"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Show Trials Have No Place in Christianity

Today the Missouri Baptist Convention fired Executive Director David Clippard

Immediately after the roll was called at the MBC Executive Board meeting, a motion was made to move into Executive Session. Executive Director David Clippard, who by nature of his position is a member of the board, was barred from attending the closed door meeting. Nearly four hours later, a vote was taken to fire David and it passed 44-7. The Missouri Baptist Convention staff members were notified by inter-office e-mail to assemble in a conference room at 1:30 where they were informed of Clippard's termination.

I have no opinion on whether or not David's termination was justified, but I have a very strong opinion on the process taken. David Clippard heard nothing of the deliberations. He had no opportuntity to issue a defense before the board. He was kept OUT of the meeting, and the entire meeting was about him. That is a clear and direct violation of Matthew 18, and what is worse, not even the pagans treat their accused as unjustly as the Executive Director was treated in the procedures yesterday. An appeal was made to reverse the decision to bar the Executive Director from the closed door meeting designed to hear the reasons why he should be terminated, but the board leadership overruled it.

Therefore, David Clippard was not asked any questions, given an opportunity to share his thoughts, or allowed to issue any statement before the vote to terminate him. He was removed from his job as the top leader for Missouri Baptists without even so much as a 'David, what do you have to say for yorself" before the entire board.

For several months we watched Sadaam Hussein sit before his accusers, speaking regularly in his defense, and being offered every opportunity to plead his innocence. Yet, in the end, Sadaam was executed for his crimes.

David Clippard had none of the opportunities afforded to Saddam, yet, in the end, instead of a public execution, this very bizarre statement was issued to Baptist Press by Michael Whitehead, the parlimentarian for the MBC, regarding the board's feelings for David:

"Clippard's termination doesn't translate into a rejection of David Clippard and his conviction to plant churches worldwide. The same gifts and talents that attracted the board to Clippard four years and eight months ago he still possesses. This is a hurtful time, but not a funeral for a man and his ministry."

Gee, what a weird way of saying your still the same guy we hired five years ago. Remind me never to apply for the Executive Director position in Missouri. Also, it would seem to me that this very statement RULES OUT any justifiable termination on moral grounds. One would never dream of making this statement of David Clippard if that were true.

Some Friendly Advice For Dr. Clippard

(1). Don't sign any confidentiality agreement.

If a board or committee doesn't have enough guts to say what needs to be said in the light of day for all Southern Baptists to hear it, bars you from hearing the accusations against you or from issuing any statement in your defense before the board, and then comes out in public and commends you as a person and your ministry as a whole -- then it's time to play hard ball with the people who are controlling and manipulating Missouri Baptists.

Your integrity is at stake and the work of the kingdom at large is at stake. The MBC is kicking churches out. The MBC is kicking people out. The MBC is kicking Executive Directors out. Soon, the Missouri Baptist Convention will have kicked everyone out that doesn't look the same, talk the same, preach the same, act the same, give the same, walk the same, etc . . . We should change the name to the 'Show Me You're Like Me' Convention. I think you need to say what your experience has been like because of the future of the kingdom work in the SBC. I think you should believe you should talk because your future ministry is at stake. If you don't, others will for you.

(2). Encourage every single board member and board officer to make EVERYTHING public -- immediately .

One of the problems with closed door meetings is that one, two or three years from now, those who were in the meeting will be saying many things about the meeting that are not true. What was said was bad enough, as the resignations of some key people will show, but you will discover what will be said in the future -- which was not even said behind closed doors -- will even be worse. This will all be in an attempt to discredit you. Further, you will find that unless you make all facts public NOW, things will be said in an attempt to ruin your ministry in the future.

Again, demand EVERYTHING be made public. Only the guilty wish things to be hidden or covered. I bet you will find the little things that crawled out when the doors were closed will be scurrying for cover when the light is turned on. The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. They want you to be quiet -- you should want them to talk. Do you see the irony?

Of course, if something is revealed that proves the action taken in your termination is just, we can, and will forgive you -- all the while affirming your termination.

But I can tell you that something really smells rotten in Denmark.

(3). Recognize that you may never understand the logic of what happened.

It is not about logic. It is not about spiritual matters. It is about power. It is about control. It is about politics. And right now, you are on the losing side.

But it won't be for long. Southern Baptists are waking up to the fact that show trials have no place in our convention life. It's time people realized that you just can't run over people in the Southern Baptist Convention because of philosphical or methodological disagreements. Leaders in the SBC who misappropriate funds, regularly lie, build personal kingdoms, and are immoral should be terminated. But there is a long trail of Southern Baptists who have been abused, maligned, set aside, and in some instances terminated, all because they did not form the approprate alliance, express the necessary allegience, or had the audacity to think for themselves.

Those days are quickly coming to an end in the convention as a whole, but the state of Missouri may need someone to step up to the plate to hold accountable those who would villify and crucify their brothers in Christ for personal or political gain. Do you have it in you?

I think you will find people respect a man who stands on principle.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

P.S. David Tolliver, the man Roger Moran and the MBC activists placed on the Executive Committee payroll at MBC -- without David Clippard's direction or permission -- is now the 'interim' Executive Director. What are the odds the title 'interim' will be removed within the next few months? We'll see.

112 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wade,
Maybe the Missouri Baptist Convention’s name should be changed to the Missouri Fundamentalist Convention.

I don’t see much difference in the way David Clippard was treated than the way Russell Dilday was treated except in the case of Clippard and an investigative committee made a “finding of lack of confidence”, whereas Dilday was told “we don’t have to have a reason; we got the vote.”

Is Clippard’s trial any different than the one the SBC gave the BWA in regard of not given the chance for a defense of being heard? One minute before the vote, Patterson made a new charge that the BWA was gay friendly.

One word of caution, Wade, in my opinion, you’re beginning to sound like a moderate. (I don’t know how to make a smiley face.)
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

(1) "The MBC is kicking Executive Directors out"--so far, only one that I know of; Dr. Hill was not "kicked out," but himself initiated the executive session board proceedings in 2001 which dealt with his remaining or departing as executive director of the MBC (Dr. Hill recognized that too few were following his lead in order to implement fully the new strategy MBC messengers approved prior to his resignation, and that the matter must be dealt with--and thus that executive session was called; the board majority at the time saw much of his point exactly as he did, as represented by the severance package granted to him--over MUCH opposition, and despite our since having been termed "moderate" and even "liberal" for doing so);

(2) In my opinion, others--who understand political things better, and do not want to be disclosed--are behind Moran's actions during the past several years (I believe that I witnessed one of these directing one of the MBC's annual meetings from the back of the room while, at the same time, the convention's president directed it from the platform at the front of the room--and I approached the back-of-room person at that time, while debate was taking place, to inquire about it);

(3) No one has effectively led the MBC during the past many decades (cf. its decline during that time), and--from a perspective of pure administration and leadership potential--that convention never has had a better executive director than Dr. Jim Hill (with the MBC not recognizing that fact, it is no surprise that the action of April 10 was taken--or what will happen next: more of the same in terms of chaos and decline);

(4) This was understood and foreseen by MBC staff members who chose to depart from their positions in 2001, and by executive board members who resigned their trustee positions during the same year.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

David Flick said...

Wade,

Like you, I know Dave Clippard. And I know he doesn't deserve this. He's not a moderate (which wouldn't be a bad thing) but he's now numbered among the "exiles" in Southern Baptist life. The Missouri Convention doesn't deserve this either. The MBC can thank Roger Moran for this and numerous other controversies.

Jim Shaver said...

Yes we have come to a sad place in SBC life when the business of a state convention has to be conducted behind closed doors with legal counsel present.

But such is the nature of the beast we have created and are now trying to change.

I was present in the Mo. EB session until all guests were invited to leave. There was discussion before the chair dismissed us as to whether the meeting should be closed or open.

Legal Counsel advised because of sensitive and confidential matters of a personal and personnel nature that the Chair should declare the EB in exec session.

After we were allowed back in the EB Session after lunch we were led to believe by legal counsel that David Clippard had met with legal counsel form the MBC over the weekend and was aware of the findings of the investigative committee and was prepared for the outcome. The only surprise that many of us felt yesterday was over the margin of the vote.

The men who served on the investigative committee are some of the best in Missouri. One was David Clippard's pastor. They presented their findings on a 4-1 vote and a word that was heard after the EB came out of the closed session was "devasting".

We may never know all the details and probably shouldn't know some but I know personally that not all 44 who voted to terminate are robots controlled by anyone. They heard the recommendation and agreed.

The most encouraging part of yesterday was the number of guests. We had 11 pastors and church staff members from our association there. There was a large contingency of young pastors from all around the state there as well. We were all there to show our concern and to put the EB on notice that the Churches are concerned about our State Convention and we are watching.

If anyone from outside Missouri thinks that David Tolliver is a Roger Moran "Yes Man" then we in Missouri know you simply don't know him. He is his own man and will do what is right even if not popular in the coming months.

Jim Shaver said...

My spelling is terrible this morning.

The word should have been "Devastating"

Marty said...

re, #3--Logic? What logic?

Wade Burleson said...

Jim,

Good comment.

I will take your word for David Tolliver and have heard from people who served with him on the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that he is a nice man. Of course, Roger Moran is now serving on the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Missouri's representation at the SBC level is very intentional.

My point about David Tolliver stands. Having served as President of the the BGCO when David Clippard was Associate Executive Director, I am very familiar with how an Executive Committee of state staff operates. You can bet your bottom dollar if the board of our convention placed a man on paid staff to be the Associate Executive Director, without direction from, or affirmation of, the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR himself, then I would have known as President of the Convention that there was an undermining of the leader of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.

Whatever happened to hiring a man to do his job -- trusting that man to do it well -- and refusing to interfere with his plans or directions.

David Tolliver may be a very good man. I'm sure he is. It just seems he is being manuevered as a pawn before the word "Checkmate" is heard.

By the way, 'devastating' may be an appropriate word. However, until things are made public I will not accept it.

Jon L. Estes said...

Prior to MBC calling Clippard, I actually submitted my name for consideration. How I wish now I could have gotten the job and been handed this garbage instead of Clippard. I don't even know the man, never met him and would not know him if he walked into the room but these unfolding events are wrong.

