After 29 years of calling for greater diversity on SBC entity boards, we are presented with a slate of nominees by the Committee on Nominations that is 97% white. This slate of nominees, while likely all good, godly people individually, is not representative of the SBC and is out of step with the consistent call, votes, resolutions, motions, and prayers of the SBC gathered in convention over the past three decades.
“Be it further RESOLVED, That our agencies and institutions seek diligently to bring about greater racial and ethnic representation at every level of Southern Baptist institutional life;” 1989 Resolution on Racism.
“Be it further RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to be doers of the Word (James 1:22) by pursuing racial reconciliation in all our relationships, especially with our brothers and sisters in Christ (1 John 2:6)” 1995 Resolution on Racial Reconciliation
“RESOLVED, That we urge churches to demonstrate their heart for racial reconciliation by seeking to increase racial and ethnic diversity in church staff roles, leadership positions, and church membership” 2015 On Racial Reconciliation
“RESOLVED, That we continually prioritize and monitor our progress in adequately representing the increasing racial and ethnic diversity of our communities in our local congregations and our entities;” 2015 On Racial Reconciliation.
This was a report brought by the Executive Committee in 2015 after a motion in 2014 asking for a review of the progress that the SBC has made on racial reconciliation and asking “how Southern Baptists, facilitated by the Convention’s entities and seminaries, may better reach, make disciples, and raise up leadership from and among diverse racial and ethnic groups in North America.”
The first four recommendations from the Executive Committee in 2015 contained in this report, which was adopted unanimously by the messengers in Columbus, were as follows:
To that end, the Executive Committee formally and humbly suggests the following action steps be undertaken for at least the next five years so that they become ingrained in our normal way of doing business.
- That the president of the SBC report the racial and ethnic composition of the committees and group he appoints each year— the Committee on Committees, the Resolutions Committee, the Credentials Committee, and the Tellers—through Baptist Press; that the SBC Executive Committee include this report in the Daily Bulletin, Tuesday, Part 1; and that the SBC Recording Secretary include this report in the proceedings of the Convention when the president announces his appointments.
- That each state/regional member of the Committee on Committees have a sufficient number of potential nominees to the Committee on Nominations to recommend to the full Committee on Committees so that the Committee on Committees will be able to propose a Committee on Nominations that reflects the racial and ethnic diversity of the Convention; and that the chairman of the Committee on Committees give special attention that, as much as possible, the final report reflects this intercultural diversity.
- That each member of the Committee on Nominations solicit a sufficient number of potential nominees for the vacancies on the boards and committees of the Convention for which he or she is responsible so that the full Committee will be able to present to the Convention a list of nominees that builds or sustains equitable racial and ethnic diversity on each SBC board and committee; and that the chairman of the Committee on Nominations give special attention that, as much as possible, the final report reflects this intercultural diversity.
- That the chairmen of the Committee on Committees and Committee on Nominations report the racial and ethnic composition of the committees and boards they nominate each year (along with other information such as representative church sizes, average CP giving of nominees’ churches, baptism ratios, representative ages, and gender considerations) when their reports are released through Baptist Press; that the SBC Executive Committee include these reports in the Daily Bulletin, Tuesday, Part 2; and that the SBC Recording Secretary include these reports in the proceedings of the Convention when the chairmen move the adoption of their respective reports.
Calling for ethnic and racial diversity on our trustee boards is not new. It isn’t something that an outlier group came up with. It is literally something that Southern Baptists have been calling for over and over and over again for the past 30 years with every means at their disposal. Southern Baptists have spoken often and loudly that this is something we want to change – that we believe it is something that God wants changed in us. The result to all of this after so many years is that the Committee on Nominations puts forward 67 white nominees, 1 African American, and 1 Asian American. The new trustees are 97% white.
We do not believe that this result was intentional or that any one person or small group was behind this. We do not believe that there is anything personally wrong with those who were nominated. We are sure that they are wonderful, godly people. But, we also do not believe that this overall result is in line with the stated, declared, and announced will of the SBC over three decades. This stated will is not some kind of outlier. It is the mainstream view of the SBC in every way. Increased ethnic/racial diversity on our entity trustee boards is what the SBC has called for time and again and it has NEVER been opposed in any way with a vote or declaration. But, it is not being carried out. It is time we ask “why?” It is time that the Southern Baptist Convention listens to its own statements, at least. This must change.
