Fact Sheet: Windermere Baptist Conference Center

By the 2000 annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention, the “stealing” of an MBC agency by its trustees, the blatant rejection of the democratic process that has historically governed the affairs of the Missouri Baptist Convention and the total disregard for the constitution and bylaws of the MBC had become a political reality within Missouri Baptist life. Thus, when a motion was made from the floor of the 2000 annual MBC meeting to postpone the vote on removing Windermere out from under the control of the MBC Executive Board, moderate MBC leaders came to the defense of the Executive Board’s recommendation.

Randy Fullerton, pastor of Fee Fee Baptist Church in St. Louis and Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the Executive Board assured messengers that the Executive Board recommendation “does not remove… Windermere from the Convention. The nominating committee will still nominate their trustees.” Dr. Doyle Sager, a former MBC president, pastor of First Baptist Church in Jefferson City and president of the pro-CBF political group Mainstream Missouri Baptists, assured messengers that there was no need for concern because the recommendation to spin off Windermere was part of Dr. Jim Hill’s “New Directions.” According to the 2000 MBC Annual Book of Statistics, Sager stated that “we can trust the Executive Board that they have researched the issues and that we need not react to action by another agency [The Baptist Home’s decision to become a self-perpetuating board].” Thus, the motion to postpone action on removing Windermere out from under the control of the Executive Board failed.

However, it is important to note that if the Executive Board’s “New Directions” recommendation to remove Windermere out from under the Executive Board had failed, it would still have been under the control of the MBC. Likewise, if the motion to postpone for one year the moving of Windermere out from under the control of the Executive Board had passed, the MBC nominating committee would have swung over for the first time to a 2/3’s conservative majority, which would have resulted in pro-SBC conservative Missouri Baptists making up the Windermere board. Thus, Windermere and all its assets would have still been under the control and authority of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

MBC Executive Director Dr. Jim Hill stated that he “supported the decision” by Windermere trustees to become a self-perpetuating board, a move that severs all ties of accountability to Missouri Baptists and locks in a self-perpetuating, moderate-controlled board of trustees.

The obvious conclusion is that Dr. Hill also supported the action of The Baptist Home, which used the same law firm (Gilfoil, Petzall and Shoemake) and cited the same reasons as did Windermere for its decision to become a self-perpetuating board. Further evidence that Dr. Hill (and the moderate-controlled MBC Executive Board) supported The Baptist Home decision is that the Executive Board recommendation coming before the messengers of this year’s annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention affirms The Baptist Home’s decision to become a self perpetuating board as well as promises the continuation of MBC funding.

The above quote from a Word & Way article written by Word & Way editor Bill Webb appeared in the Texas Baptist Standard, the official newspaper of the pro-CBF Baptist General Convention of Texas. However, that statement did not appear in the Missouri Baptist state paper. Such “unreported” factors have further revealed the agenda of the Mainstream/CBF political coalition. A similar statement appeared in an August 23, 2001 article published by the CBF-funded Associated Baptist Press. It states: “Moderate leaders [in Missouri] are said to be privately discussing the possibility of a new, separate state convention. While conservatives in Texas and Virginia have taken that step, Missouri would be home to the SBC’s first anti-fundamentalist state breakaway group.” The withholding of such statements from Missouri Baptists by our state paper, Word & Way, raises even more questions about the future alignment of the three moderate-controlled MBC institutions that voted to no longer allow Missouri Baptists to elect their trustees.

Speaking May 13, 2001 at Parkade Baptist Church in Columbia, Missouri at the request of a denominational study committee, Dr. Hill reiterated the same thought, stating: “As early as a few months from now and as late as a year and a half from now, I’ll probably not be the Executive Director of the Missouri Baptist Convention. Either I’m going to be terminated or more likely there will be substantial policy changes that will not make it possible for me to remain.”

In regard to the MBC’s continued election of conservative, pro-SBC officers, Dr. Hill stated at the Columbia church: “If we are going the direction that we’re going, I don’t want to be leading Missouri Baptists.” Expressing his disapproval of the conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Hill stated: “I remember when going to the Southern Baptist Convention was the most uplifting thing I did during the year -- and its not today.”