With love and grace… with strength and courage these actions must be addressed and displayed for what they are. WRONG!

How can we give comfort to Clippard and his family during these times? How can we extend a hand of grace when those who should, won’t?

I once prayed for many of these same leaders, for their protection. I now find myself praying for their correction.

Is the time for passivity, past?

Wade Burleson said...

Jon Estes,

Good word. I am intending sometime today to speak with David Clippard. Hopefully, we can find out how we can help him and his family.

I will let you know.

Kaylor said...

Just because Moran has acted and spoken inappropriately, that does not mean that Clippard is the victim here. It is not a good versus bad conflict. Instead, neither of them should be in positions of Baptist leadership. Clippard should have been terminated some time ago. If you are in doubt, check out this article: http://www.partnershipofbaptistministries.org/services/archives/2004_01_29.htm#mbc. Clippard not only acted inappropriately toward an employee (my mother), but he stood before the messengers at an annual meeting and flat out lied about it.

Additionally, if you carefully read the BP story ( http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=25362), you’ll notice this line: “Whitehead also said that Clippard’s termination didn’t translate into a “rejection of David Clippard and his conviction to plant churches worldwide.” Moran’s only complaint has been in the area of church planting, but Whitehead seems to be saying that church planting was not the reason for the firing. Thus, it may be inaccurate to pin this on Moran. Perhaps we should reserve judgment until the report comes out. Wade, I do not think you have all of the facts here (and neither do I), but I think you are uncharacteristically off-target.

Wade Burleson said...

Kaylor,

Due to the fact you are the son of the woman who was terminated from the staff of the Missouri Baptist Convention for allegedly tampering with computers that were not her own in order to erase incriminating emails against her --and due to the fact that she filed a lawsuit after her termination which was settled by the convention's insurance company against the protests of Executive Staff --- and due to the fact that confidentiality statements have been signed in that settlement agreement as well -- and due to the fact that it is now being used as fodder against David -- it would seem to me Kaylor that your comments might be just a tad biased.

Nevertheless, thanks for your comment and I would encourage everyone involved in that situation to come clean with full details. I think you may find that just might happen.

Wade Burleson said...

By the way, the comment was an affirmation about 'the man and his ministry.'

Kaylor said...

Wade: I’ll admit I’m biased. I just hope you can do the same. Let me offer a couple of clarifications to your comments.

My mother never tampered with Clippard’s computer—she wasn’t even in his office when the alleged incident occurred. That is the lie he told at the annual meeting. That story was concocted to cover up the fact that he fired her because she dared complain about harassment and discrimination. I am quite confused you are supporting Clippard so strongly considering your strong support for Sheri Klouda.

Additionally, the confidentially statement is only about the details of the settlement. She can actually tell everything about how he mistreated her. However, she has spared Clippard and the MBC such embarrassment, despite requests from several reporters. You wrote in your post that Clippard should “demand EVERYTHING be made public.” I don’t think he really wants the truth out about this issue.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is trustworthy conceals a matter. Prov 11:13 (NASB)

Wade,
How does the above verse fit into "making everything public"? I am with you on doing everything according to Matthew 18 (and 1 Timothy 5:19-20). Since that would involve the local church I'm not sure how that works with the Executive Committee (and the Convention as a whole for that matter). But I was wondering if there is EVER a time to keep things somewhat private? Doesn't Matthew 18 include keeping it as private as possible (one one one, two or three, church body, etc.)?

BTW, why is it that whenever you speak out against a well known conservative there are always those who want to call you (or claim you) a moderate/liberal? Just stop it for goodness sakes...
Chris

Wade Burleson said...

Kaylor,

As I would say to anyone, including Sheri Klouda or your mother. If what she is saying is true, then she should stand by her statements.

I'm glad to know the confidentiality agreement is only about the settlement.

In His Grace,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Rev. Chris,

If it is in private, then the person against whom the accusation is coming SHOULD BE PRESENT.

If the person who is being accused is not allowed in the room, please explain how that fulfills Matthew 18?

I'm listening.

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Wade,
Oh, I'm in complete agreement with that. I more asking the wisdom and/or necessity in making everything public to the public. That was my impression in reading your blog. The accused should be present and if not, has the right to pursue what went on behind closed doors.

Also, of those who were at those meetings, who should make it public? I'm agreeing with you about the way this was handled. I'm trying to see how it should be handled Biblically after the error occurred. I imagine (and could be wrong) there were those at the meeting who didn't agree with the "closed doors" and believed Clippard should have been there. But they haven't aired the dirty laundry because of principles like Proverbs 11:13. Of course, one of my weaknesses is that I tend to want to believe that everyone involved is trying handle things in what they perceive as the Biblical way. But sadly, that may not always be the case...

Kevin Bussey said...

Wade,

All of the negativeness of the SBC has made me sick.

I think I will skip San Antonio and spend my convention money on bettering myself and my church. Sad

Wade Burleson said...

I agree Rev. Chris

Wade Burleson said...

Kevin,

Don't skip San Antonio. Nothing changes until people seek change.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

On another note.. what happened to the "Criswell Post?" It seemed to have disappeared.

John B.

David Krueger said...

Dear Wade,
Before you trash an entire state convention of fellow Baptists you should reserve judgement until:
1) All the facts are known. I was at yesterday’s board meeting. Two board members whom I talked to, while not sharing any details about the report, termed it “devastating.” Another called it “highly embarrassing” to the Executive Director. Had the unredacted report been made public yesterday, you would probably be writing how the Executive Board chose to publically humiliate David Clippard. Also, the contents of the report where not unknown to David Clippard. Confidential sources tell me that for several weeks it had been made clear to the Executive Director that the report would, more than likely, end his ministry as our Executive Director. It was the Executive Director who sought to ‘go to the mat’ on this. Many people here in Missouri repeatedly tried to help and encourage David Clippard. Some of the help came in the form of “reproof and correction.” He repeatedly dug in his heals and resisted all attempts by those who wanted nothing more than to see him succeed. Wade, I’m sorry, but comparing yesterdays proceedings with Sadaam Hussein’s trial – and insisting the Sadaam got the better deal – is absolutely asinine.
2) It would behoove you to practice Matthew 18 yourself. Did you, have you, talked to Roger Moran personally and gotten his side of the story? Did you contact David Tolliver and talk to him before essentially calling him a boot-licking lackey? According to several well-respected sources (talk to Jeff Purvis), it was David Clippard’s idea to bring David Tolliver onto the Executive Board staff. No one “placed” David T. on the MBC staff without Clippard’s direction or permission. David Tolliver is a 5-th generation Missouri Baptist Pastor. He is one of the most highly respected men in the state who will not be “controlled” by anyone other than the Lord. To imply otherwise is, to say the least, unkind.
3) If David Clippard takes your advise, my guess is that it would be very embarrassing to him and his family, and would most likely end his ministry altogether. Do you really want that?

Debbie said...

ESV: 13Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets,
but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered.

In this case, David Clippard was not even present at his own firing. The Missouri Convention is a public organization and therefore accountable to the people. I would be hard pressed to find this situation to fall under the heading of "secrets". Where am I wrong?

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Read my earlier follow up post. My point in mentioning Proverbs 11:13 is that those involved may be keeping things secret because THEY don't want to be a "talebearer" or to slander. I"m assuming they believe they have a biblical reason behind their actions. I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with that but trying to see how that fits in the desire to make things public. I'm also wondering if there is quick judgment being made about those who were at the meeting b/c is was held in "secret".

Jon L. Estes said...

Brother Krueger,

So you know that Dr. Clippard was given an opportunity to defend himself against the accusations? This is the idea I see Wade making with the Hussein trial - Hussein was given opportunity to make defense.

Unless this occurred, all that transpired to remove Clippard was wrong.

David Krueger said...

Jon,
The events that led up to David Clippard's dismissal did not happen 'over night.' This is what I know from conversations with Board Members over the last two years: 1) David Clippard was repeatedly confronted about character and leadership issues. He refused to correct or address this things. 2) He was caught in repeated lies to Board Members. 3) The investigating committee presented their findings to David prior to yesterday's board meeting. 4) People like Wade are blogging about this and it's not even been 24 hours since David's termination. Let the details be reported first before there is a wholesale rush to judgment on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of David Clippard's presence while the report was presented. Has anyone remotely considered that he did not want to be present?

SWBTS Student said...

Thankfully I have Google Reader so I was able to read the post titled "More Wild Winds from Texas are Needed." What happened to this so called "Criswell post"?

A Simple Student @ SWBTS

Wade Burleson said...

John B.

I'll place the Criswell post up later. There were no comments and it is worthy of another day.

Wade Burleson said...

David Krueger,

When there is a very public attempt to remove a very public official, particularly in Christian ministry, ALL allegations need to be made public. Integrity demands it.

I guarantee you that you don't terminate someone and them come out and say, 'This is not a funeral of a man or his ministry.'

If a man needs to be terminated from a PUBLIC position for CAUSE, then make PUBLIC the CHARGE.

Only cowards hide behind closed doors.

Wade Burleson said...

Mr Kreuger,

You are doing the very thing you preach against -- stating within twenty four your views -- based upon conversations with board members.

This is the very reason everything should be made public.

Hear me carefully. I am not opposed for terminating someone for cause. I am opposed to terminating someone behind closed doors and saying there is cause when nothing is presented, and the person against whom the charges are made is barred from the meeting.

Anonymous said...

I was in Jeff City yesterday as well...
It was a very sad and somber day as state staff (many of them in tears) walked out of the room just learning that their ED had been fired.

I have the highest respect for those that I know who served on the investigative committee. I don't understand all the processes and how it is that Dave did not have the opportunity to answer the charges. It is my understanding, though I could certainly be wrong, that he did want desire this opportunity and was prepared to do as such.

The fact that some are posting that they have been told that Dave Clippard had "been caught in repeated lies" and "refused to address or correct" leadership or characters issues...causes me to think all the more that Dave C would have appreciated an opportunity to speak. I find it odd and disappointing that accusatory posts like this are being made. We don't know that Dave was caught in repeated lies and we don't know that he refused reproof.


