On November 14^th, 2006, Word & Way posted an article on its website entitled, “Leadership Rift Surfaces at Annual Meeting.”  The article focused on the highly critical public statements made by two former MBC presidents during the annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention.  The statements focused on Roger Moran, the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association, Project 1000, the MBC Nominating Committee and members of the MBC Executive Board who have expressed various concerns regarding our Executive Director. 

About five weeks earlier, two Missouri DOM’s sent out “open letters” to Missouri Baptists based on the “word on the street.”  Very quickly, these public statements resulted in other speculative articles published by Word & Way and the CBF-funded Associated Baptist Press about the purpose of a September 22, 2006 special-called Executive Board meeting. 

As a result of these highly critical public statements, a growing number of Missouri Baptists are inquiring into what has become an extremely divisive controversy within Missouri Baptist life.  Therefore, in response to the ongoing public accusations, MBLA has opted to make available to Missouri Baptists Roger Moran’s written testimony as he presented it before the MBC Executive Board on September 22, 2006. 

Thus far, only one side of this ongoing “controversy” within Missouri Baptist life has been aired publicly.  However, it is our hope that the release of Moran’s testimony before the Executive Board will provide at least a glimpse at a side of the story that has not yet been told.     

Roger Moran’s Testimony before the MBC Executive Board

September 22, 2006  

(Also attending were seven former MBC Presidents invited as special guests)

Several weeks ago, the Executive Director Evaluation Committee called for a meeting of this sort between me and David Clippard.  More recently, David Clippard called for a meeting of the former MBC presidents, and they also called for a similar meeting.  I agreed to this meeting, but requested that it be before this body [the MBC Executive Board] specifically because I think it is absolutely essential that this board seek to know the truth about what is happening within Missouri Baptist life.   

The battle cry of our Project 1000 days was that “Truth Matters.”  We were referring specifically to Biblical Truth.  But truth beyond theology -- that is, truth beyond the virgin birth -- truth beyond the bodily resurrection, should also matter to us. 

Truth in the context of events must matter.  For there can be no unity, there will be no peace, there will be no oneness of spirit, when the truth about what just happened doesn’t matter to us. 

It is my understanding that I am here today to respond to accusations that I am...

·        Leading an effort to fire David Clippard. 

·        That as chairman of the nominating committee, I am putting people on the Executive Board that have agreed to fire David Clippard.

·        And that I am trying to run the convention. 

With that being said, I will do my best with the time I’ve had, to accurately present to this board all that has happened – from my perspective – between me and David Clippard.

Let me first say to the full board what I have said to [MBC President] Ralph Sawyer and to at least one member of the Executive Director Evaluation Committee:  It is -- in my opinion – both inaccurate and unfair to the concerns of others to portray this ongoing conflict within Missouri Baptist life as being between me and David Clippard -- because it is not.   

If I vanished from Missouri Baptist life today, never to be seen nor heard from again, this conflict would not change one bit. 

And while I know that some are portraying me as less than a friend to David Clippard, I personally know of nobody that has done more than I have to help David Clippard to succeed as Executive Director of this convention in the truest sense of what it means to succeed.

I learned a long time ago that the natural outgrowth of ignoring a serious problem and ignoring the concerns of others is that you get more of what you’re trying to ignore.    

The Bible says, “faithful are the wounds of a friend.”  Well, I dared to go to David and shared with him the concerns that many others had brought to my attention over a period of two years – concerns that, in my mind, clearly had an air of legitimacy. 

How it all Began

What is now being portrayed as an ongoing conflict between me and David Clippard actually began on May 5^th, 2005 when I requested a meeting with Clippard and over the next 12 months, there would be an additional three meetings  --  all three at David’s request and his initiation.  The four meetings were on: 

1.      May 5, 2005, the morning of my first nominating committee meeting. 

2.      September 13, 2005, four days after the special called Executive Board meeting to approve Jim Austin as Associate Executive Director. 

