I agree that arguing about the trellis seems misdirected compared to the production of the fruit on the vine.

As it relates to the task force’s interim recommendations, there are two potential questions:

(1) Are the task force’s recommendations tantamount to recommendations regarding overhauling the trellis or are they actually involved with increasing the yield of the fruit on the vine?

(2) Does the task force represent a consensus view of all the stakeholders in the SBC?

The task force has addressed some structural changes. They call for new nomenclature for types of giving by the churches. They add a percent to the breakout of CP funds by the executive committee to the IMB. They propose to release/reassign some personnel by terminating the “cooperative agreements”. Different people will have to come to their own conclusion as to whether these things are trellis maintenance or steps to increase the yield of the vines.

In any case, it is evident that the task force was behind the curve in terms coming out with an interim report that represented a consensus view. They didn’t do their homework to elicit input from all stakeholders. I guess they thought that a “top down” process would be the most appropriate model for their work. However, the fact that so many were blindsided by the report and expressed reservations regarding one or more points reveals that a “top secret” process where ideas are not vetted by all stakeholders just won’t work.

Maybe as a result of the meeting in Memphis a couple of weeks ago the task force will re-cast the document in such a way that it becomes something that will energize all of us to become fruit growers. If that is the case, no one will be worrying about who is building the trellis and what type of wood is being used in its construction.

As you say June 15-16 will reveal what is the answer to an important question.

However, it could be that whatever happens on May 3rd will be also be important since this will frame the debate leading up to the Ides of June.