Some reactions are beginning to be voiced …
Don’t discount how this is being seen in minority circles – that only ONE Black and ONE Asian American were chosen is being taken very seriously by many – and the message they are taking is not one we as the SBC want to be sending.
Dave,
You are so correct. This info feels as if u have been hit in the face with a baseball bat. Just like The Lord turned around the alt-right resolution, I’m praying & believing The Lord will turn this situation around or else, these nominees ought be voted down from the floor, and we start over.
Isn’t this year’s Committee on Nominations majority minority? Seems like I read that on Voices.
The resolutions cited above speak to having boards representative of the ethnic make up of our Convention. My understanding is that we don’t keep records to know what the make up is. Is this correct?
The search committee for the EC president is heavily minority but I’m not aware of that.
2018 Resolutions Committee is what you’re thinking of.
Wow.
I am sad to say I am not surprised.
People voice concerns and are told to “trust the process”.
Passing resolutions, asking for input on important issues and then doing NOTHING about it means that the “powers that be” really aren’t listening. Oh yes, they can say that they asked for input and to trust them, but the outcome shows something so different.
These numbers above in no way reflect the true make-up of the SBC.
One IMB Cluster in our area alone is 30% Asian American and a number of these folks are in leadership posistions.
Thirty percent!
Seems we’re more in tune with the reality of the SBC at large then our home folks are.
It leaves me shaking my head.
Words are not enough! If actions do not back up the words/resolutions spoken, then they are empty words indeed.
One hope here is that “the process” is not over. The process includes messengers making their voices heard now, the opportunity for the committee to self-correct, and actions from the floor of the Convention itself. The process isn’t over on this until we vote in Dallas.
I happen to be Hispanic and am being nominated for a second term for the NAMB Trustees.
Denilo,
Congratulations.
I believe the statistic is of NEW nominees
I will check with the folks that published the statistics to see if that is accurate.
I think I am right that only those be nominated as NEW trustees are part of the 69, not those serving their second term.
Correct, Dave. Only included new people.
Thank you for noting this. This is an important matter that must be addressed. I appreciate that you noted the disparity is not intentional. I’m confident it is not, too. It seems to me that one of our major challenges to finally getting the level of ethnic diversity on our boards that we all want is for people of different ethnicities to actually begin to get to know each other. While we are diverse racially as a convention, we are still pretty well siloed racially in our relationships. People are chosen for these spots primarily through relationships. If the person picking the board members doesn’t have friendships and relationships with people of other ethnicities, he isn’t going to be picking people of other ethnicities. When relationships and friendships develop across racial lines, we will begin to see real progress. There are things we can do to help this to happen. We need to be deliberate about creating opportunities for our white pastors and leaders to sit down with our brothers and sisters of different ethnicities and talk about their lives and share life together. Friendships will go a long way in helping break this impasse. I’d encourage our pastors and leaders to invite white pastors and leaders to shared meals with our pastors and leaders of other ethnicities where they can talk about the things they have in common, not what separates them. I’d encourage our pastors and churches to team up with pastors and churches of other ethnicities to do missions projects together. We must start sharing life together. When enough of our white pastors and leaders laugh, cry, and do ministry together with pastors and leaders of other ethnicities and share in the things we have in common, we will begin to see the relationships established that will result in more brothers and sisters of other ethnicities placed on our boards naturally. We need to focus on developing relationships. To do that, we must spend time together. I know this takes time and it has to happen in many places at the same time to see real progress, but I believe true fellowship is what is needed, and right now, that’s not happening enough. Do we need more intentionality in the short term? Yes. But we need something more if we’re ever going to finally see the long term racial diversity we want.
Thank you. YEs.
What this needs to put to bed is the idea that we don’t need to think and talk about race. Sadly, if we don’t make this a priority, this is what we tend to get.
What explains the breakdown of last year’s resolutions committee? Was the alt-right resolution originally rejected because you didn’t have enough Black friends? Segregation wasn’t overcome because we waited for “friendships” to break down the barriers. Brown v. Board wasn’t decided because 9 caucasians had “friendships” with ethnic minorities. Even Hugo Black joined for a unanimous decision on this one.
The right thing is the right thing, and truly courageous leaders are willing to take bold stands and force change. Justice, the prophet Amos said, rolls down like a river. It doesn’t trickle like a leaky faucet.