Claiming that the college board is “very balanced,” Dr. Lacey also stated that “Our trustees are pretty concerned that no one group be in control of our board.” However, the Missouri Baptist College board of trustee’s 16-10 vote to become a self-perpetuating board not only reveals that Mainstream/CBF moderates are in control of the board, but that they will remain in control -- despite the wishes of the messengers from the churches that make up the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Dr. Lacey, president of the college, is a member of Third Baptist Church in St. Louis, a church aligned with the CBF. The long-time pastor of Third Baptist Church, Dr. John Anderson, served during the mid-1990’s on the advisory board of the extremely liberal, CBF-funded Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America. Anderson, who no longer pastors in Missouri, continues to serve on the board of Missouri Baptist College. Larry Davis, associate pastor at Third Baptist Church, serves on the Missouri CBF Coordinating Council.

According to Dr. Lacey, if the college loses its $950,000 annual income from the Cooperative Program as a result of the college trustee’s action, “the college will have to go directly to the churches to make up the loss.” According to a fact sheet published by the college, all $950,000 “goes to fund scholarships for worthy students from our Missouri Baptist churches. If the Convention were to negatively alter giving for any reason, the College’s ability to help needy students would be in jeopardy.”

Apparently, Missouri Baptist College wants the same deal the moderate-controlled MBC Executive Board is offering to The Baptist Home, where the board gets to remain self-perpetuating, continues to receive its Missouri Baptist Convention funding and all it has to do is “give consideration to recommendations by the state convention and other Missouri Baptists [Mainstream Missouri Baptists, CBF, Alliance of Baptists, etc.] in the election of future board members.”

In the October 12, 2000 issue of Word & Way, Missouri Baptist College president Alton Lacey pointed out that “the Missouri Baptist Convention chartered Missouri Baptist College…and the college has no plans to pull back from the MBC.” Regarding “Baptist colleges that have pulled away from their state Baptist conventions in other states,” Lacey stated: “Quite honestly, I’ve been concerned about schools that have moved away from their Baptist roots.”

However, immediately after the Missouri Baptist College board of trustees voted to become a self-perpetuating board, the college published a fact sheet asking the following question: “What about concerns that institutions with self-perpetuating boards drift toward liberalism?” The answer published in the fact sheet states: “Such a comparison usually involves institutions like Harvard or Yale, which abandoned their initial mission, which was to train ministers. Unlike those schools our board is composed of very conservative Missouri Baptist men and women, most of whom do not want to see the College drug into the political arena.”

To see the effects of a self-perpetuating board, we need only look within our own Missouri Baptist Convention at William Jewell College, whose board of trustees in recent years has been filled with Mainstream/CBF leaders like Dr. Doyle Sager, Dr. John Hughes, Dr. John Owens, Joy Steincross, William Turnage, and others.

While it is widely recognized that William Jewell College is by far the most liberal of our four colleges, it will serve us well to cite one particular concern about William Jewell College that received virtually no coverage in Word & Way. Like Missouri Baptist College, William Jewell also receives about one million dollars each year from Missouri Baptists. The following is a brief excerpt from a 1998 unpublished Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association article. It states:

On March 25, 1998, William Jewell College (WJC) hosted a “forum on homosexuality” as a follow-up to a similar forum held in October 1997. At the March 1998 forum, two “pro-homosexual” speakers were provided by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. However, both “pro-homosexual” speakers were “Southern Baptist” ministers that had served as “breakout leaders” for the national CBF and have a homosexual serving on staff at their church -- Broadway Baptist Church in Kansas City. Less than two months later, on May 20, 1998, a front page article in the Kansas City Star reported that William Jewell College had given its highest academic award to an “openly” homosexual student. This same student had led an effort at WJC to form a gay/lesbian student group on campus.

The Kansas City Star article also reported that Dr. Marc Cadd, a WJC professor and director of the school’s Center for Educational Diversity, would be helping gay and lesbian students in the formation of a school-sanctioned homosexual student group.

The annual election of MBC president has been the central focus of attention at the annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention specifically because each newly elected president appoints 1/3 of the nominating committee. This committee is responsible for nominating individual Missouri Baptists to serve on the various boards and agencies of the Missouri Baptist Convention in accordance with all the requirements of the MBC constitution and bylaws -- geographical requirements / lay-minister ratios, etc. Thus, by virtue of the individuals the nominating committee nominates and the messengers elect to serve on the various boards and agencies of the convention, this committee ultimately determines the future course of the Missouri Baptist Convention -- whether toward continuing our historic relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention or toward increased “partnerships” with the CBF.

In early 1998, the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association launched Project 1000, an effort to prevent pro-SBC conservatives from starting the process of pulling out of the Missouri Baptist Convention like had already happened in Texas and Virginia. If indeed the vast majority of MBC churches were conservative and supportive of our historic relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention as we believed, then all we needed to do was use the convention’s existing democratic process by sending our messengers to elect conservative, pro-SBC officers who would in turn, through the president’s power to appoint the nominating committee, change the course of the convention.

