Aaron Raymond

What has been unfolding within the Baptist Union of Queensland concerning the resignation of the General Superintendent, David Loder, and the developments that have transpired since should warrant our attention as to the future direction of the BUQLD and should put participating churches on alert.

Background

The Superintendent is a position which is set apart and appointed by the Queensland Baptist Assembly to both co-ordinate the efforts of the Union and to help set the Union’s spiritual direction.¹⁾This author will refrain from his own thoughts as to the biblical warrant for such office at this time. It is a role that Loder had performed amicably for 18 years, until two emails were sent out to BUQLD Pastors and officers on February 14th from both Loder and the Queensland Baptist Board outlining that Loder’s term was to conclude on the 23rd of the same month. This was surprising, considering that the role of the Superintendent was an Assembly appointment for an indefinite term, whose conclusion of ministry can only be determined by either a) the giving of three months’ notice or a shorter period as ‘mutually agreed’ by Assembly; or b) notice or by termination of the Assembly.

What was particularly concerning, reading the two emails, was that the possible disharmony they represented. The email from the QLD Board as sent by its Chairman, Peter Sweetman, stated:

“For some time the QB Board has been in discussion with David regarding succession planning. While the preferred option of the Board was for this process to take place with David continuing in the role of General Superintendent over a twelve month period, David has decided to conclude his role in a more expedited time frame.”

While Loder’s email stated:

I am informing you that I have advised the Board today of the timing of my conclusion as General Superintendent.

I will attend my final Board meeting on the 22^nd February 2018 and conclude in the office on the 23^rd  February 2018. This date will effectively conclude my role. The remainder of the required three months’ notice will be fulfilled taking leave that is owing me.

I sincerely regret any inconvenience caused for arrangements made beyond that time, but, as you would be aware, I will not be able to fulfil these.

I remain committed to Queensland Baptists and I have advised the Board that I will remain available to them and the Ministry Team to make the transition as smooth as possible. Details of what this may look like are still be negotiated.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity to serve the Lord Jesus, and you, in this role for over 18 years.

You can be assured of my ongoing prayer and support for you in your ministry role.

The possible tension this indicated was also picked up by a handful of other ministers and church officers who sought further clarification. The most thorough investigation being undertaken by the City Tabernacle in March, who met with Loder and representatives of the Board and conscientiously concluded that disharmony did in fact exist leading to Loder’s departure, which would indicate that the “General Superintendent’s departure may not have been in substance mutually agreed.”

Consequently, in an attempt to resolve matters, the City Tabernacle, with Loder’s support, proposed to the QLD Baptist Board that a committee comprising of three independent individuals be formed in order to investigate what had occurred and seek to encourage a satisfactory resolution for all parties. This being informed by principle from Clause 17.10 of the Constitution of Queensland Baptists which states:

17.10 Where such conclusion of ministry is not mutually agreed:
17.10 (a) The appointee and his/her Review Group already in place shall request to the Board that three objective personnel mutually agreed to by the Board and the appointee be appointed by The Board to bring the issue to a satisfactory resolution;
17.10 (b) The recommendations of these three objective personnel shall be submitted to the Board;
17.10 (c) An Assembly may consider such recommendations.

However, a week later, the board made it known that they were unable to properly consider the above request until their next scheduled meeting on the 26th of April. As the next day was the final day that Baptist Churches could issue a notice of motion for consideration at the 2018 Assembly, the Tabernacle was subsequently forced to table a notice to motion, sent to the Assembly, which not only articulated that there were deep concerns that Loder’s conclusion of ministry was not ‘mutually agreed’ as per the constituion but, also, that the concerns were confirmed through both a meeting with Loder, at the Tabernacles invitation, and also with a delegation of the Board. The rest of the letter stating:

“We reaffirm that it is our view the appropriate way forward is as we have recently recommended to the Board.  The Chairman’s advice to us that the Board requires a reasonable period of time within which to prayerfully consider such measures is acknowledged and accepted by us.

However, as we explained in our recent meeting, by-law 20.2 of the Constitution requires that any Notices of Motion for Assembly be submitted by today’s date.   Therefore, in circumstances where the Board is still deliberating the substantive recommendation made by us, we submit the following Notice of Motion for the Assembly commencing 6 July 2018:

A group of three independent persons mutually agreeable to the Board and Rev Dr David Loder will be appointed to examine the processes and actions leading up to his cessation of ministry, that both David and the Board receive this report, and that an agreed form of statement then be issued to Churches and Pastors.  To the extent the independent group make any recommendations, those will be considered by Assembly.

We confirm that we would be desirous of withdrawing this Notice of Motion before it is distributed to every church Delegates (by-law20.2) should the Board on its own initiative decide to proceed in this manner (as we have recommended) or in a materially similar manner.  It is our real sense that the Board taking such action on its own initiative, rather than at the behest of Assembly, would provide a measure of reassurance to the Union as to the healthy and effective prospective functionality of Queensland Baptists.  May we request your timeous advice as to the Board’s consideration of this matter so that we might potentially request withdrawal of the submitted notice of motion?”