Barret, I can appreciate your perspective & there is some merit to your argument that relationships drive the decisions on who gets nominated; and inasmuch as there appears to be an absence of voluminous relationships between majority/minority relationships, consequently there are few nominations for the various boards & committees. Sounds good, a measure of truth to ur position. But here is the flip side of that coin.
Your argument suggests that the decision makers making the nominations are majority or exclusively Anglo. If that bs the case, that’s the root cause of the matter. That explains the outcome here. And that needs to be corrected as well. Your Convention can’t be comprised of 20-25% minorities, but decision makers are 95-97, if not 100% Anglo. If the decision makers didn’t represent @ least 20%, this processed was flawed from the gate. Secondly, one must ask the question, why is there a dearth of relationships downline, in the first place, that can’t produce widespread minority inclusion on the various boards & committees? The dearth of relationships down line, is because of the absence & dearth of relationships @ the top. Finally, SEBTS has provided for the SBC a great model & result for modeling & developing Kingdom Diversity. I suggest you contact Danny Akin & Walter Strickland to seek counsel regarding how to proceed from here, and how to make sure we never find ourselves in this sunken place again. Thanks for hearing me.
No Latinos were mentioned, therefore the 69 individuals must be “new nominees” and not the many renominated for second terms. So actual numbers may be slightly different. That being said, it’s still utterly disappointing.
Pew Research in 2014 noted that the SBC was 85% white, 6% black, 5% other/mixed, 4% latino and >1% asian. 15% minority in 2014; I seem to recall that number being greater than 20% recently.
SBC nominations ought to reflect the SBC. At the BARE MINIMUM, our nominations should be 20% ethnic.
Today, I am ashamed to be a Southern Baptist.
Amendments from the floor may be offered to the NC report. Nominees have been replaced before. I’m not suggesting it but that would get attention. To be fair and thorough the total composition of all these trustee boards should be considered but I doubt the numbers there would soften the optics of the NC report. And, why not ask Steve Gaines about the report? He is indirectly responsible for the committee.
[For the record: I’m not part of the editorial board here and had no input into this article, though I agree that the report is newsworthy and ought to be called to the attention of SBs. I will vote for the NC report in June.]
The amendment process is tedious and would result in only incremental change under the current system. We could always vote the whole thing down. Best option is for the committee to self-correct now.
I’m not optimistic that the committee will do this but they will have to respond to the issue being raised. Last year, Jim Richards was the chairman of the C on N and reported 14% “non-anglo” total. I believe Dean Stewart is still on the committee.
The annual meeting just got more interesting…
So we replace the ones nominated because they are white. I would suggest maybe adding one or two to each board that fit what we are trying to do.
You can’t just add people to boards. The sizes are outlined in bylaws and charters.
I knew that but just wishing.
This is sickening. Steve Gaines should publicly repudiate this report, and while he has no authority to instruct the committee on nominations to amend its report, he should publicly call on them to do so or state clearly that he will ask messengers on the floor of the convention to reject the report.
The fact is, Mitch McConnell knew the the Supreme Court could do without one justice and function just fine until a new president could make a nomination. The SBC will function JUST FINE without this year’s nominees being elected to the boards and agencies of the SBC.
Vote it down. Don’t replace anyone. Let the spots remain open until next year’s committee can bring a new report. The convention work will not be harmed in the least.
A quick look at the Staff for the ERLC shows an identical pattern. Interesting that the head of the ERLC is one who is attempting to lead out on this matter at events like MLK50, etc. What does that really say?
I am happy about the MLK conference, but the ERLC is hosting a conference about the future of the church to be held just before the SBC. The makeup of that conference is about like this CN slate of nominees when it comes to diversity.
Of the 23 speakers for that conference, 4 are minorities and 3 are women. Not as diverse as America is, but far more so than this slate of nominees.
But, still, we can split hairs over exact numbers. No one is calling for quotas. But, this is something we’ve addressed over and over as the post says.
The point is to look at the makeup of the staff of the ERLC and then listen to the rhetoric of the leader. It certainly appears to be, “Do as I say, not as I have done.” I don’t understand how the ERLC gets away with not being called out for this while their leader preaches at everyone else for their lack of diversity.
Let’s stick to the topic and not troll this into another anti-ERLC rant.
Nate, the same could be said for some of those calling so aggressively for our national SBC committees to model diversity – whose churches (and nominations reports) look like a gallon of whole milk. I realize after saying that I might need armed security around here – but I speak the truth.