At the 1998 annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention, conservative, pro-SBC Missouri Baptists came out in record numbers and for the first time elected a full slate of conservative, pro-SBC officers, thus beginning the process of correcting the course of the MBC.

Gary Taylor, pastor of First Baptist Church in O’Fallon was elected as MBC president in St. Louis in a 1284-744 vote. Gary Taylor would serve as president of the convention for one year and would conclude his service by presiding over the 1999 annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention. His eight appointments to the 24-member nominating committee would begin their serve at the end of the 1999 annual meeting and represent a 1/3 minority on the nominating committee.

In 1999, Mainstream Missouri Baptists announced that it would raise $100,000 to make sure another Gary Taylor would not be elected as president of the MBC. However, pro-SBC conservative candidate Jay Scribner, pastor of First Baptist Church in Branson was overwhelmingly elected in Kansas City in a 1275-894 vote. Scribner’s appointments to the nominating committee would produce a 2/3 conservative majority. That committee would bring the first conservative, pro-SBC nominating committee report to Missouri Baptists at the 2001 annual meeting in Cape Girardeau.

In 2000, Mainstream Missouri Baptists announced that it would raise $250,000 and launch a massive campaign to make sure that another Jay Scribner would not be elected as MBC president. However, pro-SBC conservative candidate Robert Collins, pastor of Plaza Heights Baptist Church in Blue Springs was elected at the Lake of the Ozarks as the next president in a 1984-1253 vote. Collins’ appointments to the nominating committee will begin their service at the end of the 2001 MBC annual meeting.

The recommendation presented to the nominating committee to adopt the three “guidelines” reads as follows:

“In an effort to avoid someone from serving simultaneously on two or more agencies, boards or commissions, and to bring a broader representation of our Missouri Baptist churches and Missouri Baptists on [MBC] agencies, boards and commissions, and to assure that those serving support the work of the Missouri Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention, we recommend the following:

• “No person shall be eligible to serve on more than one of the boards, institutions, commissions or the executive board of the MBC at a time.

• “Each MBC church shall be allowed to have a maximum of two persons represented on the boards, institutions, commissions or the executive board of the MBC.

• “All Missouri Baptists serving on the various boards, institutions, commissions and executive board of the MBC be supportive of both the MBC and the SBC…”

Not only was this the first time conservative, pro-SBC Missouri Baptists comprised a majority on the nominating committee, it also represented the first time there had been an orchestrated attack launched against the nominating committee. Mainstream Missouri Baptists, Missouri CBF, Word & Way editor Bill Webb, and even MBC Executive Director Jim Hill have all vehemently attacked the nominating committee for its adoption of the three “guidelines.”

However, it is helpful to note that much of this attack is being orchestrated from within one church. “Mainstream” president Doyle Sager is pastor of First Baptist Church Jefferson City. “Mainstream” coordinator Rob Marus, a former writer for Word & Way, likewise, is a member of FBC Jefferson City. Word & Way editor Bill Webb is also a member of FBC Jefferson City, as is MBC Executive Director Jim Hill. In fact, the associate pastor of FBC Jefferson City, Jean McGowan, is a member of the National CBF Coordinating Council and Rob Marus is a board member of the CBF Young Leaders Network. FBC Jefferson City is also listed on the Missouri CBF’s web site as one of its partnering churches.

While it was expected that Mainstream Missouri Baptists and Missouri CBF would attack the nominating committee for its three “guidelines,” it was not expected that two of the top paid staff members of the MBC would lead the battle using the MBC’s official newspaper, Word & Way, as their vehicle of attack.

Word & Way first reported on the nominating committees three “guidelines” on the front page of its April 12, 2001 issue in an article entitled: “Nominating committee sets new guidelines.” On May 3, 2001, the headlines on the front page of Word & Way read: “Hill questions nominating procedures,” where he states: “I have been very concerned about these new rules that have not been approved by the convention and are not a part of the constitution, bylaws or nominating committee rules that have been adopted by the convention.” However, in the same article, Hill concedes that: “Obviously, the nominating committee has the right to nominate or re-nominate anyone the committee deems a worthy candidate.”