3.      October 24, 2005, after the opening session of the 2005 MBC. 

4.      April 28, 2006, at the funeral of Joyce Taylor, Gary Taylor’s wife. 

What I want to do today is share with you the essence of those four meetings between me and David Clippard and then respond briefly to the accusations for which I am apparently here today.  Let me begin with the May 5^th 2005 meeting. 

The First Meeting

By the end of David Clippard’s first year as Executive Director, I had received numerous calls regarding various issues and concerns about David.  Over the next 18 months (or more than 2 ½ years into his ministry) I was still receiving calls.  For quite some time I had wanted to talk to David about some of the concerns being raised -- but I didn’t.  I was not an Executive Board member, nor was there a personal offense against me.  But at the same time, it appeared that things were clearly getting worse. 

At the 2004 Missouri Baptist Convention, I was appointed to serve on the nominating committee.  Then I was assigned by the chairman to serve as chairman of the Administrative Subcommittee, which is responsible for the Executive Board. 

At that point, I felt somewhat obligated -- or at least justified -- to call David Clippard and share with him what I knew to be going on.  He agreed to meet for breakfast on May 5^th 2005, the morning of our first nominating committee meeting for that year.    

At that meeting, I shared with David in general terms the kind of concerns and calls I had received and told him that I simply wanted him to know what was going on behind the scenes. 

He wanted specifics and felt these folks should have come to him.  But I told him that many of the people that called did so in confidence and that I wasn’t going to violate that confidence.  I told him I would share in general terms the issues and concerns that I was aware of and that I wanted him to read between the lines. 

I did not bring accusations against David or anything like that.  I simply gave him a “heads up” to problems that were on the horizon.  My point to David Clippard was that we could not afford a failed Executive Director -- another fiasco like Midwestern Seminary experienced with its former president.  I emphasized that he needed to be successful.     

I also pointed out that whether the concerns were real or perceived was secondary to the fact that there was a growing problem that he needed to be aware of -- that needed to be dealt with -- and that needed to be put to rest. 

His response was:  “I hear what you’re saying,” and I felt that my responsibility was done.  I made him aware of the things I knew.  This was the last time I talked to David Clippard until September 13^th, 2005. 

The Second Meeting

The second meeting between me and David Clippard was on September 13, 2005.  Let me give you the background for that meeting.       

This meeting was in response to a special called Executive Board meeting on Friday, September 9, 2005 to approve Jim Austin as a new associate executive director.  The special board meeting was called about 10 days in advance but the name of the candidate was not known until just a few days before the meeting.  When it became known that the candidate was from out of state ( Virginia ), concern and opposition arose almost immediately. 

But what made the Jim Austin vote so significant was that Clippard was also presenting another organizational restructuring plan for the Executive Board staff which would have reduced the number of associate executive directors from four down to two.  This would have given the convention a three man executive team with all three men from out of state.     

A few board members called me upset that we were about to get what appeared to be our final associate executive director and that we would have nobody from Missouri on that inner circle of leadership that would be casting the vision and charting the course of the MBC.      

The board members that called me, I encouraged to vote their convictions.  “If you don’t like it, vote against it.”  I had already shared with David Clippard in our first meeting back in May that surrounding himself with people from out of state -- people that knew nothing about Missouri -- was a serious concern for a number of guys.    

When the vote was taken, Jim Austin received 7 “no” votes and several others expressed concern about another out of state associate executive director, but they voted for Austin out of respect for David Clippard.  Let me be most specific here:  I have apparently also been accused of calling Executive Board members to vote against Jim Austin.  I made no such calls.

The special called Executive Board meeting was on Friday, September 9, 2005.  That weekend, after the vote, I received a call from David Tolliver (who was now on staff at the convention) on behalf of David Clippard, requesting a meeting with me the first of the week, to which I said:  “David Clippard met with me at my request back in May.  I will be happy to meet with him at his request.” 

So, Tolliver and Clippard drove to O’Fallon on Tuesday September 13^th and we met for 2 ½ hours at the Longhorn restaurant.  At this meeting, I reiterated everything I had told Clippard in our first meeting back in May -- only this time, Tolliver was present.  But the obvious reason for this meeting was that David Clippard wanted help calming down what he called “Project 1000 guys” on the board that were upset. 