We will see more diversity on the “national” SBC level when (and only when) we see it in our churches. Demanding of others lofty and noble standards that are not present in our own lives is virtuous and is bluntly, easy – setting an example is hard work.
Before anyone thinks I am calling others out and not looking inward – let me hasten to say that the church I pastor is not diverse ethnically – I wish it were – we have lots of work to do in this area. There are familial, geographical, and population reasons for that….Despite those realities I am striving to lead our people toward this kingdom goal (along with many other Kingdom goals). This is one reason I am less likely to get all hot and bothered and start calling out our SBC committees and such on this issue. It is not that I do not care…it is that I know we all have a lot of work to do – we have come far – but we must not stop now… in short, *we* need to “sweep up our own doorsteps before we go criticizing the leaves piled up on someone else’s” – as my grandmother was so fond of saying to us.
Your argument here is without merit, at least where I am concerned. I’ve been at this for 20+ years in one way or another. Why not focus energy on fixing the problem instead of addressing those laboring to fix the problem?
And if there were 10 to 12 minorities – carrying forward the percentages of the ERLC event – we wouldn’t be having this discussion. We might not be thrilled, but we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
On its face this is disappointing and seems worthy of serious re-consideration by the Committee.
In fairness though, before jumping too quickly, I’d like to know the makeup of the whole slate and the makeup of each entity board. Does anyone have access to that info?
I’ve said before that quotas are gonna be the way we’ll have to go – I’m personally not looking forward to an implementation of any quota system within the SBC nominee process – be it with regard to ethnicity or the cal/non-cal issue but it looks more and more like we are heading that way for both.
Ha! I read that and thought of Trad and Cal quotas.
But seriously, if they only nominate who they know, what keeps them from being blinded by friend-loyalty? as in… He’s a great guy, I know him and like him, so of course he will do a good job! Good old boy networks I would think lead to mediocrity. meanwhile they shit out other well qualified or even better qualified candidates
someofwhom I am sure are minorities.
Watch your language, Bro. Mike! Haha…I knew what you meant though.
Info on the membership of the Committee on Nominations:
http://media2.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/annuals/SBC_Annual_2017.pdf
Page 470
Thanks Ben, I have that book of reports… But it doesn’t tell me the make up of this year‘s slate of nominations which is what I am asking… The article makes reference to new nominees only… I’m asking about the entire slate.
Yep, I understand. Just thought this info might be useful. (I’d be surprised if anyone has compiled what you’re looking for, but I agree it’d be interesting to see.)
It just seems a little unfair to not be considering the slate as a whole before impugning the committee’s work as disgusting/embarrassment/blight or whatever.
The whole story has not been told, as of yet. I understand that on its face taken standing alone – this is quite troubling – no disagreement there – but lets get the whole story.
That is all I am asking for.
My comments are in no way seeking to attack the editorial board – good, honest and godly is the whole lot of them as best I can tell. I am close friends with some of them and what I’d call a little more than simply acquaintances with the others – I am only lamenting that the whole of the report is not yet being discussed.
I am going to ask for some calm here. We should not repudiate the report, the makeup of the committee or the work of this committee.
If you will look at the Committee on Committee appointments by the Pres, they are appropriately balanced ethnically.
The Committee on Nominations is a different animal. I know because I was a nominee at one time.
I was contacted in the early 90s to serve, and was asked if I would be willing to serve on the Executive Committee. I agree. But then, the next day, I was told someone else got the EC spot, and was asked if I would be willing to serve on the Sunday School Board. I agreed. But then the next day, I was told that someone else got that spot. I was asked if I would be willing to serve on the Foundation. I agreed, and served on a great board.
I had some influential supporters, but still did not end up on the Board that my supporters wanted.
The reason is due to the nature of this committee. This committee makes all of its decisions as committees do. There were only 69 slots out of 16 million of us. But remember, only a few can come from each state. We shouldn’t have people from the same church, as much as is possible. And pastors of well known churches will have their members strongly considered.
We want people who are knowledgeable of and fully committed to the SBC, and we want people who have been so for some time. And we want people who are fully on board theologically.
And finally, we need people who are experienced in business and have some history serving on boards etc.
Then, you have to get enough votes on the committee for each nominee.
During the days of the CR, it was not easy to get people who were guaranteed to support the CR.