As to Dave Tolliver coming in as our interim, I will give my prayers and my support. Dave is a nice person and I know that he loves the convention.

It is my strong, prayerful hope that he will lead in words and action to support our Church Planting staff and our church planting pastors. I also will pray that Dave will lead in such a way to stop the hurtful "blanket" statements toward Acts 29, it's churches, and it's pastors. Many of our church plants here in the STL area have a relationship with Acts 29 and these are good men, theologically conservative that are in agreement with the BF&M.

I have not heard Dave Tolliver make such negative "blanket" statements, but many in Missouri life have, particularly without even talking with the pastors of those churches.

This is why it's my hope that as our interim ED that he will lead to stop this, now. Dave has an opportunity to work toward bringing us together with his voice and with his actions. I am praying for my brother.

Benjamin S. Cole said...

Wade:

Was Michael Whitehead the former VP of Business Affairs at Midwestern Seminary in Kansas City, MO?

Why did he leave that post shortly after Phil Roberts was hired? Did he leave voluntarily, or was he asked to leave by the new president?

Did his departure have anything to do with uncovering presidential fund misappropriations at the Kansas City school?

Is this the same Michael Whitehead who chaired the SBC Resolutions Committee?

Is this the same Michael Whitehead that served three years on the SBC Committee on Order of Business?

Is this the same Michael Whitehead that is proposed for another three years on the SBC Committee on Order of Business, to be elected at the San Antonio convention?

I don't think Michael Whitehead would be a part of a lynching in Missouri Baptist life. He's clearly a careful attorney and as much concerned with process as principle.

In fact, he was probably brought in to add credibility to the whole ordeal. His credibility is unquestioned, and his integrity has never suffered reproach.

Which is why he wasn't well suited for administration at Midwestern. Both he and Malcolm Yarnell were quick departures after Roberts was hired. Both men left under unfavorable circumstances.

I doubt Clippard is completely exonerable in this matter. But I do have clear, convincing, and incontrovertible evidence of a systematic attempt to slander his character and ruin his ministry by top Missouri Baptist brass.

If Whitehead thinks Clippard should have gone, then I'm inclined to agree. But Michael Whitehead, from what I've known of him, would never be a party to character assassination, slander, and a denial of due process. This could explain his generous comments concerning Clippard.

He believed a new executive director was in the best interests of Missouri Baptists. He also believed that a closed meeting was in the best interests of David Clippard.

I'm not sure why Clippard was disallowed attendance at his own trial.

Not even Russell Dilday was treated that way.

BSC

Wade Burleson said...

Kaylor,

I had a delightful conversation with your mother. She is sharp, articulate and we found quite a bit of common ground.

Blessings,

Wade

Kaylor said...

Wade: I completely agree! :)

I appreciate your willingness to dig deeper, and I think this speaks very highly of you.

Anonymous said...

I will echo Ben's statement about Mike Whitehead. Mike Whitehead is a good and godly man. I don't know him real well but extremely close friends of mine do and they also hold him in high esteem.

Not sure what his Whitehead comments have to do with this post really, but I do want to echo the sentiment.

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous,

I think Ben is saying if Michael Whitehead said those things about David Clippard, then you can take them to the bank.

Anonymous said...

If the report was "devastating," wouldn't it have been better for the Executive Board to privately present Clippard with the evidence against him, and tell him that he had 24 hours in which to resign? If he chose not to resign, then the Board would have no choice but to fire him and give evidence of the cause.

It is an understatement to say that this situation was handled poorly. That he was not presented with the opportunity to defend himself or be given the chance to resign is outrageous.

Sheila

Anonymous said...

my bad...

Didn't intend to leave my post "anonymous"...

The post just prior to Ben Cole's...

Darren Casper
St. Louis

Jim Paslay said...

Rex Ray,

Since you have already convicted the whole Missouri Baptist Convention, what's next, a public lynching by moderates?

Also, do you get some kind of royalty everytime you quote Dr. Dilday about the vote quote? You can't wait to tie every situation back to the Conservative Resurgence. You are probably one of those conspiracy theorists and still think the CIA killed Kennedy.

How about you waiting until we have all the facts before you become judge, jury and executioner? Is it possible that there were legimate reasons for Clippard's removal? I don't know but I refuse to condemn and start the name-calling as you have before I have the facts. "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." Sound familar?

Debbie said...

Mr. Paslay: Even if there was reason to remove David Clippard, the fact that he was not there to hear the charges nor to defend himself is reason enough to object to the entire situation. It's ludicrous. We are Christians and this should not be. I don't have to wait for more information to know this.

Jim Paslay said...

debbie:

I think the question is whether he had heard the charges period and it sounds like he had from others who have posted that know something about the whole situation.

I don't know any of the details, do you? Do you know why he wasn't in the meeting? Did he want to be? Was he forbidden to be there? I don't know, let's wait and hear from Dr. Clippard and the others who were a part of the process. Don't be so quick to judge and jump on the bandwagon. I will certainly accept your criticism and join you if the board acted in an unchristian manner.

Anonymous said...

Jim Paslay,
I’m trying to think of a soft answer. I’m thinking…I’m thinking.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Jim Paslay,
I think your advice would be more of a prophesy if you had not waited until 37 comments had been made. As it is, you seem to enjoy jumping on the band wagon.

You may remember the story of the boy who cried “Wolf!” With ‘new information’, this may be the case here… (The MBC finally did something right.)
But with its past reputation for abusing power and control, it looked like the firing of Clippard was just the ‘same oh same oh’.

Wade listed some of their faults, but he didn’t mention the MBC suing their brothers trying to have control of them.
Wonder how much money that took from missions—not to mention the world laughing.

I hope you don’t read Dilday’s book or I might have to split my ‘royalties’ with you. He can afford only so much, you know.

No, I think Kennedy’s death involved those that prospered from a little known company to a world power.

I hate to admit it but I’ll have to join you in patting yourself on the back for waiting for the facts…as you can see, I couldn’t think of a soft answer.
Rex Ray

Rob Ayers said...

So Rex,

Your only response to brother Jim is a half hearted breguging confession mixed in with an argumentum ad hominein. Not much humily there huh? Typical Christlike fare, right brother?

Rob

Rob Ayers said...

I meant "humility" - I wish we could edit these comments for typos.

Rob

David Krueger said...

mTo the best of my knowledge, Matthew 18 was followed by Missouri Baptists who had issues with David Clippard. I have personally talked to a number of men and women who personally went to the Executive Dir. and confronted him in a biblical and Christlike way regarding character and behavior issues. Some of this will undoubtedly come out in the investigating committee's report.

According to Michael Whitehead, convention legal counsel and parlimentarian, the Executive Dir. was give opportunity to see and respond to the report before it was presented to the Ex. Board.

That David Clippard was not part of the full board's discussion is not unusual, nor is it unbiblical.

Here is a quote from an MBC Executive Board member who was at the meeting: " ... the one time we all vote, nearly unanimous, on a weighty issue that no one would take lightly and everyone piles on WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING about what went into the board finally coming together. The fact is, you can't know why we did it. David C. does not want you to know why we did it. The Bd. very compassionately decided not to air
his dirty laundry before the whole world."

Anonymous said...

updated information has been posted at:
"MBCPathway.com"

Maybe we can be patient, refrained and less impulsive and wait for further wording rather than speculating(and ruining) on people's motives and actions involving other's lives and integrity.

Wade Burleson said...

Mr. Krueger,

Your board member friend is practicing a tactic that is ungodly and unChristian.

Accusing David Clippard of not wishing to air his 'dirty laundry' before the world is lowball.

I think we shall see whether or not this is the case, depending upon whether or not any confidentiality agreements are signed. Frankly, I am amazed that any organization would give a severance package of four and a half months salary, IF confidentiality agreements are signed, when there is 'dirty laundry' in the basket of the one being terminated.

A principled, Christian approach with integrity would demand that IF there is dirty laundry, it be revealed publicly, the Baptist leader be terminated immediately, and you give NO severance package.

You don't offer money and DEMAND the person being terminated sign a confidentiality agreement in order to receive it.

That is really fishy.

Anonymous said...

there are 15 little words that ALL should give a LOT of thought before condemning David;

"Touch not my annointed"

"ye who are without sin"

"woe unto you"

"fear only God"

RKSOKC66 said...

I went to "www.mbcpathway.com" a minute ago to learn more about Dr. Clippard's "termination" but my security software warned me not to access the site since it contained a "security hazard".

I guess I'll have to wait until the information surfaces elsewhere.

Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

Anonymous said...

"STINKIN THINKIN by WADE BURLESON"

Wade has two(2) choices after hearing that David Clippard was not allowed to appear before the MBC-Executive Board(although he did appear before the Investigative Committee authorized by the MBC in October '06)just a day before.
One conclusion is that, THE EVIDENCE WAS SO OVERWHELING, DAMNING, and EXTENDED LEGAL EXPOSURE that the best way for both parties was a short-term severance to provide for his family
and to 'seal the record'.
Another conclusion is to lambast the MBC Executive Board, accuse them falsely, impulsively attack them from great sources, such as innuendo and rumors.
Now which reserved, well reasoned, thoughtful, 'slow-to-speak' Christian path do you suppose Wade Burleson took?

:(

Wade Burleson said...

Mr. Anonymous,

Thanks for your comment. I would encourage you to recognize that words are much more effective when spoken with the courage of conviction through identifying oneself as the author.

One may disagree with my conclusions, but one would be hard pressed to say I lack courage. You, sir, lack courage.

In His Grace,

Wade

David Krueger said...

Wade,
So then, the board choosing to not publically embarrass David Clippard, and choosing to provide him a severance package in spite of everything is now ungodly and unChristian? Missouri Baptists can’t win-for-losen with you, can they?

Wade Burleson said...

David,

If a man is terminated for cause, you don't give four and a half months severance.

Make the cause known and remove him.

Rob Ayers said...