It was in this meeting that Clippard told me that he was going to move Tolliver up and make him part of the executive team, which would make Tolliver like an associate executive director but without the title. According to Clippard, Tolliver would then sit in on all executive staff meetings as if he were an associate executive director, thereby placing a Project 1000 type guy on the Executive Team. 

David Clippard wanted to know if I thought this would help smooth things over with the guys that were upset.  I said it would be a good start.  With Tolliver sitting there with us, Clippard laid out his plan to calm the political waters of the MBC.  But the clear reason for Clippard’s trip to O’Fallon was that he wanted me to pass the word and help calm the waters -- which I did. 

And I wasn’t the only one Clippard called about his plan to move Tolliver.  The day before the September 13^th meeting between me, Tolliver and Clippard, Jeff Purvis called and told me that Clippard had called him and said that he was going to move Tolliver up and make him part of the executive team  --   the same thing he would tell me the very next day.  In fact, Clippard also called John Garland (also an Executive Board member) and said to him:  “I think I have something that you Project 1000 guys are going to like…”  and then proceeded to tell John the same thing he told Jeff Purvis and me.    

As far as we knew, that was the plan. 

But about two weeks or so after our September 13^th meeting, David Clippard called to tell me that he changed his mind and couldn’t move Tolliver into the Executive Team position because he needed Tolliver to be his full-time Cooperative Program guy.  I encouraged Clippard to stay the course on his earlier decision because I had already begun to pass the word and it would look like he was reneging on his offer to reach out and work with those concerned about this issue. 

But I also told him:  “You’re the Executive Director, you can do what you want.  But I would strongly encourage you to stay the course on your earlier decision.”    He said he would think about it and let me know. 

I told him that I was preparing to leave for Bogalusa , Louisiana with a rubber tracked skid loader to work with the disaster relief chain saw guys and to call me in a week or so and let me know what he was going to do.  I never heard back from David Clippard. 

Third Meeting

All this led to our third “encounter” which was on Monday night, October 24^th after the opening session of last year’s (2005) annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention.  Let me give you the background. 

That Monday morning at the convention, after the nominating committee finished up its work, Kerry Messer and I stepped across the hall and sat in on the Executive Board meeting that had just begun.  (Which by the way, was the first and only MBC Executive Board meeting that I have ever attended.)

Shortly after I sat down at the back of the room, Jeff Purvis stood up and made a motion that Tolliver be moved up and made an official part of the Executive Team.  The motion was exactly what David Clippard had already told me and Purvis and John Garland that he was going to recommend to the board himself.   

As the debate began, I started to hear statements from board members like, “I love David Tolliver, but…” as though Tolliver was attempting to weasel his way into a higher position of influence without the knowledge or approval of the Executive Director. 

But what absolutely astonished me as I sat at the back of the room watching and listening, was that David Clippard never once bothered to inform the board that this whole debate was based on his idea and his recommendation.  Instead, the board was allowed to think that this whole thing was something Purvis and Tolliver dreamed up on their own. 

At one point, Ralph Sawyer, first vice president at the time, asked Purvis if he would withdraw his motion if…, and then asked Clippard if he could live with Tolliver being a part of the Executive Team.  Clippard responded, “I could live with it.”  But, throughout the entire course of the debate, David Clippard never bothered to inform the board that this whole thing was his idea.  It was his recommendation to solve his own growing political problem.    

Ultimately, the board voted in December (2005) to make Tolliver an Associate Executive Director.  That’s the background for the third meeting.    

That Monday night after the Executive Director’s address to the convention and after the Cooperative Program reception that followed, David Clippard pulled me aside and wanted to talk about the earlier board meeting.  The two of us stood outside the convention hotel from about midnight until 1:00 in the morning. 

