I’m asking this question because I used to be one of the “just hire the right man for the job” crowd. Then, I had lunch with a millennial. I asked him how I could reach millennials with the gospel. His answer was blunt, to the point, and surprising. He said, “Get a millennial to reach them.” I expected him to tell me to be more active on social media, or tell me where millennials hang out these days. The quickest way to reach millennials is to get a millennial to reach them.
How does this relate to the current SBC conversation on minorities in leadership? The quickest way to reach minorities is get a minority to reach them. I was fully supportive of the SBC’s need to be more diverse, and to reach out to minorities. I was, however, not supportive of the intentional hiring of minorities for leadership positions. I changed my mind because of purpose. Does the SBC want to reach out to minorities? Yes. Will the intentional hiring of minority candidates to leadership positions show that we are serious about this purpose? Yes it will.
Some of you are going to crow at me with this phrase: But our purpose should be to proclaim the gospel. You are 100% correct. If you haven’t noticed, our culture is becoming more diverse by the day. This discussion has never been about theology, it’s always been about methodology. The “just preach the gospel” crowd would rather bypass common sense methodological approaches for the sake of remaining comfortable. Yes, intentionally hiring minority candidates would male us uncomfortable. They might just suggest that we nominate a woman for SBC President.
Shouldn’t we just hire the best man for the job? We’re lucky enough to have many minority candidates who are more than qualified to fill the five entity vacancies. I’ve been on a search committee for the past six months, and I’ve learned there’s very little separation between the top three or four candidates. If the candidate comes in and bombs the interview, then he should not be hired, regardless of skin color, but if the candidate hits a home run during the interview, then the committee should feel free to hire the minority candidate and make that the reason for the hire.
Won’t that decision cost a good man a good opportunity and a good job? Yes it will, but us white guys aren’t going to have any trouble finding SBC jobs anytime soon. There’s still plenty of white privilege to go around. Dr. Patterson seems to have landed on his feet, and I’m reasonably certain anyone who gets passed over for these five vacancies will find a good landing spot.
Isn’t this reverse racism? Would it have been discrimination based on age if I had taken my friend’s advice and intentionally hire a millennial to reach millennials? Here’s another illustration: the demographics of my hometown have changed dramatically in the last 10 years. There is a large Hispanic population. When my home church was looking for a pastor, I told my father, “The first thing your new pastor should do is to hire a Hispanic pastor”. He asked, “why?” I said, “Because you need a Hispanic to reach the growing Hispanic population”. Would it be racist if my home church hired a Hispanic to evangelize the Hispanic population?
I wouldn’t be writing this post if we only had one entity opening, but reality us we have five openings, and I’m convinced the resignations and retirements aren’t over. Dave Miller is right. We need to reach out to minorities, and this may be our best chance. This may be our last chance, at least for another couple of generations. Do we want to reach out to minorities or not? What’s the best way to reach out to minorities? Hire a minority to do the work.
I’m for hiring the best person for the job. There are many factors to consider.
Puzzles me why five vacancies trigger your thought on this but one or two would not. Aren’t the issues the same?
Five SBC entities each have one CEO slot to fill. The SBC will hire none of these.
…but I understand my colleagues’ interest and advocacy in the matter.
William: Then why not purposely hire a person of color that fits the demands? There are many that would qualify. Not considering race has certainly not worked so far. We still have all white in places of leadership sans a couple maybe. Hiring the best person for the job period is just not working.
Safe to assume that whomever is hired is hired purposefully. Also safe to assume race is considered among other factors. Also assume that whomever is hired is considered to be the best for the job.
Yeah but I also know what assuming does. 🙂
My goodness Debbie it looks to me as if your binders are on. I don’t want to get a job based on my gender or race. Affirmative action is every bit as sinful as not considering blacks. Have you ever considered that blacks don’t want to worship with us? What do we have to offer? We gossip about each other. We have long, ugly hateful rhetoric regarding reformed theology. It’s not our job to change the landscape of the church. It’s our job to follow the great commission to bring in the harvest of unsaved souls. Black people are not a project for us to ‘fix’. If they want to come to our churches, open the doors and welcome them. But that is not going to happen. For that matter, how many black churches have you attended? How dare we make them a project? If you feel guilty for what happened during slavery and Jim Crow laws then repent. We cannot undo what happened. Why do we want to bring in blacks instead of going to worship with them. Spend a month of Sundays worshipping with blacks. You will be in for a delightful experience.
