Biennial Meetings Objection #2: Timely Consideration and Discussion

The second objection to biennial meetings is that, "The current annual meeting schedule of the Convention enables messengers the opportunity to facilitate timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention."

Following a convention in which only 1 of 19 motions was referred to the messengers for debate or discussion, and only 30 minutes was allotted for introducing such motions, this is an interesting objection indeed!

If New Orleans is our model, eliminating a Convention meeting would eliminate 30 minutes of introducing motions and almost zero minutes of consideration and discussion of interests brought to the floor directly by the messengers and not by a pre-appointed committee.

To be sure, I am very much in favor of timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention. With that said, I would like to make a few observations.

First, the election of officers in the odd-numbered years is already a perfunctory matter. Currently, as long as there is not a moral failure, we return in odd-numbered years to re-elect the president and the other elected officers to the second year of a two-year term. Why not just elect them to serve a two-year term?

Second, just take a look at the 2012 Book of Reports which includes the proceedings from Phoenix in 2011. It is a very thin document - especially after you extract the reports from the institutions which could simply be made available electronically without the need for a multi-million dollar meeting (I will explain my financial calculations in a later post).

Third, agency budget allocations are already approved on a two-year schedule. So, the real "interests of the Convention" -- how/why/where to invest the resources that God has entrusted to us -- are already a conversation that we have agreed to have once every two years.

Occasionally, there are other things to talk about, but they can usually wait. In those rare instances they cannot, our governing documents already make provision for a special-called meeting. If there is an issue worth a multi-million dollar meeting in the off years, we should call a special meeting. If there is not, we would be exercising wise stewardship by waiting another 12 months.

Fourth, in calling for a biennial meeting schedule, I assume that meeting in the even-numbered years would be best. This would continue to give the Convention of Great Commission Baptists an opportunity to speak with one voice on issues confronting our nation in the years in which we have significant national elections - i.e. Presidential elections and mid-term congressional elections.

In short, moving to a biennial meeting schedule does not limit our ability to engage in timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention. There may be other factors that are limiting such disucssion, but such a charge cannot be laid at the feet of biennial meetings.

Indeed, if a biennial schedule enabled more messengers to attend and churches to be represented (and I believe that it would), a biennial schedule would actually allow for more messengers to take part in our Convention's "considerations and disucssions."

It is time for the timely consideration of biennial meetings.