NAMB employees under new gag rule? by Peter Lumpkins

The history of "gag rules" begins in our country over the issue of slavery. Between 1836 and 1840, a series of congressional resolutions were passed which effectively tabled, without discussion, petitions regarding slavery, a congressional move obviously intended to shut down the voice of the abolitionists. More recently, the term gag rule has been applied to presidential regulations banning abortion counseling by employees of family planning clinics that received a particular type of federal funding (//link).  In most cases, the term gag rule seems to indicate an authoritative prohibition of expression effectively producing a non-negotiable order of silence  >>>

UPDATE: Please note Mike Ebert's contribution in the comment thread and my response. I'll swiftly and properly deal with this when I have more information. 

I'm told by sources in close proximity to the situation that during the chapel service at the North American Mission Board this week, employees were required to sign a statement of confidentiality since information was "leaking out of NAMB"* In short, an order of silence became the norm. And, the sense I got was not private, personal information leaking out, information like social security numbers, salaries of employees and other similar private data which may very well cause pause for concern.

Instead, the "leaked" information apparently pertains to matters which should not necessarily be considered privileged information. For example, if cooperating Southern Baptist churches which give enormous amounts of monies to fund church plants desire to know precisely which church plants receive funding, how much funding, and for how long, no such restrictions such apply. In addition, all stats for church plants including all liaisons with other theological groups (if any) should not be hindered in the free flow of information.

For my part, then, to have employees sign a statement of confidentiality which potentially creates a culture of secrecy cannot be viewed as a healthy decision for NAMB to implement. Moreover, how it squares with Kevin Ezell's statement at last year's Southern Baptist Convention appears strained at best. Quoting Ezell, Michael Foust writes (embolden added):

Ezell promised that, under his watch, future financial stewardship at NAMB will demand "accuracy, transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency—not smoke and mirrors." He then clarified and put into perspective some oft-quoted NAMB statistics—for instance, that Southern Baptists planted 769 new churches in 2010, not the 1,400 to 1,500 a year usually reported in the past. "When the old NAMB counted church plants, they didn't ask for church names or addresses or planter names. The new NAMB is asking and only counting churches for which those details can be obtained." Ezell generated laughs and applause when he said, "If Walmart can track how much toilet paper it sells every hour, we should be able to track how many churches are planted each year"

How does a gag rule reflect a culture of transparency, accurate accounting, and open reporting the "new NAMB" is supposed to possess? The culture of transparency is Ezell's own vision. Hence, the question we raise casts no doubt on NAMB tracking numbers accurately but whether NAMB shares numbers openly. Nor are we suggesting Kevin Ezell actually has anything to hide. We are suggesting a gag rule--if, indeed, one has been implemented--makes it looks like NAMB would be trying to hide something.

Whatever the case, utilizing a blanket requirement to effectively gag the free flow of information--information rightly owed to the churches which fund NAMB--would not and does not reflect a culture of transparency.

With that, I am...

Peter

UPDATE: Due to the accuracy of this account being challenged by one NAMB official, and upon investigating further into the matter with the sources I cited--credible sources I had no reason heretofore to suspect--I regret to report there exists no corroboration I can detect on the "gag rule" being implemented in the form stated in the post--i.e. a signed form in chapel service. And, while there seems to exist evidence that verbal forms of the "gag rule" placed upon NAMB employees are present at NAMB (expressed, for example, in what some reference as "boot camps") still the fact remains, the information I received about the chapel service and signed document is hardly accurate. Hence, to Kevin Ezell and the North American Mission Board I offer my sincere apology for perpetuating as true what evidently did not happen in the form it was delivered to me.

In addition, to the readers of SBC Tomorrow, I also offer my sincerest apologies. You deserve commentary on denominational affairs based on the most credible, factual information available. And while I sincerely thought I was basing my commentary on credible testimony, I hold no delusion that you should not be disappointed. The fact is, I am disappointed in myself. I broke my own strict protocol in making sure I have the goods before I deliver the message. This present post stands as the quintessential reason why that is so. And, know I have learned much in the process. I regret my lessons learned, however, came at another's expense.

Finally, even though my normal commentary is based upon hard evidences like written, audio, and video--evidences which anyone may check and draw their own conclusions--and rarely base what I write on this blog on softer types like anecdotal, or softer still, verbal assertions, know I intend to be more careful still in the future. 

May our Lord extend to us all His grace to be the best we can be for His glory alone. And, may our Lord forgive me as I look only to Him for my redemption.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Pastor Al Brodbent]

This is the first I have read this so I apologize for being late on my response to the original writings. Gag rules have been around a lot longer than 1836. When our fore fathers met it was agreed (which imposed a gag rule on thier staff) that no one would discuss the deliberations until after the last member passed away. It was beleived (and I beleive accurately) that the leanings toward Federalism by many would have caused them pain in their future re-elections if not the loss of it.

i don't have a problem with a "gag order" as it would not supercede the "whistle blower protection". Within any corporation there needs to be a certain amount of confideniality. God Bless. Pastor Al

[CASEY]

PETER: Way to do the "right thing". Now if we could get BP to tell us the "whole story".....since a "story by partial omission" is not a truthful story at all.
Our agencies continue to set the wrong example by telling us thru BP(news) what is/isn't but mixing it with PR(spin). When they can't tell the difference(or deny it) I can assure you the pew sittin/grassroots Southern Baptists can!

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Due to Mike's words above, it's best to close the comments on this particular post until I can ascertain whether I've misunderstood the sources or the sources misunderstood what happened at NAMB. While posts I publish on SBC Tomorrow rarely depend on verbal information, when I have posted based on these type sources, I assure readers I take the utmost care to make sure it's solid information. If it happens to be incorrect info, there's nothing to do but correct it and put in place even greater precautions to avoid it happening again.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Mike,

Two things. First, I wish you were as responsive to earlier emails I've sent to you requesting information about some matters as you've been to reply here on this matter. Second, the "sources in close proximity" I cited have been--at least up until now--bearers of fairly accurate accounts. If this post has perpetuated incorrect information, I will deal with it swiftly, including offering a corrective.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mike Ebert]

Peter--Absolute fiction.