Wade,

Like you, I am concerned about the "process" - in this instance of not allowing Dr. Clippard to confront his accusers, offer an apology, or to give exculpatory evidence and/or an explanation before the body that would make the final decision. Like you, I deplore that Christians do not treat fellow believers scripturally esp. in the realm of church related institutions where it is assumed by some that these entities are more business than Christian, so therefore Christian rules of conduct and decorum are considered inappropriate. Like you, I also deplore the use of secrecy and "executive session" to air dirty laundry. If a person has committed sinful actions and needs further accountability beyond the individual and small group, then by all means let us know about it. We don't want a minister who is plagued with problems coming over to us when the only thing the previous body gives us in reference is "name, rank, and serial number." There has been too much passing over other people's problems over to the other guy. I believe in second and third chances - but I also believe in "informed consent."

I think the problem is because these are considered businesses, governed by corporate charters and corporate law, and corporate designees. We are then too much lawyered up for my liking. With the high rate of litigation currently ongoing in our culture, there is a great deal of caution that goes down when anyone is terminated "to get it right" - often with an overabundance of caution. I think that the MBC ExBoard in this instance got some of the processes wrong. However, at this point I am going to wait to make that final determination until I view whatever they are going to desiminate.

However, I am going to disagree with you on one point. Going into that meeting, I know that the board was pretty much split on the issue. A vote of 27-25 or 30-22 or even 34-19 has been the standard on these issues in that body as of late. Nobody and I mean NOBODY was expecting a vote of 44-7-1. Whatever was reported was probably as has been described as "devastating."

And while you may deplore giving a severance package, what are Christians to do with those who have served them, yet are now be released? In this instance, the employee has committed no crime that would place him/her in contrasteps with the law - I can only speculate on this particular case, so I will leave that alone. I will grant the desire of the Board to give David a severance package for it was the graceful thing to do. He may have not deserved it or earned it - but it was merely grace in action - is that not Christian? There are a lot of churches who fire ministers for much less who push them out in the street with nothing. At least Dr. Clippard has something so he can find something else if he can.

Rob

Anonymous said...

We continue to build massive institutions that require enormous amounts of money to maintain and seem to be imploding in on themselves... and I can't help but wonder what it has to do with the Kingdom of God? The more the average person in the pew sees this stuff the more they are likely to wash their hands of it all.

Wade Burleson said...

Rob,

'I have not such entire faith in the infallibility of majorities as to submit my convictions to any such tribunal. If the Copernican system of astronomy had been put to the vote three hundred and fifty years ago, it would have had a smaller minority than the views expressed now.

I trust that no one is so silly as to suppose that one is necessarily in error because he is in the minority; let this be remembered, especially by the worshippers of majorities, that every great truth was at one time held by a very small minority, if indeed it be not held by a small minority now.'


Rev. Hugh Stowell Brown
April, 1861

My point in the post stands.

I do not blindly support any man, but I do not condone anyone blindly attacking a man --- if a man is to be terminated for cause, make the allegations known.

For heaven's sake, don't give him four and a half months salary, publicly commend him AND his ministry, and ask him to sign a confidentiality agreeement.

Someone needs some lessons in leadership.

In His Grace,

Wade

Anonymous said...

There is an interesting account on the website of the Missouri Baptist Layman's Association website that details a series of meetings over the last several years between Roger Moran and Dr. Clippard.

I think that one can deduce that the locus of the problem was related to some of the stuff referenced to in Roger Moran's writeup. Taking Roger's stuff at face value I think an impartial observer would say the there were "communication problems" in the MBC.

I may have to submit this anonymously since for some reason my Blogger password does not work any more and repeated attempt to fix it do not work.

I am not "taking sides" in the issues attested to in Moran's chronology but regardless of any other consideration, it is evident that whatever the situation is (was) between Dr. Clippard and others in Missouri things only got worse over time.

Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

Rob Ayers said...

So Wade -

The majority of an issue only works if it fits in with your view.

I note that in many instances at many times that majorities, even in Baptist circles have been wrong. This majority may be wrong - I do not know - but neither do you.

Dr Jim Hill has a notorious whimsical series of statements out there (the former ED that someone mentioned above) - at the time he was elected as the ED, he mentioned that "God's will has spoken through the majority" - the vote was a little close for comfort you see, yet he expressed what he believe was the will of God. Toward the conclusion of his ministry as ED, when votes were going against him, he made a statement similiar to your quote, "God often does not speak through the majority."

Did you not read my agreement with you on all the major points? Sometimes Wade, you are little dense to speak with in this venue. How frustrating that is!

Rob

Wade Burleson said...

Rob,

My simple point, which I mean no offense to you or anyone else, is this -- You CANNOT, with integrity, go behind closed doors, bring charges against a man you refuse to allow in the meeting, then come out and say, "Oh, it's horrible" but then have your official spokesperson say to the press "this is not a funeral for a man or his ministry," and then give the man you terminated four and a half months salary, and wish him the best.

If there is cause, make it public, terminate him, and don't give him severence.

I am not defending David Clippard. I am taking to task those who dreamed up the process.

Anonymous said...

I am not the anonymous that posted the arguments on this site. I am the one that posted the "15 little words"

I just have a question. I wonder how many of "The 44" were "approved" or chosen by Roger Moran? I also wonder how many were members of or supporters of Project 1000. I also wonder how many have voted for more that 3/4 of all things Roger has ever put forth.

Lets face it, for years there has been a concerted effort to load the boards both in Missouri and the national SBC. It doesn't take much IQ to see it.

So, was it an unbiased board or not?

It doesn't matter a hoot what you and I think. what really matters is what the one with the keys to hell thinks.

One more question: Who, in this, is willing to risk the wrath of God Himself?

Anonymous said...

(1) Rob Ayer's reference to Dr. Hill speaking of God's will and the majority is here (copy/paste--seriously, it'll get you there):

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GVsw4cN-0noJ:www.bpnews.net/storydownloadall.asp%3Fda%3D25%26mo%3D11%26yr%3D1997+%22jim+hill%22%22god%27s+will%22%22majority%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

On the other majority later during Dr. Hill's tenure: what I know is that the executive board majority--voting its conscience--favored Dr. Hill when he resigned as executive director, though the MBC clearly was headed "Project 1000" and that group's adherents were stiff opposition in Dr. Hill's final executive session (the Project 1000 majority a few weeks later--in the 2001 annual meeting--was the group that easily dismissed the biblical mandate not to sue each other as Christians);

(2) If the suggestion stood, future resignations from the MBC staff were to be without a severance package; terminations could be granted a severance package.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Jesse said...

Since this is an issue of employment (David Clippard was fired), there are laws governing the employer/employee relationship even during termination, even for religious organizations. What you are suggesting would be illegal for the EB and would be a violation of David Clippard's rights as an employee.

jack said...

One member of the "Investigating Committee" appears to take strong exception to the findings that were presented:

"The Ad Hoc Investigating Committee presented its report making a finding of lack of confidence in the continued leadership of David Clippard as executive director, and recommending the termination of his employment, effective immediately. The committee vote was 4-1.

Prior to the presentation of the Investigative Committee report, committee member and MBC second vice president Jim Cogdill, director of missions, Cape Girardeau Baptist Association, submitted his resignation."

-Talk about a huge red flag!

Jesse said...

Jack said...
One member of the "Investigating Committee" appears to take strong exception to the findings that were presented:

"The Ad Hoc Investigating Committee presented its report making a finding of lack of confidence in the continued leadership of David Clippard as executive director, and recommending the termination of his employment, effective immediately. The committee vote was 4-1.

Prior to the presentation of the Investigative Committee report, committee member and MBC second vice president Jim Cogdill, director of missions, Cape Girardeau Baptist Association, submitted his resignation."

-Talk about a huge red flag!


It is my understanding that there were members of the EB opposed to the investigation yet changed their minds after hearing the report during Executive Session. It is easy to draw conclusions in the absence of all of the facts.

Jesse

Anonymous said...

. . . And "a little close for comfort" was 82% (37 favoring, 8 opposed; probably 7 board members not voting, for whatever reason; with a board as small as 50 members, 5 "no" votes equates to only 90% favoring). I imagine lots of folks were like me at the time: extremely impressed later, though not certain at first.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Anonymous said...

. . . And, in the 10-13 billion webpages which Google is able to search, I can't find any with the statement "God often does not speak through the majority"-- or a close equivalent of it, or a reference to Dr. Hill saying it. It could have been printed previously and accessible elsewhere on the Internet, I suppose.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Rob Ayers said...

Brother David,

My bad - I am going to have to retract something which I asserted. While Dr. Jim DID say majorities speak God's will (as to his election) it was one of his brothers in a private conversation in a small group of ministers which spoke, "God often does not speak in the majority" in reference to votes of the convention. I suppose I put both of those comments on the same person (and more than likely why you cannot find it on any website). I seek your forgiveness and those here for giving out false information due to faulty memory.

Rob

Anonymous said...

The facts at issue deal with specific charges that can be either verified or refuted.

Did or did not Dr C. meet with Roger Moran four times as Moran attests? Did Dr. C. make certain statements in the presence of witnesses as claimed by Roger Moran?

Specifically, Did Dr. C. accuse Moran of calling for his [Dr C's] removal from office or not? Can it be independently verified that Moran never, in fact, called for Dr. C's removal?

According to Moran, several supposed "witnessess" proffered by Dr C. that could attest to the fact that Moran was calling for Dr. C's removal did not collaborate that they had heard Moran calling for Dr. C's removal.

Regardless of the historical context of the battle in Missouri, and regardless of whatever "side" you are on relative to Moran, the fact is clear that Moran is very specific as to date and place of specific discussions with Dr. C. On their face, at least, Moran's account raises serious issues that must be engaged. If Dr. C's doesn't come up with answers then I think we need to hear from the leadership of the Missouri convention.

I agree with you Wade. Whatever charges the Missouri comittee has should be put out there in the open -- particularly since quite a bit of the "raw data" is really already out there. We have heard Moran's side of the story. Is there a different side to this story?

I don't like it when Baptist leaders do stuff behind closed doors. I don't like these "secret proceedings". I don't live in Missouri. But if I did I'd want to know what is going on.

I thought Missouri was the "show me" state.

Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

Anonymous said...

Bro. Rob:

I (for one) want to be the first to say that I'm not perfect and do make mistakes--and do not want to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to acknowledge that same truth.