In a July 19^th Word & Way editorial, entitled: “Is the tail wagging the dog,” editor Bill Webb charges that the nominating committee’s three guidelines “violate the convention’s constitution and bylaws,” represents “a divisive move on the part of the committee’s fundamental-conservative majority,” reflects a “political agenda” and calls on the committee to “rescind” its three guidelines. However, in the same editorial, Webb expresses his bewilderment that so many Missouri Baptists seem unconcerned by the nominating committees guidelines. He states: “That this action has generated such limited negative response is not merely puzzling -- it should be shocking.”

On the front page of the August 2^nd issue of Word & Way, another article highly critical of the nominating committee appeared entitled: “Nominating committee goes beyond its own rules.” In the same issue, MBC Executive Director Jim Hill wrote a highly critical article entitled: “Actions lack fairness, integrity.” According to Hill: “I continue to have great concerns about the approach the committee is taking in the selection of nominees for our boards and agencies.” He goes on to argue that the committee’s guidelines “reflect political power plays and control more than cooperation and fairness.”

In another verbal attack on the nominating committee, the front page article in the August 23^rd issue of Word & Way reports: “MBC committee chairs report to Project 1000.” In another article in the same issue, entitled: “College may let trustees elect board,” the nominating committee’s guidelines are said to be “one factor” in the Missouri Baptist College trustee’s decision to pull out of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

The significance of all the above Word & Way articles in their attempt to “stir up” Missouri Baptists against the now-conservative nominating committee must be understood in contrast to the absence of articles and published statements “stirring up” Missouri Baptists against The Baptist Home, Windermere and Missouri Baptist College, whose trustees voted to no longer allow Missouri Baptist to elect their trustees.

Thus, several questions need to be asked:

It is important to note that none of these things happened because the nominating committee adopted the three “guidelines” which simply stated that the nominating committee would not nominate nor re-nominate individuals: (1) to serve on more than one MBC board or agency at one time; (2) that would result in more than two members from any one church serving on MBC boards and agencies at one time; and (3) who do not support the work of both the SBC and the MBC. Each of the above examples took place before these “guidelines” existed.

Even the recent reports in the CBF-funded Associated Baptist Press and in the pro-CBF Texas Baptist Standard, stating that “Moderate and self-described ‘mainstream’ Missouri Baptists already have begun talking about the possibility of forming an alternative state convention,” are not the result of the nominating committee’s “guidelines.” Rather, they happened because pro-SBC conservative Missouri Baptists won every election for the last three years and for the first time represent a voting majority on the MBC nominating committee, which is the first step in ultimately changing the course of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

The nominating committee’s “guidelines” were viewed by the Mainstream/CBF coalition as one last opportunity for political gain. However, the issue remains the same today as it was in 1998 when Project 1000 was launched: Will we elect MBC officers, board members and trustees sympathetic to and supportive of the SBC or the CBF? This single question has thrust the Missouri Baptist Convention into our current political turmoil.

At the heart of the nominating committee’s “guidelines” was the fact that numerous moderate MBC leaders were serving on more than one board or agency, and numerous moderate churches had five to eight people serving on MBC boards and agencies. Likewise, many were rotating off one board onto another.

Most specifically, under the existing system, multitudes of faithful Missouri Baptists would never have the opportunity to serve because an elite few had dominated the system. The nominating committee’s “guidelines” not only broke the moderate “good-ole-boy network,” but would set a precedence that would hopefully prevent conservatives from falling into the same exclusive mentality.

It is also significant to note that even under the nominating committee’s “guidelines,” if every church in the MBC were allowed to have two members serve an average of two four-year terms, it would still take approximately 144 years. However, if every church was allowed to have eight members serve, it would take 576 years for all 1900 MBC church to receive the same treatment.

The nominating committee “guidelines” also required that a nominee be supportive of both the SBC and the MBC. This requirement goes to the heart of what the MBC controversy has been about. Will we as Missouri Baptists continue our historic relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention, or will we go the way of Texas, gradually severing ties with the SBC and gradually forging new “partnerships” with the CBF? Mainstream Missouri Baptists and CBF have been more than clear about their hostility toward the Southern Baptist Convention and increasingly, about their opposition to the Missouri Baptist Convention.

The decision of the nominating committee not to re-nominate one particular member of the MBC Executive Board to a second term was rooted in the fact that she is a member of a leading CBF church that voted earlier this year to pull out of the SBC. Her church is also officially aligned with the Alliance of Baptists, a far-left group within SBC life that supports and advocates the full acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexual persons. Ironically, her church, Second Baptist Church in Liberty, has four members serving on the boards and agencies of the MBC. A fifth member was appointed in September 2000 by The Baptist Home trustees (after they voted to become a self-perpetuating board) to serve on the trustee board of their new foundation. (See Fact #4)