It was at this time that I told David Clippard: “at best you were passively dishonest with the board.  You allowed the board to think that Tolliver and Purvis had conjured up a plan without your approval and without your knowledge in order to force a Project 1000 type guy into the inner circle of executive staff leadership.”  I further told him that in my opinion, he had “hung Tolliver out to dry” and that what he did was absolutely unacceptable behavior simply because he allowed the board to operate in darkness when it was within his power to tell the truth.

It was at this time that I once again reiterated my concern to David Clippard about our political environment.  I likened it to the hurricane I’d just gotten back from.  I told him:  “When the trees are down and the roots are up -- when the damage is done, it’s over.  And I’m telling you again, the winds are beginning to blow.    

The Fourth and Final Meeting

The fourth and final meeting between David Clippard and me was on April 28, 2006 at the funeral of Joyce Taylor, Gary Taylor’s wife.  Immediately after the funeral service, I invited Roy Spannegel, David Clippard and Jeff Purvis to lunch.  Spannegel and Purvis agreed and Spanngel was going to talk to Clippard when he finished talking with another individual. 

As I walked away to talk to a pastor friend, David Clippard grabbed me by the arm and pulled me to the side of the room, where he asked me if I was leading an effort to fire him or to get him to resign.  Somewhat in shock, I told him this really was not the place to talk about this kind of stuff and that I had invited him and Spannegel to have lunch. 

David Clippard was adamant that he wanted an answer, and as I hesitated, he again stated that he wanted me to tell the truth.  I responded that I was going to tell the truth, I just wanted to think of a polite way to say what I wanted to say considering we were at a funeral.  My response to Clippard was this:  “It is my opinion that you, David Clippard, nobody else, have destroyed your ministry in this state.” 

Verbally Assaulting Sitting Board Members

In the hour and twenty minute confrontation at the funeral, David Clippard moved from me to verbally assaulting two sitting Executive Board members -- Jeff Purvis and Bill Edwards. 

With Purvis standing right behind us, David Clippard began to tell how Jeff had called a pastor in the Northwest area of the state and asked him if he could recommend him to the nominating committee to serve on the Executive Board.  But according to Clippard, Purvis told this pastor that he had to be willing to stand against David Clippard. 

I told David Clippard that Jeff was standing right behind us waiting to go to lunch so if we’re going to talk about him, let’s just call him over and let him tell what happened.  But that clearly wasn’t going to happen. 

So, again, after trying to move the discussion to a restaurant to no avail, I told David Clippard that I was aware that Jeff had called a pastor -- Gene Lee -- to see if he had any interest in serving on the Executive Board. 

The reason for Jeff’s call was this:  Dennis DePugh had resigned from the Executive Board and needed to be replaced by the nominating committee within 60 days.  As incoming chairman of the nominating committee, I had no standing nominees from the Northwest region.  In fact, all the old Project 1000 guys from that region that I knew were either serving somewhere, had served or had moved out of that geographical region. 

Purvis mentioned to me Gene Lee, who I had forgotten about, but had hosted a Project 1000 rally back in the political days.  I encouraged Purvis to talk to Gene and if he was interested in being nominated to fill Dennis DePugh’s slot on the Executive Board, Jeff could nominate him and I would follow up. 

According to Purvis, he called Gene Lee and talked to him about being nominated for the Executive Board but declined.  When I questioned Purvis about Clippard’s accusation that he had asked Gene if he would be willing to stand against David Clippard as an Executive Board member, Jeff said that when he talked to Gene about serving, he did mention that there were some tough issues ahead for the Executive Board but never did he say anything about standing against or firing David Clippard, nor was it implied. 

But according to Purvis, in the same discussion, Gene brought up concerns that he had about disaster relief, which according to Purvis, was the first time he had heard of any problems in that area.  [The Executive Board would later appoint a study committee which issued a report regarding problems related to Disaster Relief.] 

I told David Clippard that I did not believe that Purvis would have said the things that he was accusing him of saying to Gene Lee -- for one reason, Jeff did not personally know Gene.  But David Clippard was adamant that he did and then told me he had a letter from Gene Lee to prove it and then asked me if I wanted to see it.  I said yes I would.  David Clippard said he would send it to me, but I have never seen the letter. 