Chief Katie: I don’t know where to begin to tear your comment apart. I could start anywhere. Wow.
Chief Katie,
Exactly!
My church sought [and still seeks] to reach out to the minorities that inhabit the new low income housing project and to those who have moved into the homes around us, so we brought in Shai Linne one Saturday to give a free concert in the hope that we could reach our neighbors. Many came to the concert, that had to be moved from the park into our church building due to rain. None remained at our church after Sunday.
But some did start going to the all black church down the road.
Was our concert a success?
Well if you measure success by the standard of the world: we were trying to become more diverse, than no, we failed.
But if you measure success Biblically, then where we planted or watered, another reaped, than yes, we were successful.
The goal isnt diversity in this world, that is if our goal is the same as God’s.
God’s goal is diversity in the next world. In Heaven.
Proclaim the Gospel and let God take care of His end.
He will even if we stumble.
P.S. For those that do not know, Shai Linne is a black Christian rapper.
Gotta love Shai. They are solid on biblical teaching. They are all about God getting the glory. Amen
Success is measured by souls in the Kingdom not our man-made buildings. Yesterday, I posted my history of living with blacks. It’s an education that most young people never get. I lived in Potrero Hills Housing Project. The population was mostly black. O.J. Simpson was my neighbor. The people held me at arms distance for awhile, but still were very welcoming. I married a black man when it wasn’t fashionable to do so. He was a solid Christian. I went to church with him and it was nothing short of joy. Uplifting and praising the Lord. As we traveled we sought out churches with a diverse congregation. In 17 years of marriage, we were unable to find even one. When I was teaching Hospital Corps school I had an epiphany or sorts. Whites sat with whites and blacks sat with blacks. Nothing wrong with that. People go where they are comfortable. I could have enforced a mandatory seating chart, but to what end. What made me the judge of how people should live their lives?
I’m done deciding what’s best for others. In fact it’s arrogant and sinful. I cringed when I read about the SBC forming a ‘task-force’ to fix what we think is best for others. What are we thinking? It’s the worst form of condenscension possible. We can’t even fix the SBC.
I applaud your efforts for the Kingdom. Nothing else matters in the end. Let the so-called wisest among us pile up their statistics, conclusions and rhetoric. The Bible says we are to love our brother as ourselves, and that does not mean deciding how other people live and especially not where they worship.
I think you are wrong Katie. And you are totally misrepresenting what the task force is as well as what anyone has said. I think a majority of black Americans would disagree with you as well.
You can think whatever you like. I’ve spent 3/4 of my life living, working and worshipping with the black community. The majority of black Americans are people, you don’t know.
Affirmative action is quite simply sinful. Some people use it to get ahead in the world… I give you Senator Elizabeth Warren who bullied Ben Carson ( a black man and world class physician, cabinet member) mercifully.
Your idea that if the SBC hires minorities, their congregations will likewise become diverse is not something you can begin to prove. Do you have any studies, statistics, or white papers?
As far as the taskforce, think back to where it was broached. I live there.
Black Americans are not victims. They are entitled to the same dignity that God gives all of His children.
https://sbcvoices.com/an-open-letter-to-steve-gaines-regarding-evangelism-taskforce-diversity/
“We did, however, notice that only two of the people chosen to serve on this taskforce are non-Anglo. This is at a time when approximately 20% of SBC churches are majority non-Anglo and 50% of NAMB church plants are ethnic minorities. The 2015 Executive Committee report on the SBC’s progress on racial reconciliation noted the great strides that have been made, but it also called on our leaders to make an even more concerted effort to include more minorities on future convention boards and committees. This kind of broad representation is especially needed with regard to evangelism. As the complexion of America continues to darken, we must increase our effectiveness at reaching people who look different than we do.”
This with quotes from Richard Land is still true today. http://www.bpnews.net/1258/sbc-task-force-calls-for-increased-emphasis-on-racial-reconciliation
I don’t think anyone here wants to treat minorities as victims. We just want to be more intentional in our outreach. We want to be more intentional in our inclusion. We want to say, “hey, we’ve repented and apologized for our racial sins of the past, now we want to go one step further and invite you to the table to help us all accomplish the great commission and reach the nations for Christ.” No one wants to treat anyone as a victim.