We all need each other, as iron sharpens iron--Dr. Hill needs you, you need him, I need both of you--if the three of us ever are to be all that God means for us during our lifetimes on this planet prior to Jesus' return.

I'm willing. No apology necessary as far as I'm concerned.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Rob Ayers said...

Another point David...

By and large, I would say that ED choices are fairly close to unanimous, or historically have been. By the time a candidate appears, is introduced, and gained the necessary support of both the committee and the board, then pretty much the board affirms the choice (in example, David Clippard's election was pretty much lopsided, with only one to four votes in the negative).

On the other hand, Jim Hill's election was a bit controversial. His candidacy was held fairly tight knit by the committee until the day of the vote. He was introduced, and then voted in. The high number of abstentions was basically a "protest" vote against the method in which he was presented - certainly you remember that. While "90%" of the total vote may have seemed a shoo-in, it probably was not, seeing that the then leadership attempted to seal off all political attempts to keep the election from going south (and certainly that is not a play on words - FYI for everybody not from Missouri - Dr. South was a longtime ED of the MBC: the state missions offering is named in his memory after him). Personally I supported Dr. Hill - it is just his later actions toward the end of his ministry that I find really suspect. Would you care to open up that dirty laundry here?

Rob

Anonymous said...

Rob:

Airing out the MBC's dirty laundry hasn't seemed to serve much of a useful purpose so far over these recent years.

I can say, though, that I'd be very interested in knowing the full details of all that took place in regard to agencies exiting the MBC, the actions of individuals involved, and the actual basis for it all (without going to court to get the information)--believing that, if it all were known, somehow we could be better for it if we simply would choose to be.

The Baptist churches of Missouri (all of them)--like those in Texas (all of them)--have great God-given potential for life-changing ministries to our communities if we'll focus again on the main things (lost people saved; saved people on mission with God). If not, I anticipate only more of the same among us.

May the Lord continue to bless you well as you lead your congregation this way--without distractions. Let me know if I can help in any way.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

K. Michael Crowder said...

If there is cause, make it public, terminate him, and don't give him severence.

How can this be the Christian way to handle the situation? Especially When Dr. Reccord was given 2 years severence. I believe it is most Scriptural for men of God to handle such matters in private. And then the rest of us should simply pray for all parties and wait (patiently) for the details to unfold. So far, there has only been alot of speculation and conjecture. At the end of the day we Missouri Baptists need to get back to doing missions.

Wade Burleson said...

David Troublefield,

Thanks for calling out the error. Rob, thanks for seeking forgiveness.

Michael Crowder, the SBC climate is such we desire to cover wrongdoing and reward the wrongdoer. That is a lack of integrity. There comes a time when people, particularly those paid with CP funds, must give an account of their actions.

My only concern is that what people will eventually say about the 'wrongdoing' of David Clippard will not be the truth. He may be incompetent, he may be a poor leader, he may have a low view of women like many, and he may not be liked by the powers that be in Missouri, but don't dare go behind closed doors and imply he is immoral, unethical etc . . .

That is the heighth of ungodliness. If he is immoral, unethical, etc . . MAKE IT PUBLIC and don't give him severance -- send him packing.

I propose he is none of the things in the paragraph above, but the closed door shananigans without him present is a horrible way to deal with a man you don't like.

In His Grace,

wade

Anonymous said...

Wade:

To some extent, you--I think--and I blog here with the insights of ones who have been treated as it appears that David Clippard has (you, IMB; me, MBC), and believe that such things must cease if the SBC and its state conventions ever are to become what God desires of us. Correct me if I am wrong; if I am right, then I am with you in calling all to the knowledge and correction of it. After all, we are brothers and sisters in the Lord, ones "from the same womb"--God's 'womb'.

Travel safely to Waco and back!


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

REV. CHRIS HILLIARD said...

Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, REBUKE IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL (emphasis mine), so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.1 Tim 5:19-20 (NASB)

I do think there is clear Biblical support to eventually "airing dirty laundry" (though I don't like the phrase). If after Clippard has been confronted and had a chance to respond, he is still found to be in unrepentant sin, then a day of public rebuke can come. I think Wade is right about the "closed door" issue. Granted, the facts are still trickling in and we don't know everything that was said and done, but, to "seal" up the reason for this man's being disciplined isn't the route to go. I understand the desire to not publicly humiliate someone. But, pay attention to what 1 Timothy 5 says and the reasoning behind it. 2 Thessalonians 3:14 also specifically says that the reason for disciplining others is "so that he will be put to shame."

I too have not taken a side here. I don't really intend to. But I am concerned about the church getting back to the Biblical instructions on how to handle these situations.

Jim Paslay said...

Rex Ray said:

"I think your advice would be more of a prophesy if you had not waited until 37 comments had been made. As it is, you seem to enjoy jumping on the band wagon."

For you information, I don't have the luxury of retirement. I was out of my office for over a day and a half and my 37th comment was the first chance at sounding off on this particular article.

Your comments about the lawsuits in Missouri led me to wander if you were in agreement with the Crowder suit back in 1985 after the Dallas Convention? You know it was those funny-damn-mentalists that infringed on Mr. Crowder's rights. I wonder how much CP money was used to deal with that frivilous suit?

Since you seem interested that I was the 37th comment, and since you were the first to comment on this particular article, can I infer that you might be quick to judge and slow to reason? Or maybe you just have an ax to grind and look for every opportunity to weld your ax? Hmmm!

David Krueger said...

Dear David T.,
You write: I'd be very interested in knowing the full details of all that took place in regard to agencies exiting the MBC, the actions of individuals involved, and the actual basis for it all (without going to court to get the information)--

We in Missouri would LOVE to have the answers to those questions!

We tried to settle the dispute with the agencies without going to trail. The Convention proposed binding arbitration with the five agencies that illegally changed their charters. They refused. They left the convention little choice but to take legal action. MBC watchers need to remember that the convention is not suing for punitive damages. All we want is for a judge or court to decide the core issue: Did the agencies or did they not break state coperate laws by changing their charters without the approval of the messengers of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Anonymous said...

"The Convention proposed binding arbitration with the five agencies that ILLEGALLY changed their charters"

Did I miss something? Have the courts ruled that what the 5 did is illegal?

If not, is it right to throw these terms around on just an opinion?

K. Michael Crowder said...

To clarify.....I was not the Mr. Crowder of the '85 Dallas Convention as I would have been 10 years old. :)

Wade,

It seems to me that all the issues of late are, at the core, dealing with the same issue....and that would be the polity and governance of entity Boards of Trustees. We have seen it in the IMB, SWBTS, MBC-EC, AND the 5 MBC entities who's boards voted to become self-perpetuating (same issue as with TBC/Belmont U.).

I used to think the #1 strength of the SBC was the style of church and convention polity. Now I am not so sure. When I was young and a member of a small BMAA church, congregational business meetings could get a bit heated, until a motion was made to adjourn and a group of men went behind closed doors and prayed and asked God to settle the matter, and He did.

Now I am not so naive as to suggest that this sort of unparlamentiarian style of faith governance would or even should work today. But I do believe that when we as Southern Baptists place 40-60 or even 100 men on a Board of Trustees, that we expect them to be in prayer, and be in one accord.

Wade, I submit that the trustees of SWBTS and MBC-EC ARE, for all practical purposes, in one accord. It has only been about 6 years since project 1000 spearheaded the CR in the then ailing MBC. We are now on a better path, not a perfect path.

We are bogged down with the pressures of a lawsuit (which former Exe. Dir. Hill and his brother could have, in part, helped us avoid); a new Executive Director search; the issue of how "emerging" new state sponsored church plants can be; and the ever present thorn in our side, Roger Moran. But we are a healthy and robust Convention with much history in this state and the within the SBC.

Anywho, I digress, my question is: How should these boards be restructured in such a way as to provide adequate oversight and adequate privacy in matters such as employment?

And one addtional question to Wade specifically: Does your church's Board of Directors, Personel Committee, Finance Committee, Board of Deacons, and Committee on Committees publish or make known the entire contents of each of their meetings to each and every member? My church does not. Some may not like it, but my church also runs quite smoothly, our leaders are good stewards and the people are better for it.

I submit that rule by the masses = mass hysteria.


-kmichael

K. Michael Crowder said...

Did I miss something? Have the courts ruled that what the 5 did is illegal?

I am sitting right now in a building on the campus of Missouri Baptist University. This building was built years ago with CP and student tuition dollars from hardworking Missouri Baptists. "Thou Shalt Not Steal" Can anyone in good conscience truely say this is not theft? the convention and the 5 agencies are both being rung dry by a judicial system that is milking every penny from our cauffers. the charters are clear that the Trustees are to elected by the convention. to make matters worse, windermere Baptist Convention Center on The Lake of the Ozarks is being sold off to private developers in a criminal financial scheme that involves Dr. Hill's brother and alegedly Hill himself.

So, yes, illegal is exactly the word to use.

-kmichael

David Krueger said...

Dear Anonymous,
The contention of the MBC legal action is that the five break-away agencies acted illegally according to their charters. I happen to agree with that opinion. What they did was illegal. I've read all five charters. All five say -- in very clear language -- that the charters cannot be changed without the permission of the messengers of the Missouri Baptist Convention. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like pretty clear language to me. We're simply asking the courts to declare whether-or-not that language means what it says. The agencies don’t believe it does. We do.

From the beginning, the position of the MBC was that their action was illegal. Yet, in an attempt to keep from going to the courts, the MBC was willing to abide by binding arbitration by a ministry that specializes in it. The agencies refused to agree to arbitration. The MBC has been unwilling to let these five agencies walk away with one-quarter of a billion dollars worth of assets that Missouri Baptist faithfully contributed to for years.

Rob Ayers said...