From Purvis, Clippard moved to Bill Edwards, arguing that we have people on the Executive Board that do not support the Cooperative Program.  His argument was that Bill’s church only gave $100 to CP last year. 

About two months earlier, David Clippard was using the same arguments against Bill Edwards in an address at the DOM’s retreat.  In his address at the retreat, David Clippard apparently succeeded in stirring up at least some of the DOM’s and then encouraged them to call and tell me, as chairman of the nominating committee, that we don’t want people on the Executive Board that don’t support CP. 

The implication was that I had put Bill Edwards on the Executive Board and was putting others like him on the board.  As it turned out, I only had one DOM call in response to David Clippard’s accusations about Bill Edwards.  Ironically, it was Nodell Dennis, who the last I heard, was a member of a CBF church that didn’t support the CP anyway. 

After talking to Nodell Dennis, I looked into the Bill Edwards issue a little deeper.  So when David Clippard began his assault against Bill at the funeral, I immediately responded: 

First of all, I did not put Bill Edwards on the Executive Board, nor was I on the nominating committee at that time (although I absolutely would have supported Bill Edwards as an Executive Board member.) 

Secondly, Bill was first put on the Executive Board while pastor of FBC Polo, which gave about 14% to CP.  But when Bill moved to the east side of the state in hopes of starting a new church, he had to leave the Executive Board.  There, he joined Sulfur Lick Baptist Church (whose CP giving is about the state average of 7%.)  At that time, Bill was re-nominated to go back on the Executive Board.  It was some time after that when Bill left Sulfur Lick and started a new church in Warren County . 

So, what David Clippard said was in essence true.  During the last two quarters of 2005, Bill’s new church, which averaged about 10 to 12 people, did indeed only give $100 to CP. 

But let me put all this in perspective.  About the same time that David Clippard was attacking Bill Edwards’ new church for only giving $100 to CP, The Journey Church [in St. Louis], which supposedly has about 800 people attending, gave a one time gift of $2000.  But for The Journey Church, David Clippard was out front leading the effort to loan that new church $200,000 of convention money. 

Here’s the point.  Bill Edwards’ new church, which received no help from the convention, gave four times more money per capita than the church which David Clippard advocated a $200,000 loan. 

The point is not that The Journey was not worthy of the $200,000 loan, but neither did Bill Edwards, an Executive Board member in good standing, deserve the public attacks from our Executive Director.  There’s one more point to be made here:  David Clippard has repeatedly pointed out that anybody who has a concern about him or his leadership should go to him personally.  But he never bothered to go to Bill Edwards. 

One last point I want to make from the confrontation at the funeral.  It was during this meeting that David Clippard accused me of saying that I was putting people on the boards that would do whatever I tell them to do. 

According to David Clippard, I had made this statement at our meeting in O’Fallon in the presence of David Tolliver.  He went on to say that Tolliver not only heard me say it, but challenged me on the statement.  I told Clippard that I don’t think that way, I don’t act that way and I don’t talk that way.  But he was adamant that Tolliver heard me say it.  So I told Clippard that I would talk to Tolliver and confirm whether I said something like that or not. 

When I called Tolliver, I asked him if I had made that statement -- if I had implied such a thing -- or if I had ever said anything like that in all the days he had known me.  His response was that I did not make that statement nor had he ever heard me say anything like that. 

Conclusion

While there is much more that could be discussed in this forum, what I have just presented represents the essence of the four meetings that occurred between me and David Clippard.  I have intentionally not raised any of the multitude of concerns that others have raised to me.  But they too deserve attention. 

However, in closing, I do want to briefly address some of the accusations against me as I’ve heard them.  Apparently, I’m being accused of trying to “run the convention.”  That’s interesting.  But I have some questions for those making that accusation. 

·        Which of the MBC presidents since 1998 did I ever call with instructions or requests?  There was none. 

·        Which of the nominating committee members did I ever call with instructions or requests?  I can tell you.  On only one occasion did I even make a recommendation to a nominating committee member and that was regarding Southwest Baptist University . 