Tony,
How does getting a milennial help with witnessing to millennials? Because they relate to them where they are. I mean right where they are: personal proximity and personal relationship.
Having a minority president isnt the same. Minorities aren’t going to be saved because the president of Lifeway isnt white.
Thats just bad logic.
Thats not to say that the boards shoudnt seriously consider and hire a minority candidate.
Some more bad logic: Hiring a minority candidate will help the SBC reach out to minorities with the Gospel.
Really? Will the one I am witnessing to even know or care who the president of a seminary is much less his skin color?
No.
Will the minority couple looking for a church know or care, or should even consider the skin color of the president of the entities associated with the church they are looking at?
No, or at least highly unlikely.
To intentionally declare that we [whatever board] are going to hire a person based on skin color is discrimination and it is sinful.
It was sinful in the past and it is sinful now. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The purpose in hiring a millennial wa to reach millenials with the Gospel.
The purpose in hiring a president for an entity is not to reach minorities but as for a leader to run a business.
It would be great if any or all of the five boards hired a minority.
But it is wrong for them for that to be their stated purpose and thus discriminate on the basis of skin color.
Again, the Hispanic exampe does not fit.
The president of any of these entities is not hired to go and witness the Gospel to any or all minorities.
He isnt going to be, as the president and as his therein duties dictate, going to minorities across SBC land and witnessing to minorities so that the SBC has more saved minorities. His job is to run that entity.
Thus we are hiring a president to run an entity not reach out to minorities.
So letme ask you Tony, if a church is all white, how do they reach minorities? Do they have to ditch their white bivocational pastor and hire a minority one?
.
I’m not against hiring qualified minorities for on or any or for all five of the entities.
But quit trying to shoehorn the Gospel into the social justice cause.
Paul decalred that he was the apostle to the Gentiles.
No they told God, dont send Paul to the Gentiles, cause he is a Jew.
No they didn’t. And if they did, God would not have listened to them.
Listen God, we need a young guy to witness to the young folk, and Paul is a little, you know, getting up there.
Or, God, we need an old dude not like that younger middle aged Paul to reach the aged.
Or God, cant you send a woman with him becsuse how can we reach women with a man preaching?
Culture, skin color, age, gender, etc,. is the stuff of the social justice cause.
The Gospel transcends them all.
Its not the sex or the gender or the age or the ‘with it-ness’ of the messenger that wins souls to Christ: its the GOSPEL MESSAGE that the Holy Spirit uses to bring life from death.
The real problem, and I mean the REAL problem in our churches isnt how diverse we aren’t but that we are failing to take the Gospel to our neighbors, businesses, shopping marts, jobs, etc. Many believers in my church have a hard time articulating the Gospel Sunday mornings in the church buiding between Sunday School and the worship service. If they can’t say it there, in a friendly loving enviroment, how are they going to say it out in the world? I bet there are many in your-alls churches that have the same problem.
The power in the Gospel starts with its proclamation.
Phillipians 1
Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.
Said Paul the Jew about the witness to the Roman Gentiles and the proclaiming of the Gospel even by those who did not believe it:
“Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.”
Social Justice is NOT about the Gospel.
Good deeds cant change people’s hearts [stop sinners from sinning] and thus stop injustice.
Think about it please.
Beautifully written and stated.
Most people sitting in the pews don’t have any idea who is heading what organization within the SBC. This is why your (and Dave Miller’s) logic is flawed. I guess you could claim it will “filter” down eventually. What matters to church members is whether the people sitting next to them on Sunday (and other times) actually care. That doesn’t come from entity heads and never will. This has to be a bottom up, grass roots kind of thing. In the meantime, if any SBC entity decides to hire a minority candidate, good for them. It won’t hurt anyone – but I don’t see it having the kind of effect you and others seem to think.
It seems I have touched a nerve here. 🙂
Tony,
You sure have.
Your brotehrs in Christ love you and hate to see you in error.
Many blessings.
Thank you Tony for speaking this great truth. As the father of 4 minority children who absolutely noticed the new black superhero to be the first one they’d ever seen, I think some people are underestimating what it will do for our brothers & sisters of color to see us choose an entity leader that so happens to look like them. Deflection will always come from those who are ignorant. Keep up the good work.
Chris,
Ignorant of what?
Tony,
Isnt it through discussion that we learn and come together?