If I might add a little to what my friend (at least a friend in cyberspace) David Kruegar has said as to the departure of the these entities. If memory serves, the Baptist Foundation left first in the year 2000, with the others following in 2001 and following. This was right around the time that a political shift had occured. The Nomininating Committee, in order to break up the old political oligarchy instituted a policy that would require that no more than 2 people could serve on any entity board from the same church at a time. There may have been another policy, but that was the main one. It seemed before 2000, a few churches were holding sway on both the policies of the entities. The home church of most of the Jefferson City staff at the time, FBC Jeff City, held on and off as many as nine members at a time on the boards and entities of the MBC, many of whom were also paid staff or family members of staff of the MBC. There was no attempt, frankly, previously to 2000 in be inclusive to the vast majority of MBC churches whose membership held under 100 members. My church in it's 150 year history had nominiated several members, many of which where duly qualified to serve - yet for one reason or another were never called upon - more than likely to allow these "key" churches (as a former President of the MBC, Doyle Sager (now Pastor of FBC Jefferson City) would say) to keep in trust the resources of the Missouri Baptist Convention. If you did not tow the party line, you did not have a say. When the rules changed that threatned this power structure in the entities, those on the boards of the five voted to become self-perpetuating. Tell me - how Christlike is it - or even Baptist - to do that to your "friends" whose only desire was to participate in the state convention?

Rob

Anonymous said...

David K.: I was there--in the state, on the board (for 3 years, with 2 years to go when I resigned), in the all the executive sessions, at the 2001 annual meeting to hear how the option of arbitration was inquired of from the floor (rudely), and etc.

Rob: If I'm remembering correctly, The Baptist Home exited first, followed by all the other MBC agencies except for SBU, HLC, and the children's home (the president of one of these agencies, though, told me that a take-over of its board should not be attempted, or it also would choose to exit; WJC never had the same kind of relationship with the MBC that the other agencies did). I recall TBH's defense to the board afterwards, then the others.

Arbitration, indeed, was inquired of initially--but lawsuits were threatened at the same time, and certainly got discussion in the board meetings. To me, two things were clear following the 2001 annual meeting: (1) the MBC's elected 2001 officers would not be capable of turning the tide; and, (2) lawsuits definitely were on the way. I resigned from the board on the day that the 2001 annual meeting of the MBC concluded for those reasons.

Hope this helps.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Rob Ayers said...

David,

You are right. The Baptist Home was first.

What the one President told you was ub-Baptistic, immoral, and just plain arrogant. "Takeovers" hearken to pitchforks and axes - not the Baptistic democratic process of elections and appointments. That entity is not his to keep - nor is he the sole arbiter (or an arbiter at all) that determines how it is kept safe. He (and all of the entities even if they "voted" to seperate themselves from the convention) are owned by the churches of the Missouri Baptist Convention. The majority of messengers over years determined to go a different direction. This man (and the entities) have determined arrogantly that only they know what is best - the faithful messengers who voted a change of direction are merely dupes and stooges, manipulated by power hungry mongrels who need to be defeated at all costs - even though it may mean that Baptist polity is thrown to the wind in a swift and wretched manner that is divisive and harms thousands. As a Pastor of a cooperating church, I don't recall any conversation before or since in which any of those five entities attempted to communicate with my church - a church which over 150 years was faithfully giving to the MBC and it's predecesors. Of course these self-perpetuating boards pretty much vote the same people in, from the same churches they have always done. This tells me that what they wanted to do was keep the status quo - and to heck with the MBC and the other 1900 churches who supported them over the years. And they do so because they claim "We are the real Baptists!" How vulgur. How arrogant of them.

I am not mad - and my church has forgiven them - but not forgotten how we were betrayed by "friends" who claimed "send us your money - but forget about you telling us what you think."

Rob

Anonymous said...

Rob:

Tell him.

Then try to explain in a coherent way how Project 1000 taking over the boards and agencies of the MBC is "Christian".

I'm not saying that I did/do or did/do not agree with the agencies' exiting. I'm saying that I was there, heard what happened, saw who said what, know what I think about it all (stupid, in a word), and am glad to have moved on from it.

You're there now. Do something positive and constructive about it. Don't take "No" for an answer until you have everyone together in the same room to figure it out and get it resolved. If you choose not to do that, then do what I'm doing--keeping the story straightened-out when people get it wrong or incomplete.

The weekend is here--have a good one!


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Anonymous said...

It was a plan, all a plan. Step # 1- lets take over the seminary, that will give us 500 preachers to take over the churches, 2nd lets bring in pastors from out of state to take over some churches 3rd lets offer credit hours to the seminary students for going to the convention to vote 4th lets get buses to truck "our people" to the convention to vote 5th lets shut off mikes 6th lets threaten (who was it who said) "if you want a bloody war, we will give you a bloody war".
This week, we saw some innocent blood shed......... the lord says


22:17 "But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain, on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion."

Do you remember men running down the isle at the convention meeting hollering to shut up a man who was saying what I am saying?

you say "The Lake of the Ozarks is being sold off to private developers in a criminal financial scheme that involves Dr. Hill's brother and alegedly Hill himself". Has a court said it is illegal? If not you are spreading slander which is an old, often used tactic.

Look at the record, what i have written is a matter of history. remember the argument of credit hours for votes? it was public.

I don't even agree with the 5 agencies breaking away but they did it to protect it from the dark cloud on the horizon.

By the way, it is interesting that all are still surviving with help from ALL THE OTHER FOLKS WHO SEND MONEY DIRECTLY TO THEM.

BAPTIST TEND TO VOTE WITH THEIR CHECKBOOKS.

maybe the fact that Baptists throughout the state are still supporting the 5 should say loud and clear what Missouri Baptist think.

maybe not, no matter what, i am under no disillusion thinking I can change anything. God will eventually purge all who are wrong. I just keep praying.

I remember something an old pastor told me "ain't nuthin' wrong with any church a few good funerals won't fix."

yep!

Anonymous said...

Last Anonymous:

Are you able to identify yourself? It's easier to listen to you, honestly, if you don't mind.

Thanks.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Rob Ayers said...

David,

How is this for coherence: Project 1000 was an attempt to solidify those who held to a certain belief system - who believed that they were underepresented in the Convention and it's entities - to bring 1000 people of like mind to vote their conscience at the Convention. No more. No less. If successful, then the boards would represent their views, and be more sypathetic to their concerns. That is apparently obvious when President's of entiies view certain people as hostile, and any means taken to allow these to be represented as a "takeover" don't you think? You sound like a person, a "peacemaker" who wants to bring in all people under the same roof to find peace and get along. And yet before 1999, there was little of that among the power clique of the MBC. People with a certain view were considered ignorant, stupid, and "the wrong people." Remember that my friend?

Tell me the President's name, and I would more than be happy to discuss freely and kindly with him my issues with his attitude according to Matthew 18:15 and following.

Rob

K. Michael Crowder said...

you say "The Lake of the Ozarks is being sold off to private developers in a criminal financial scheme that involves Dr. Hill's brother and alegedly Hill himself". Has a court said it is illegal? If not you are spreading slander which is an old, often used tactic.


Umm....I said Windermere Baptist Convention Center at...

I have told you nothing that cannot be found on www.bpnew.org or www.abpnews.com

The Convention Center has been ruined and wrecked. Over 900 Acres sold off and where is the money??? It is sickening.

And as far am concerned, Bill Webb and his trustees can continue printing the Word & Way from a jail cell. That papaer has been ruined and wrecked for years.

And as far Missouri Baptist University, President Dr. Alton Lacey has done an excellent job moving the University into the 21st Century. Enrollment is up, we have remarkable and notable faculty, building and campus improvements continue and our theology dept is still as strong as ever thanks to Drs. McClain and Allen. However, enrollment standards have been dropped, a campus code of conduct is non-existent, faculty no longer need to sign a statement of faith, foul language, truancy, and a total decline of moral values prevail campus life. Most students have no clue what the MBC is. And to top it all off, Dr. Lacey brings in his friend Dr. Larry Taylor, retired pastor from LA, for a 3 day chapel Lecture series where evolution is praised and the Bible is denegrated to a mere book of stories. The man is a heretic, many on campus agree, but old guard faculty and a few students refuse to speak up for fear of offending the President. (Who btw belongs to 3rd Baptist Church of St. Louis--recently removed from Convention fellowship for being dually alligned with ultra-liberal baptist organizations.)

Anywho....at last report, the lawsuit was being held up in red tape.....so we shall see.

K

Anonymous said...

Rob:

Obviously, I won't share the man's name with you. I think that you and I both can trust that he's capable of making the right decision about the agency he leads. Wouldn't you say that he is now?

The Project 1000 people I met while serving on the MBC executive board themselves wouldn't describe that group's objectives as you have. "Take over" or "take back" for theological reasons--and not the political ones that you describe--were the types of terms used repeatedly, and demonstrated more often. The spirit of the movement was incredibly poor, in my opinion. I can't think of a single thing that Project 1000 should claim to be proud of from that time.

God called my family to Missouri from Texas in 1997. In that year, Texas Baptists were approaching their own convention split. I recall only two brave Texas ministers publicly seeking to resolve the issues and keep us together; I was neither of those men, but I'd be willing to be one now--particularly because of the events experienced in Missouri. I'd encourage you to be one of those ministers in Missouri today.

A measure of our spiritual growth more accurate than how much Scripture we know or how firmly we adhere to it as inerrant is what we choose to do with the Christian brothers with whom we disagree. In our Christian liberty, we are not free to fail to continue to choose each other; even "publicans and sinners" are to be loved toward faith in Christ as Savior.

In the end, "I sought resolution among us, and then progress for the gospel" will be an explanation God smiles at as He judges your works. Get the crowns, brother!


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

RKSOKC66 said...

Does anyone know where the "official statement" is from the MBC. According to the MBC press release which was dated on April 10th, the MBC will issue a "statement by the end of the week" regading Dr. Clippard's dismissal. Today is Saturday, which of course, is the end of the week.

Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

Jesse said...

anonymous said . . .I don't even agree with the 5 agencies breaking away but they did it to protect it from the dark cloud on the horizon. . .

What were they trying to protect, the MBC or the agencies. If I recall correctly, and I do, the initially explanation from TBH was to protect the Convention from ascending liability. However, what later became public was that the real reason was to protect TBH from the fundamentalist takeover of the convention.

Whether or not the intentions of trustees of the breakaway agencies were honorable, they violated the trust of Missouri Baptists who had long held the right to elect trustees and modify the agencies' constitution and by-laws.

Project 1000, however, worked to get like-minded churches to send their messengers to the annual conventions and use time-honored Baptist principles of church polity to change things; one messenger, one vote.