And now, with racial outreach being a factor, I am sure it is not easy to find people with the background and qualifications who are from the right states etc. It may be more difficult than we believe.
And then when you find nominees – they may not be preferred over other nominees. Some committee members may like 1 person. Some may like another person.
This is not a committee picked by 1 person – like the Committee on Committees. It’s easy to get a more perfect balance on such a committee. Hence, the difference between the Committee on Committees and the nominations.
My belief is that the SBC is not effective many times because we are too bellicose. The press loves to report about our fights – especially on an issue like this.
I believe that it would be better to support the committee’s work than to trash it or to oppose it. I believe especially that SBC agency heads should be hesitant to criticize, especially when they do so too quickly.
It would not advance the work on the Convention to go to the SBC annual meeting with the Committee’s report being trashed.
And it would be worse if we have sessions where we are voting to replace vetted nominees with unvetted nominees solely on the basis of race.
Louis, all of what you say may be true, but there were qualified and capable Southern Baptists of various races who COULD have been asked.
We are not saying that there was blatant racism here, but this is what happens when we a) don’t actively build relationships and partnerships with other races and b) just pick those we know.
There is no way that we can say that 67 of 69 is NOT an oversight.
“We want people who are knowledgeable of and fully committed to the SBC, and we want people who have been so for some time. And we want people who are fully on board theologically.“
Yet, somehow, we have a Committee on Nominations that was totally unaware of SBC statements on diversity for the PAST 30 YEARS. If we had a committee who nominated people as though the Conservative Resurgence had never happened, we’d all be upset. No one was asking for anything radical. But with the Committee itself telling us that these are the 69 people they chose and then we find out that all but 2 are white, it makes one wonder if ANYONE is paying attention to all of the work that has been done on this.
I don’t care if it is hard. Work harder. Seriously. Build relationships. Look. Care. Take people to lunch. Make some phone calls. It is doable, if you care. If not, then none of that happens. But, if you do it, you might find it to be a joy and we all benefit.
“And it would be worse if we have sessions where we are voting to replace vetted nominees with unvetted nominees solely on the basis of race.”
This is an excellent point, Louis. One that is certainly worth considering and considering deeply by all.
If replacement nominees are suggested and approved from the floor we might accidentally place someone that for any numerous of reasons: theologically, moral, etc… should not be on a committee/board, etc…
I personally would not vote to approve any nominee presented on the floor that has not been vetted by a committee unless I knew them personally – perhaps I might if I know the nominator well and they had made personal assurances to me (perhaps). The reason we have committees to appoint committees/boards is so that a modicum of vetting take place. If we think the committee did not do a good job – vote down their report.
I think, the best, wisest and most reasonable option for anyone not happy with the report is to simply vote it down wholesale and send the committee back to work. Picking and choosing from the floor can and likely will get messy and could lead to all sorts of ills.
Should the committee report their slate of nominees – those opposed to it on whatever basis should simply vote “no” when the report comes up.
I still have not seen any response to my query…what is the level of diversity on the overall slate of nominees for 2018 from the committee on nominations?
Because it is irrelevant.
The names are listed and you are welcome to do the research, but it is irrelevant and we are not going to devote time to doing research FOR you that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to know, find out.
Did we have TOO MANY minorities serving?
Did we have to have a 97% white slate to correct our over-minoritization?
If you want to answer the question, find out. We are concerned with the new appointees this year. What is true is that if this slate passes, the minority percentages are likely to go DOWN.
Typically, discussions that lead to solutions, I’ve always thought, require a full airing of the data.
Thanks, though. Sorry to bother you with irrelevancies.
Perhaps you might kindly point me in the direction of where the names of the whole slate of 2018 nominations are available. My recollection is that in the past we messengers have to wait till be convention, or at least closer to it, to be privy to that info.
Please tell me where to look for that info, as I have looked but am unable to find it.
Information is in the annuals, and I believe posted on sbc.net
I have the annuals and the app, and have seen the BP and SBCThisWeek stuff….so I have seen the full report now – but no place are we given the skin tones of the nominees. I am not moving the goalposts here – simply saying that if we are going to consider impugning the racial diversity work of the committee report – I think it prudent to include all the data – not simply a subset of data.
Sure, subsets can make things look better than they are, yet they also can make things look worse than they are. The complete data would be more informative either way, though.
It is better in my opinion to access all or as much as possible of the data one can before assuming the worst.