The rest of April ticked around without a peep from the Board, but developments including the resignation of a board member or two started coming to light, before an email was sent by the Secretary, Phillip MacCallum, on behalf of the Board on the 4th of May advising that:

I hereby give notice that the Board of The Baptist Union of Queensland has called a Special Assembly to consider a resolution brought by City Tabernacle Baptist Church regarding the holding of an enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of Rev Dr David Loder’s role as General Superintendent.  The Special Assembly shall be held at Gateway Baptist Church, 1052 Mt Gravatt Capalaba Road, Mackenzie, starting promptly at 7:30pm on Monday 11^th June 2018.  It shall be chaired by Rev Keith Jobberns, National Ministries Director of Australian Baptist Ministries.

The resolution to be considered is as follows: ”That a group of three independent persons mutually agreeable to the Board and Rev Dr David Loder will be appointed to examine the processes and actions leading up to his cessation of ministry, that both David and the Board receive this report, and that an agreed form of statement then be issued to Churches and Pastors.  To the extent the independent group make any recommendations, those will be considered by Assembly.”

Delegates for City Tabernacle Baptist Church have been invited to speak to the resolution.  The Board does not support the resolution and will explain its reasons in response.

Further to this, a Briefing Paper was circulated a few days later by the Board seeking to control the narrative as to why the Special Assembly was being called:

Briefing-Paper-from-QB-Board

To avoid further speculation as to their agenda, the City Tabernacle subsequently wrote a reply to the churches, providing much needed clarification as to their concerns regarding the departure of Loder, in a way that the Briefing Paper circulated by the Board inadequately did:

Letter-to-QB-Constituents

The Meeting

The Special Assembly Meeting proceeded on Monday, the 11th of June. Wherein both sides, being those who supported the City Tabernacle’s proposal for an independent investigation regarding General Superintendent Loder’s departure and those who supported the Board, came together to discuss the proposal being presented.

It was here that the discussion became awry. Peter Sweetman and the QLD Baptist Board argued that their decision regarding the conclusion of Loder’s ministry needed to be abided by the Assembly, and that an independent investigation was unwarranted as the Board were Elders that ought to be submitted to (for note, this argument was used in conjunction with a few others). Some others also supported this understanding of the Board as an Eldership, with 8.5 (a) of the QLD Baptist Constitution being invoked:

8.5 The responsibilities and powers of the Board include:
8.5 (a) to operate as an eldership, giving counsel, advice, encouragement and support to the General Superintendent;

This was entirely problematic. As, firstly, 8.5 (a) of the Constitution clearly specifies that the Board is to operate as an Eldership, through the giving of counsel, advice, encouragement and support, and only to the General Superintended. Subsequently, setting themselves to be an Eldership over the denomination is grossly inappropriate and well beyond the reach of the Constitution but, further and more shocking, it is entirely against one of the most defining and important distinctions of Baptist theology which is regarding the autonomy of the church. The only Elders within Baptist polity are solely placed at the church level. Anything beyond that is taking it down an un-Baptistic, Episcopalian, structure.

Yet these exhortations by the Board of being a self-appointed Eldership were only part of a relatively. and embarrassingly, confusing night. Misinformation seemed to have reigned, and the reality that Loder himself supported the City Tabernacle proposal was intentionally swept aside by detractors of the motion, with several pastors and officers having informed the writer that they were made unaware of this fact, even when requesting this information prior to the meeting.

At the assembly, Loder made it apparent that what had happened to him was just a current example of the current practice among the Board, being symptomatic of a deeper issue. He indicated that confronting such a deep-rooted issue was necessary to the well-being of Queensland Baptists. Further, during the discussion, it was slipped that one of the board members that had resigned their position had disagreed with the remaining board members regarding their view of Eldership and had even asked for Loder’s forgiveness for their role in forcing the conclusion of his ministry.

Yet, even with this, the motion which went before the 226 present assembly members to appoint an independent committee in which to investigate the conduct of the Board in its handling of Loder was defeated. 143 of the members sadly listened to the Board’s exhortation to submit to their authority and decision and, subsequently, voted as being Not in Favour of the motion, outnumbering the 81 who a wanted an independent investigation as to what had occurred between the Board and Loder.

What this has signaled to many leaders, including those who had attended the Special Meeting and those who had been informed of these developments in the aftermath, is that the Board of the Queensland Baptist has well overstepped their authority and is running with their own agenda, not seeking to be held accountable to any other instrument of the Assembly.

This writer wonders precisely why the Board had resorted to calling themselves Elders and exhorting submission to their judgement, when an independent inquiry very well may have exonerated their decision to have had Loder conclude his ministry. Unless, of course, they were concerned about impropriety in their dealings, and having any agenda being exposed.

However, whatever may be said of the above, one thing is absolutely certain. The Board of the Queensland Baptists, as chaired by Peter Sweetman, are now calling the shots. Any Union-affiliated church or individual must apply care in their dealings with them, as they are, supposedly, an Eldership that requires being submitted to.

Aaron Raymond

Aaron Raymond is the Chief Editor of Particularly Baptist, and a former Pastor of a Baptist Union church.