The ends do not justify the means, unless you care little about Baptist polity.

Anonymous said...

". . . they violated the trust of Missouri Baptists who had long held the right to elect trustees and modify the agencies' constitution and by-laws . . ."

Isn't that yet to be determined legally?

Apparently, the agencies' trustees--evidently acting on the their counsels' input--determined that the move could be made legally; and, I suppose, that the move was necessary in light of the political (not theological) atmosphere that had developed even though many would feel offended.

Just asking, and sharing info.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Jesse said...

". . . they violated the trust of Missouri Baptists who had long held the right to elect trustees and modify the agencies' constitution and by-laws . . ."

Isn't that yet to be determined legally?


As far as what a court of law might say, then that is yet to be determined. However, a straightforward reading of those original charters, by-laws, and constitutions would seem to indicate a straightforward interpretation of them.

My church's by-laws have similar requirements for amending them as do most others I would dare say. Tell the members of those church's that their trustees could file amended by-laws with the Secretary of State, take control of the church property and begin selling it and see what would happen. Tar & feathering has fallen out of favor these days so they would probably seek legal counsel to determine if their trustees' actions were legal or not.

Jesse

Anonymous said...

I will combine what is written in ‘The Baptist Standard’ (by Vicki Brown and Greg Warner) and its internet article by Vicki Brown (freelance reporter for Associated Baptist Press.) ( [ ] and letters made capital are by Rex Ray.)

Board fires Missouri Baptists’ embattled executive director, David Clippard.
Michel Whitehead, attorney and spokesman said, “Although the decision did not come as a complete surprise to the executive director, Clippard was still ‘hurt and shocked’ by the outcome.”

[Whitehead was the attorney at the 2004 SBC who told me the meaning of:

'We believe the Bible has…truth, without any mixture of error for its matter’. He said that means “The truth of the Bible is true and the untruth of the Bible is untrue, and that is why we added, ‘and that all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”]

Clippard, a conservative, was hired in 2002 by FUNDAMENTALISTS who control the Missouri Baptist Convention and its Executive Board to replace Jim Hill, who resigned in protest of actions taken by the Executive Board.

Several decisions in recent years demonstrated to many that Clippard was OUT OF STEP with the majority of those leaders.

He made national headlines when he preached the “real threat” to the United States is that “Islam has a strategic plan to conquer and occupy America.” Critics viewed Clippard’s style as autocratic and dismissive.
He drew criticism for settling a harassment lawsuit filed against him by former convention controller Carol Kaylor.
He opposed the Executive Board’s decision to contribute $100,000 to a political coalition against embryonic stem-cell research and $200,000 to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Three years ago, the convention signed a secret contract to sell its headquarters property for $2.75 million, but the deal fell through when local voters blocked a sales-tax increase to fund the new county facilities to be built on the down-town site. Clippard fired the associate editor of ‘The Pathway’, the convention-controlled newspaper, for revealing details of the contract, which angered the Executive Board.

As Clippard lost favor with Missouri Baptist leaders, calls for his replacement grew, resulting in the tumultuous Sept. 22 meeting where members shouted at each other.
This turned into a showdown between Clippard and Roger Moran, the convention's fundamentalist powerbroker and leader of the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association, which is credited with steering the Missouri convention's RIGHWARD SHIFT, but no vote was taken.

Expecting another showdown when the Executive Board convened again April 10, Chairman Michael Green pledged: “We’re not going to act like a bunch of monkeys in the St. Louis Zoo…We’ve got to work together.”

Some 25 to 30 Missouri Baptist pastors, directors of missions, and laypeople in attendance were not allowed to speak before the meeting was closed, even though board member Wayne Isgriggs urged Green to allow them to do so.
The board also did not give them an opportunity to speak during the open session.

A free-lance reporter representing Associate Baptist Press was forced to leave the meeting without explanation.
Rex Ray
[PS There may be water under the bridge that may be more embarrassing to the firers than the fired.]

Rob Ayers said...

Rex,

Whenever you practice your right to post, you cannot help yourself can you? Whenever the word "FUNDAMENTALIST" comes up, it gets capitlized, homogenized, and otherwise categorized in your lexicon. This bitterness stream is overabundant in all of your posts - you attack as you have accused others have attacked - you condemn others as you have accused others who have condemned - you have marginilize others the same way in which you have accused others who have marginilized. What then pray tell is the difference between the the fundies and yourself? I pray for you friend, that you would take Matthew 6:16-17 to heart, and practice James 1:19-20.

Rob

Anonymous said...

Rob,
Have you heard "It's the bit dog that yelps"?
Rex

Anonymous said...

Jim Paslay,
I thought I’d practice some advice from anonymous who said, “Maybe we can be patient, refrained and less impulsive and wait for further wording rather than speculating on people’s motives and actions involving other’s lives and integrity.”

I believe he was talking about the fired executive director, but in a way it also applied to us. Do you agree, Rob Ayers?

But I didn’t take the advice very long as the words, “…luxury of retirement” pushed me over the edge.

Jim, you are judging me as I did you in waiting for 37 comments for my life of “luxury” in retirement is not what you might think. I’ll comment on it later.

In defense of what I wrote as the first comment on Wade’s post, it was in agreement with what Wade said. Is that a crime? Wade said:

1. The MBC is kicking churches out.
2. The MBC is kicking people out.
3. The MBC is kicking Executive Directors out.
4. Soon, the MBC will have kicked everyone out that doesn’t look the same, talk the same, preach the same, act the same, give the same, walk the same, etc.
5. We should change the name to the ‘Show Me You’re Like Me’ Convention.

I believe my statement (Maybe the Missouri Baptist Convention’s name should be changed to the Missouri Fundamentalist Convention) is more in keeping with the facts than the name Wade suggested because the goal of project 1000 was to move the leadership of the MBC to the right. That meant fundamentalists had to win the election. It is like Rob Ayers said:

“Project 1000 was an attempt to solidify those who held to a certain belief system who—believe that they were underrepresented in the Convention and its entities—to bring 1000 people of like mind to vote their conscience at the Convention.”

How did fundamentalists get 1000 people to vote like them is answered by a comment that said:
“It was a plan, all a plan.”
1. Let’s take over the seminary, that will give 500 preachers to take over the churches.
2. Let’s bring in pastors from out of state to take over some churches.
3. Let’s offer credit hours to the seminary students for going to the convention to vote.
4. Let’s get buses to truck “our people’ to the convention to vote.
5. Let’s shut off mikes.
6. Let’s threaten—“If you want a bloody war, we will give you a bloody war.”

WOW! Rob, you chided me for not being Christ like; what do you think of giving seminary credit hours for going to the convention to vote?

Jim, back to my life of “luxury.” Yesterday, I spent 9 hours working on a new house finishing sheetrock. (tape & bed) When I was young I could complete a house in a week by working long hours. Now at 75, it seems to drag on forever. For pay, I tell people if they feel led by the Lord, to give something to our church building fund, or to our Volunteer Christian Builders group. I’ve been retired 13 years, and have not received money for pay. My wife is a retired school teacher and my retirement is less than hers, but I’m content with what we have.
I’ve spent about a year and a half overseas on 18 volunteer projects for the SBC. Thirteen were to Japan. The last trip was 2002 on a project with 5 houses and a warehouse. They had missed a promise date that caused 5 missionary families to pay for 3 more months rent that cost $75,000, and they were about to miss it again as they had no one to tape & bed. The project was out of money, and the missionary in charge had tried everyone as I told him I couldn’t come as my wife was waiting for back surgery and couldn’t put her shoes on. He didn’t tell me their problems—only I was needed very badly. It was a 7 week job, but I finally told him I could come 3. I suggested my wife to buy some slip on shoes. It didn’t help our marriage but in less than 3 months it will be 50 years. They made the promise date, and I came home 2 days early, since my job was finished by living on the job and working 100 hours a week. Living on the job was not my first time, as I’ve woke up burning by getting too close to a 500 watt light trying to stay warm under a blanket, or lay in a pool of sweat without a stitch of clothing on. Many times my bed would be a pile of insulation covered by plastic. Sure, that was the extreme as we always had a choice of good sleeping and eating facilities. Once I stayed with a missionary couple within walking distance of the project. As they never saw me, they named me ‘the ghost.’ All in all, the projects were like heaven to a workaholic.
Rex Ray
PS Tape & bed helped get me through college. Strange how the Lord doesn’t need a retired tool designer that designed the space shuttle nose cone. (Had to show some smarts to prove I can think. Ha) Sorry for all the detail, but I believe the life of luxury would be very boring. I don’t think any of the praise songs is as practical as “We’ll Work Till Jesus Comes.”

Jesse said...

anonymous said . . . Three years ago, the convention signed a secret contract to sell its headquarters property for $2.75 million, but the deal fell through when local voters blocked a sales-tax increase to fund the new county facilities to be built on the down-town site. Clippard fired the associate editor of ‘The Pathway’, the convention-controlled newspaper, for revealing details of the contract, which angered the Executive Board.
……

A free-lance reporter representing Associate Baptist Press was forced to leave the meeting without explanation.


If David Clippard was at OUT OF STEP with the EB, then why didn’t he stand up for the reporter who posted the news of the contract on the on-line edition of The Pathway the night before it was supposed to be released. From what I understand, this was due to a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter. Unless this reporter had a history of insubordination, why the firing for this one mistake. Talk about a lack of grace!

My understanding at the time was that it was Mr. Clippard who pushed for the firing, of course I could be wrong. As a note, The Pathway was later removed from Mr. Clippard’s supervision and placed under the supervision of the EB; why?

As far as the ABP reporter being “forced to leave,” ONE, I’m not sure the EB meetings are regulated by the Sunshine law. Do they really have to let anyone in? Probably not. TWO, since this was a personnel issue, they closed the meeting which means ALL non-board members left.

I supported David Clippard hiring and was excited that we finally had a conservative ED. This confidence and excitement eroded when I started hearing complaints of a very authoritarian type management style at the Baptist Building. This last fall, I started receiving e-mails from people speaking of conspiracies and plots. Just in case there was a conspiracy, I put on my tin foil hat to protect me from the brain wave machines.