It is the onus of those making claims to provide complete data so that those they are trying to convince can make informed decisions concerning the claim. It is not the responsibility of those being asked to accept the claims being made to do the research.
What I have not seen is the racial makeup of the entire report – only for new nominees (which I have stated numerous times is on its face problematic). While I would like to know the breakdown of that information, I am not an investigative reporter, nor an expert in the field of SBC nominations, so I will not be searching each individual down on the internet to ascertain what they color of their skin is.
I do know that the SBC This Week posted on twitter that the second committee on committees appointed by Steve Gaines is pretty diverse. I see this as very good progress especially in comparison to other committees and task forces he has appointed.
Here is the text of their twitter post:
“Many have asked about the newly appointed Committee on Committees: 68 members: 5 women, 63 men; 56 Anglo 2 African-American 5 Asian 2 Hispanic 3 Other (Committee is 18% non-Anglo; SBC is 17% non-Anglo).
Simply Amazing
Steve Gaines should be ashamed of himself. He wont be, but he should be
Im sure that the Traditionalists will blame JD Greear for this misstep
I am truly disappointed in this slate of nominees. I thought we, the SBC, were making some progress, but this is surely a big step backward. I agree that the committee that made these nominations had good intentions, but they did not demonstrate good sensitivity. Personally, I can think of lots of African-American, Latino, and Asians who could serve well on our boards.
I would say this. I believe this is an anomaly. Most of our efforts have been much more positive in recent months and years. we have been doing a LOT better. That is why this report stands out so much.
I wouldn’t say this is an anomaly, yet. It is a return to the mean after the past 3-4 years seeing a correction. It is the “return to the mean” that is troubling. The 2015 EC Report linked above tells us that our track record on this is terrible. Things only began to change the past few years on trustee/committee nominations. We have a long way to go to get to a healthy place and reverting back to the mean after only 3 years of correction is not good.
FYI. I doubt Steve Gaines had a lot to do with this. He is ultimately responsible for everything, certainly, but I don’t think he was actively involved here.
Agreed, and as I posted above – Gaines’ committee on committee appointments for next year’s committee represent a higher percentage of non Anglo than the percentage of non Anglo membership in the convention. It’s improvement. He should get props for that.
Let us be frustrated… But let us remember that more than likely the men and women on this committee are Christian, godly, Southern Baptist… They are on our side… They are our friends… Let’s just try to be nice if we can.
The general tone and rancor is getting quite harsh.
I ask again how diversified is the entire slate (everyone nominated to every position in the SBC by the committee) …in my opinion that would be most instructive to the discussion.
I say again macro solution attempts will not adequately address this issue… We must look at this as a micro problem… LOCAL CHURCHES Building relationships and teaching out – beginning to look like the kingdom. As long as we look to “national solutions”… I don’t think we will ever find them.
The point is not to attack individual committee members. I’m sure they are all good, godly people. But, it is clear that racial/ethnic diversity, despite 30 years of regular appeal, was not a value or priority. That was wrong. The SBC has spoken clearly on this. So, how do we fix this? We’ve agreed over and over.
We fix it by fixing it instead of talking about it forever. And, that requires intentionally, because Southern Baptists, left to their own devices 50 years after the formal end of the Civil Rights Movement, are not going to just naturally do this on their own. Obviously. I’d hoped they would. I was wrong.
You are right. We fix it by showing up for the convention. Those 2 days matter. Churches need to decide this is important and send people to work and fight for change. It isn’t going to change itself. It’s expensive to get messengers there, and it is boring to hear all tho as rep orts, but maybe we should start making that meeting each year a priority.
Alan, There is certainly some rhetoric here and elsewhere that our friends serving on the committee might find incredibly hurtful and not at all helpful…that is all I am saying.
I leave ya with two adaptations of famous phrases …
“If the shoe doesn’t fit you are acquitted.”
“If the shoe fits, then wear it, Cinderella.”
😉
Thank you Tarheel Dave. Well said. Anyone and everyone who is upset over this lack of diversity at the national level must be showing diversity in their own churches as far as staff and leadership first. If you are doing this, then step up to the mic in Dallas for you deserve to be heard. If you aren’t showing locally in your own churches what you’re demanding nationally, then it’s called hypocrisy.
While I agree that our churches should be diverse and I have worked on that in every church I’ve been in and have seen success, to say that you can say nothing on the national level when we have 10,000 churches that we declare are minority-majority churches is just nonsense. Sorry, but it is.