·        On how many occasions in the last four years did I ever call the Executive Director and tell him what I wanted him to do?  It never happened. 

·        How many E-mails did I send out?  How many posts on the Missouri Baptist list?  None. 

·        With the exception of the recent Pathway issue, how many Executive Board members did I ever call about any issue?  There was none.  But apparently, some board members get upset when us rank and file laymen dare to express our opinions to board members. 

·        Since the beginning of Project 1000 until now, how many motions did I make at the annual meeting of the Convention?  How many times did I go to a microphone at the annual meeting?  None. 

·        Since the end of Project 1000 in 2003, how many Missouri Baptist events have I attended, besides the annual meeting?  None. 

Apparently, I’m also accused of “picking the presidents.”  And oddly enough, I hear that some of the former presidents are the ones most upset.  But I have to ask, which of the presidents that I supposedly picked made everyone so mad? 

All this seems rather odd, because when Project 1000 was over, I said that I was done.  I said I was going back to rebuild a company that I had neglected for well over five years and that we were going to try to double our sales (which we did) and that we were going to expand into numerous other markets (which we are doing) and that I just wanted to raise my nine kids on the farm. 

But it was a whole group of Project 1000 guys, including some of the past presidents that I hear are now upset with me, that wanted me to stay involved in the selection of candidates and wanted the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association to continue to endorse candidates. 

At some point, you have to wonder:  Who got all these people so stirred up?  Could it have been when David Clippard started whispering in people’s ears like he did to Mike Green [then first vice president of the MBC] at the April board meeting when he said, “Roger Moran and Jeff Purvis are trying to get me fired.”  Mike was shocked and called me wanting to know what was going on. 

Or maybe it was when MBC staff members like Rick Biesiadecki went to the Pleasant Grove Association and told one of this year’s nominees to the SBU board that me and Ralph Sawyer are out to get David Clippard.  And when that pastor said he didn’t even know there was a problem with Clippard, this staffer told him he just needed to call Gary Taylor and he would tell him what was really going on.  This pastor also called wanting to know what was going on. 

And apparently, I’m also accused as chairman of the nominating committee of putting people on the Executive Board that will fire David Clippard.  First of all, when the nominating committee met on July 20^th, to fill all the open seats on the Executive Board, I didn’t get to stay for the meeting.  My son was seriously injured that morning and was flown to Children’s Hospital in St. Louis where he and I have been ever since.  [He was released from the hospital on September 21^st and the special called Executive Board meeting was September 22^nd.] 

Secondly, every person nominated for every position that I received was on a list and given to every subcommittee chairman along with their profile sheets and questioners.  Let me just share with you the breakdown regarding the nominees that came to the nominating committee for the Executive Board. 

·           In the Southeast region we had three openings and four nominees. 

·        In the West Central region we had two openings and two nominees. 

·        In the Central region we had no openings and two nominees. 

·        In the Northeast region we had one opening and one nominee. 

·        In the East Central region we had two openings and three nominees. 

·        In the Northwest region we had no openings and no nominees. 

·        In the South Central region we had no openings and no nominees. 

·        In the Southwest region we had three openings and six nominees. 

However, one of the six nominees came in less than 48 hours before the nominating committee meeting, about two weeks after the deadline for nominees.  Another nominee, despite repeated phone calls to get the profile sheet sent in, didn’t send them in until after the nominating committee had already met. 

I need to ask a question:  If there’s all these people out there upset about who the nominating committee is putting on the Executive Board, why didn’t they nominate somebody? 

Lastly, in order to answer the accusation that I’m putting people on the Executive Board that will fire David Clippard, I called each of the Executive Board nominees and asked them if I had ever said to them, implied to them or caused them to believe in any way that they were being put on the Executive Board to fire David Clippard.  Each of the nominees answered with a resounding “no.” 

Closing Statement

It is my opinion that nothing short of the passionate pursuit of the truth about what is happening within Missouri Baptist life will restore the unity, the peace and the oneness of spirit that we had enjoyed since our earliest days  --  when we joined together to take back this convention. 

**Printer Friendly Version**