Here is how discussuon works:
You say something [the OP]
People [likeme] reply and some disagree.
You address their disagreements, either admitting you hadn’t thought of that, or how what they are saying isnt the case or however.
But here is what I hve found….
Social Justice warriors dont discuss what objectors bring up.
They comment on them like Chris Gordon did, if at all.
Instead of dealing with the actual objections, many respond by denigrating the objectors, as in his post calling them “ignorant.”
By the way Chris, my grandchildren, 3 oriental/white, 1 african black/white and one just white, also just saw for the first time the new black superhero. So what. They are all being taught to judge not by the color of a person’s skin but by the content of their character. Isnt that how we want America to be? Isnt that how we want people of all levels of melatonin in their skin to act?
And is that a real comparison:
How children react to a black superhero versus how grown mature adults react to the skin color of an entity head?
Really?
Dialogue is a continuing two way street.
I write my opinion and am blessed that the guys at Voices post it. It’s only my opinion. I generally don’t engage with comments or commenters online unless there’s a question about facts. I find arguing opinions back and forth via a comment stream on the internet to be unproductive. I try to read all the comments, but arguing back and forth with our opinions? I have better things to do.
How many mostly white churches would hire a minority to be their senior pastor?
Maybe such a question could be asked of those who serve on the BoT concerning such a choice the church they are at in… how their people would proceed if seeking a new Senior Pastor.
Can we be against hiring a minority just because they are a minority without being racist?
Can we be for hiring a minority because they are a minority without being racist?
I don’t think anyone here has racist motives, we just see things differently. The enemy is having a heyday with all of our talking at/about each other instead of talking to/with each other.
When does all of this get old?
Demographics are what they are. As years pass a greater proportion of people in the USA — [citizens or otherwise] — are non-white. Asians and Latinos are two groups which are growing relative to other races.
Regardless of who the entity heads are, SBC churches are going to have to be proactive reaching all ethnicities or we will be left in the dust. Here in Oklahoma City there are examples of Anglo churches selling their property and moving to the suburbs because “that’s where all of our members now live”. One such example is a church that moved from the Capital Heights neighborhood to a more suburban location. They sold their old building. That building was torn down by the new owner. Now that land is now an abandoned used car lot.
I don’t think the crucial question is “what about the ethnicity of the entity heads?”. Instead it is “Is the SBC headed slowly towards extinction because we don’t seek to integrate with the communities we are in.”
If we don’t examine the answer to the second question the answer to the first question is academic.
The reason I think we should consider joint ventures with non SBC Baptist groups is that we need to do something to correct the current situation where SBC churches are abandoning growing neighborhoods where the ethnic mix has changed drastically since the 1950s. This doesn’t sound to me like a growth strategy.
Whatever happens to the SBC I think change has to be from the bottom up — not top down. If every entity head was non-white that wouldn’t necessarily change the overall situation across our 45,000 congregations. The crucial question in the SBC is not what happens in Nashville or Richmond or with the seminaries. The question is how will the denomination — and its constituent congregations — deal with the realities of dramatic demographic changes — especially in larger cities.
A first order approximation of our situation is that we have too many churches in places where the population is declining and not enough churches — especially churches focusing on those of various ethnicities — in places [like Houston, etc.] where the population is booming. I don’t think churches can sit around and wait for some guy [or gal] from Nashville or Alpharetta to fix this problem.
BTW, can I ask a question. Someone stated that “Dr. Patterson is doing OK”. What happened to him since he left Southwestern?
Roger,
Thats right.
For right change, it must be bottom up.
Thats why the SBC will gain nothing with partnering with a different denomination. That’s a heads down solution.
Rather individual churches must see their need and the need of the people by staying where the need is or by paertnering with a local church that they are somewhat compatible with.
The question also might be, what does that local minority church gain by partnering with an SBC church?
But I am not concerned bout the SBC surviving.
I really appreciate the opportunities it gives a church like mine to participate in world and NA missions. And for us to aid in having great seminaries to graduate godly men and women from. But the SBC is a tool of God, and he will keep it as a tool until He is done with it. And when and if He is done with it, it would then no longer be worth being a part of.
Meanwhile, our church gives to the CP and seeks to up our ANNIE and LOTTIE giving from one year to the next. And we seek to proclaim the Gospel and help our neighbors in need. That is what we are called to do. And if the SBC changes/falters/disappears, we will lamnt it but the next day we will proclaim the Gosple and help our neighbors in need. And if we cant find a new mission group we trust, we will send the money on sending our own, even as we also do now. Like all SBC churches, we are independent from but affiliated with the SBC. And we thank God for what is done through it.