I guess what has convinced me of the need of change is:

1) David Clippard’s charge of conspiracy against him with few facts to support it.
2) Roger Moran’s detailed recollection of the events between him and David Clippard.
3) No real rebuttal of Moran’s facts other than a thinly-veiled attacked clothed as an editorial in the March 20, 2007, edition of The Pathway.
4) The Investigative Committee’s report and recommendation.
5) The EB’s decision.

When personnel decisions like this are made, there are always two sides with the proponents of each side assured of the justness of their claims. Everyone else is left in the middle not sure of who to believe.

Mike said...

From an FAQ document to released tomorrow to MoBaptist.org:

20. What was meant by the statement in the BP story, April 10, that “this is not a funeral for a man or his ministry?”

Michael Whitehead, convention legal counsel, was designated spokesman by the Board to discuss the IC report and board action. In his impromtu public announcement, he referred to the hurt and grief that so many people were feeling for David Clippard personally. But then Whitehead read from Romans 8:31-32, and said God was not finished with David Clippard or the MBC, just because of this Paul-and-Barnabus parting of the ways.

Whitehead referred to news which had just been shared with the Board members that morning, that a fellow board member had to leave the meeting early to be with his dying mother in Kansas City, who may not know the Lord. Whitehead said words to this effect: Pray for our brother and for his dear mother, as they face her final moments and a funeral. In contrast, while we also hurt for the Clippards, David Clippard is not dead. He just lost a job--and not the best job at that. But he is still alive, and healthy, and saved, and gifted, and called to serve, just as he was before. This is not a funeral for a man and his ministry. This board action was not a rejection of his passion for church planting and missions. This was a difference about ministry management and business judgments, not about moral character or philosophy of ministry. But God’s promise in Romans 8:31-32 is as true for Dave Clippard today as it ever was. God is “for him.” Pray that God will give him and his family “all things” he needs.

[James Freeman's mother passed away on Friday afternoon, April 13.]

Anonymous said...

I wonder if ministers of all denomenations squabble like children.

Anonymous said...

for my last anonymous quote, (I am not the previous one) I want to just add a new word to the Missouri lexicon: I do not intend any meaness, it just seems that we need a title for a certain belief system that is upon us:

MORANINITES

Jesse said...

Anonymous said...

for my last anonymous quote, (I am not the previous one) I want to just add a new word to the Missouri lexicon: I do not intend any meaness, it just seems that we need a title for a certain belief system that is upon us:

MORANINITES


Sounds like Moran has been so busy conspiring that he's hardly had time to rebuild his business or take care of his family.

RKSOKC66 said...

sfThe official document of the MBC investigative committee is up on THE PATHWAY website.

Although some of the details of six findings have been removed (I guess because of ongoing legal issues) the document does specify the landscape of the situation in Missouri and reason that the comittee recommended the immediate removal of Dr. Clippard.

Personally, I think the first three findings to be most troubling:

(1) Employee moral at the MBC is low due to Dr. Clippard

(2) The reputation of the MBC has suffered due to Dr. Clippard

(3) Dr. Clippard has not been sufficiently forthright when confronted on various issues. [The details of this finding were redacted -- possibly some of Moran's charges that Dr. Clippard has mischaracterized his (Moran's) statements makes up part of this finding]

Findings (4) and(5) have to do with various "legal" issues relating to MBC lawsuits and misuse of attorney-client privledge

Finding (6) has to do with a "divise spriit" demonstrated to the investigative committee.

Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

Rob Ayers said...

There is a Q&A up on the Pathway Website above the redacted report. This is part of the "devastating" report that was inferred that could probably fill portions of that report under #3, #4 and #5 - much of which the EB were told about in the meeting on April 10. It seems Kaylor is spot on concerning his observations - facts in which Dr. Clippard withheld from the board.

I still have a problem with the "process" of not allowing Dr. Clippard in the room for a final summation. It seems though that much of the testimony came from the attorney from the insurance company, and not Roger Moran.

Rob

Anonymous said...

Well, I changed my mind. (can i get fired for that?) I said I would not post again as anonymous of 15 words.

HOWEVER..................

This so call report and all the illusion around this committee of 44 is rediculous.

WOE UNTO YOU WHO CALL EVIL GOOD AND GOOD EVIL!

The MORANINITES took over this convention in a long slow process. NOT ONE PERSON TOLD ME I WAS WRONG WHEN I SAID I BELIEVED ALL 44 WERE HAND PICKED BY MORAN TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE.

Now, we have legal gobblety gook and double talk and gibberish to telll us they are right.

AT THE JUDGEMENT SEAT OF GOD, I WONDER WHAT IS THOUGHT.

QUESTION: did Clippard have the right to sign off on the lawsuit?

QUESTION: Does the constitution or by-laws specifically say he can or cannot sign off and does it plainly say he must go to the board with it?

QUESTION: SINCE THE COURTS FOUND CLIPPARD NOT GUILTY ON THE FIRST COUNT AND THE LADY GOT NO MONEY ON THE SECOND COUNT, YET DROPPED THE CHARGES, IT SEEMS THAT MAYBE SHE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO STAND ON.HHHHHHMMMMMM????

QUESTION: Is anyone aware that the "other" Baptist paper has been pushing the "futher investigation" of the lawsuit?


QUESTION: HOW DO WE DEFINE INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IF GROWTH AND FINANCES IS NOT THE KEY? CLIPPARD WAS VERY SUCESSFL ON BOTH ISSUES. SINCE NATIONWIDE SBC BAPTISMS ARE DOWN, SHOULD WE CLEAN HOUSE OF LEADERSHIP.

When it was said that there was low moral, I agree. the Moraninites were really angry when Cloppard was hired and were almost depressed and bumned out that he lasted this long.

2 weeks after Cloppard was hired we started hearing rumors that the famous preacher from the south and the moraninites were going to get rid of Clippard.

I SUBMIT THAT THOSE WHO LEVEL THIS CHARGE ARE THE SAME ONES WHO ARE NOW IN CHARGE AND NOW THEY ARE NO LONGER SUFFERING FROM LOW MORAL.

THE WORD OF GOD SAYS THAT "A THIEF COMES TO STEAL AND DESTROY."

THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.



Moran told the EC in Nashville that we were o the verge of a "civil war". Boy the moral must have been really low to run to nashville and complain.

NEVER BE DECIEVED, ANYONE IN THE BAPTIST BUILDING THAT SHOWED ANY SUPPORT FOR CLIPPARD WILL BE REMOVED. PAY ATTENTION

THE JUDGE OF ALL THIS IS PAYING ATTENTION.

I BELIEVE THE CURRENT APPLICATION OF POLITICS IN MISSOURI BAPTIST LIFE IS EVIL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. I ALSO BELIEVE THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS EVIL.

Kaylor said...

anonymous (why aren’t you willing to own up to your words?): You are way off base and your rhetoric is over-the-top on several points. However, I am only going to address your third “question.”

Go and check the Q&A found at the Pathway’s website. Be sure to read the answers to question 18. You completely misstate the facts of the case. As the Q&A points out, the courts did not rule on the evidence, but rather the case was settled out of court by the parties. And even then, while my mother dropped the gender discrimination count they settled and paid for the other two (libel/slander and retaliation).

As for having something to stand on, check out the last sub-point to question 18. It clearly spells out that Mr. Clippard did in fact publicly lie about my mother (which was the libel/slander). How can you defend that?

Anonymous said...

I knew i should have left the court case alone because i figured that my point would be missed. All my points are about the total word spinning of the report.

QUESTION: DID YOUR MOTHER RECIEVE ANY MONEY FROM THE SETTLEMENT?.

Aside from your mothers case, I believe that all the other points
I bring up are not over the top but in fact are historical if you know where to look. those in charge just don't want you to know.

credit hours for voting at the convention, busing folks to vote, thousands of ruined lives and careers, half truth and slander to do it.

Ever notice that in all the states there is a baptist fight, the want control of the press first. that is so they can control the news.

ever notice they send their word spinners and attack dogs to the next appointed attack spots?

I realize that your mom is a victim here and apologize if my bad choice of words were hurtful.

that was not the intention in questioning if there was a case. I also do not intend to defend Clippard.

However, my family was left homeless, basically bleeding and laying in a ditch by this ungodly machine many years ago. what I speak of I have watched first hand and even been a willing participant in before i could not stand the ungodliness any longer. If you ignore all Baptist press and go seek out the victims across america, you will find a path a destruction and lies that will almost ruin you before the Lord rescues you.

hundreds of thousands of victims of half truth, lies, slander, inuendo etcc.

hundreds of missionaries.

ever heard the story of the man who who had his insurance intentionally suspended (to prove a point) while he was fighting cancer?

those type of things really happen.


Once again, I apologize if it seemed I was attacking your mother, it was not my intention.

I am sure she has been through enough.

Kaylor said...

I appreciate that, and it's okay. I understand you have been hurt and don't doubt it at all. Oh, and you will note that the Q&A number 18 answers that she did receive a payment from the Convention's insurance company.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, I never take anything at face value that comes from any Baptist pressm I have watched the spin first hand and the pro's at it can make a sow's ear a silk purse.

what was it someone said "if you tell the same lie long enough and loud enough people will start believing it.

Anonymous said...

Me again, I have a question and in no way does it reflect on your mother. The reason I am asking is I never accept the "official Baptist" story.

Am I to understand that there was no finding of guilt of Clippard on ANY charges by ANY court and also am I to understand that the insurance company paid your mother and then the case was closed? Am I to understand that Clippard or the convention did not pay out any monies on this case settlement and no one was found guilty of anything by a court?
Is it legal or possible or probable that the insurance company could settle this in any way they want as to their own best interest?

Did they NEED the PERMISSION of ALL parties to settle.

In car wrecks an insurance company can settle any time and any way they want to.


My point is not about your mother but about the word spinning of clippard and/or the moraninites.



You often refer to the baptist release but your word means more to me than the releases.

also, are the necessary court records actually public? did the committe actually see them or are they basing thier report on the testimony of others.

If they did not see the actual court documents and relied on others (not your mom) then how can we trust the machine of the moraninites to tell us the truth