You kinda proved my point. I guess my definition of diversity is wrong ….. 10,000 minority churches in the SBC? Seriously, what was that number in 2008?? 1998?. Yet, there has never been time in our convention’s history that we have been called more racist, and non inclusive than 2018.
Lol. Well, THAT’S not true.
Alan,
There is though a line worth celebrating and pointing out in Shelvin’s post…
“10,000 minority churches in the SBC? Seriously, what was that number in 2008?? 1998?.”
Local churches steeping up and partnering to help plant minority fellowships.
We have as a denomination/convention of churches made great progress in this area….its laudable.
Sure we have lots more work to do – but I think we can and should celebrate the good strides we have made in this realm.
Race is never a appropriate marker to evaluate or judge. A perceived disparity is not evidence of a racial bias. Why are you not concerned about geographic, theological, church size, experience and character of the nominees? These are better markers of the diversity of the list. Those who keep judging everything by skin color are the ones that are an embarrassment to the SBC.
While not attempting to speak for others, my circle of friends assumes all potential nominees have been vetted for character, experience, and fundamentals of Baptist theology. This includes everyone on each side of the minority-majority divide. As for geographical, I’m pretty sure the representatives on the committees come from each state convention, two per state. That’s as broad a spread as we could hope for. I could be wrong and I’m sure others will point out if I am, but I think that’s the case.
But if all things are essentially equal, why not ensure that our national body represents the perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences of the churches for whom they will speak? It is, as someone else said, simply an extension of the early American cry, “No taxation without representation.” That is, don’t govern/administrate a group of people unless they are able to be represented in the halls of power.
Ethan,
two things.
First, if all the nominees were minorities, it wouldn’t bother me. My hope is that each and every appointed person is a solid Christian who wants to serve.
Second, In my city, Columbus Ohio, we have say 30% blacks s to population, but are school boards and the city council, anduntil recently, the mayor have been predominantlybuack and democratic. Yet we have many white republicans in the city. These elected officials DO represent every one in the city and in the school district despite a difference in skin color and party affiliation.
When we had a black SBC president, did he not represent ALL SBCers? Of course he did. Now that we have a whiteSBC president, does he not represent allSBCers? Of course he does.
Was President Obama [though I never voted for him]? Yes of course. Did he represent me, a citizen as he dealt with foreign powers, signed or vetoed bills? Of course he did.He represented ALL Americans including every white person. Now we have President Trump [who I also did not vote for -looks like i am 0-3 in the last 3 sections], and does he represent ALL Americans, even the democrats and the minorites? Of course he does.
Now as to the SBC, how are the 47000 churcges represented but by their messengers, just like the 20 million Ohioans are represented in congress by our ‘messengers, -our congresspeople and our senators.
Thus this represntation talk based on skin color is divisive. Choices have consequences. The sins of the SBC past certainly do and will continue to dose. But making bad choices today, or making choices today based on bad reasoning is not the godly way forward.
Titus 3:9
[King James Version]
“But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”
Addendum
[Some Southern Baptist manuscripts add] ..
‘unless discussing # of Calvinist points, or ethnic/racial mix, etc. – then all gloves off!’
[“Original text”]
Please be careful how we bash or throw accusations, whether they do or don’t have merit. We are our own worst enemies, and the world smirks and throws a nod in our direction. IF there is a problem let’s prayerfully correct it, but NOT by forcing limiting numbers of ‘slots’ to be filled by designated groups (are “lefties” equally represented? … where does it stop?)
EAlonso,
It wont stop, or at least no end is in sight.
But in order to have an end in sight, you must have am end in mind.
So far no one has given any concrete ideas on what that end will look like. Rather, just nebulous ones.
Down the slippery slope theywant to go and no one is saying whats really at the bottom. Or how you will know it when you get there.
I share Dave’s desire to see no drama at the annual meeting, but this comment thread seems to suggest that we’ll see otherwise. I’m a bit discouraged by the uncharitable knee-jerk response toward the committee on this issue.
Yeah, I do get the frustration with the optics and the numbers as publicized – but there seemed to be little desire to wait for the full and final report nor to grant any benefit of hopeful trust to the committee.
I think all (including me) would have been better off to have given the committee time to actually finish thier work and further granted our fellow southern baptists on the committee more grace prior to opining so strongly.
I’m praying for the chair and committee as they complete thier work.