Jon,
I dont see anyone calling another racist in this here conversation.
I am hoping this thread does include some talking WITH eachother.
As to your first question:
Not many. But an all white church does not need to hire a non-white to pastor andyet still reach minorities. My church is mostly white. But since i have been going [not because I am going] the minorities have grown from one family to 6-8 families. My pastor and our elders are all white. And our church is growing in what the world calls diversity. Some of the new familes are young married millennials and yet we have no millennials on staff.
Many times i have seen a group of young people attract many more young people, since they are engaging in fun activities and there is a lot of energetic young adults they relate to. But often when the fun dies down, as it must at times, most of those new attractees disappear. They are on to the next church or group where the fun is. What changes hearts and minds is not how the world relates to each other [millennials to millennials for example] but how one grasps and perceives the Gospel. The Gospel changes people for the good. Nothing else.
Tony,
Thanks for your post. I got stuck in your first paragraph! Isn’t it hubris, or arrogance, or self-absorption, or something like that for a generation to assert that only their generation can reach them. I am flabbergasted. I also think this is an all-too common millennial view.
The guy who I had lunch with is not arrogant. I don’t think it was arrogant at all. I was asking how to reach millennials. His answer was the most effective way. I can work and work and work to reach millennials and I may and will reach a few, or I could train and equip a millennial who will probably be 10 times more effective.
My response Tony is how does he know that the best way to reach “the Millennials” is through other Millennials? No Gen Xer or older is gifted by God for that? How does he know that? That is the arrogance I speak of.
Chances of an established Baptist (SBC) church calling a black, Latino or Asian pastor. –Slim
Chances of a mission SBC church calling a black, Latino or Asian pastor–very good.
The “good will” on the part of those wanting to transform the old white SBC by forcing quotas and race-driven assignments is disingenuous at best.
Perhaps we need a “Mission SBC Convention”? –Since the old white one will have as much success as the local church.
Do we not recognize that our black, Latino and Asian brothers and sisters also have their preferences–and the way we whites do liturgy/music/emotion/prayer, etc might not be their cup of tea? This is why Americas big segregation day is Sunday, not because people are deliberately shunned for their skin color. (from my seat in the Georgia bleachers)
Are the mostly-black, Latino and Asian conventions/churches welcoming the old white male patriarchy to a point of contrived political correctness? Stats to show off anyone?
Are we discussing and working in preparedness for the increasing percentage of mixed-ethnicities that also find belonging to be a challenge?
If any of our churches, any brand, are purposely rejecting new members because of ethnicity (and I believe many still are) then we understand that evil persists and people err greatly. God will judge these churches/people accordingly and we must point them out for what they are.
If, however, Christians -in love- welcome-accept and disciple any and all people God sends to them, we understand a version of Christianity no different than AD100. They struggled in hiring over ethnicities even then.
I think if our entities in the Convention were more diverse, we would see churches become more diverse.
There are 5 positions to be filled. Of those 5, how many would we want to see filled with as minority? I am asking solely on the basis of the push to hire a minority as a priority to be more inclusive. How many as the 5 would be seen as sufficient?
I can recommend great men who would be labeled as a minority to 3 of the 5 without hesitation. I am sure there are many more who could lead, I just don’t know them well enough to recommend.
In answer to your question, let’s start with one. I think either NOBTS or SWBTS would benefit from a minority hire. I think IMB could possibly benefit from a minority hire, but they seem to need someone with extensive field experience, so I’m not sure how many minority candidates would fit those requirements. I’ve heard the name Kevan Smith? floated around as a candidate for EC, but I’m not certain how that would help except to show that we are serious about our words and we want to put them into action. I think the major beneficiaries would be seminaries. That way they could attract a more diverse group of students.
Choosing one may inadvertently look like a token choice. Not good or what we need to advertise in any way… If possible.
IMPO, the EC would be the best place to hire if only one was selected, due to its role within the whole SBC. Then the IMB.
I used to think it would look like stolen hire, and yes, we want to avoid that, but I thought back to 2012 and Bro. Luter’s election. I don’t think anyone saw him as a token black president, so it can be done.