” of the ABC. And, virtually all of them have members, many of them less informed about denominational politics, who still see themselves as American Baptists.

What if “old fashioned” Baptists who do not feel comfortable with getting their information over the internet from the ABC site, who never really understood what all the fuss was about with the ABC, who wanted to see old friends from around the country, prevailed upon their pastors to allow them to attend the biennial as delegates?

What if the recession reduced the attendance to 1,200? What if the numbers of registered delegates was closer to 600-700? What if some of these nominally ABC churches permitted their more diehard ABC types to go to Pasadena where, because their pastor had never mentioned it, the new structure was a completely new idea to them?

What if the discernment sessions did not adequately inform them about the seemingly radical deconstruction of the SCODS/SCOR structures that they did (finally after nearly four decades) understand? What if it sounded vaguely “unbaptistic” to them?

What if in a desire to be “positive,” nobody explained the financial drivers that made the reduction of the $400,000/yr. representative process price tag more of a decision of urgency and survival rather than merely a discretionary move?

Could enough delegates from basically non-ABC churches (i.e., TM congregations that had not formally withdrawn from the ABCUSA) have innocently mucked up the voting by registering the handful of negative votes necessary to result in a defeat? Could underinformed members of essentially non-ABC churches have shown up in enough numbers to have turned the tide on such an important issue?

Honestly, I do not know the answer. Someone smarter than I am (e.g., Dr. Jeff Woods) might be able to perform a statistical analysis of the numbers of delegates from southern California ABCOSH churches. Were there enough of them to result in the shortfall???

If so, it would be a tragic instance of the law of unintended consequences.

A member of the GEC in the ABC hierarchy responded to my musings by writing this to me this morning:

I’m sure you would agree that a convergence of factors led to the failed vote, and GB, OGS and GEC did not anticipate them sufficiently to mount the necessary PR campaign to override the inchoate resistance that was in the ranks. The liberals did not want it because they would have great difficulty overturning the 1992 resolution on homosexuality. The old school ABC-USA folks reacted because they’ve come to see the General Board as integral to what it means to be American Baptist. The conservatives reacted because it sounded like NM and IM could go off the reservation under the new structure (some intimated to me that that’s exactly why NM didn’t have their by-laws ready). Others voted against it because they had no understanding that the financial freefall and deep divide have given ABC-USA almost no choice but to restructure. The presentation on Saturday afternoon was poor, and no one talked about the fact that we can no longer afford the General Board system.