Dr. David Hankins, Executive Director of the Louisiana Baptist Convention, has announced his retirement effective June 30, 2019. This newest announcement comes in the wake of a number of other recent highly visible SBC personalities stepping aside from leadership positions for various and sundry reasons.
Many people might know that Dr. Hankins and I have had our disagreements over the years but I wish he and his family nothing but the best as he transitions on to a new chapter in his life. Dr. Hankins was a faithful pastor, is a gifted speaker, and cared very much for the Southern Baptist Convention. I have said on numerous occasions, he has been one of most powerful men in the SBC for the last couple of decades.
His absence leaves a significant void in the Louisiana Baptist Convention. I am very hopeful that as the LBC moves forward, we will find a leader who will unify our convention, will encourage a big-tent mindset, will be deliberate in bringing various and diverse voices to the table from around the state and will help to lead our state further toward a 50/50 split as we seek even greater cooperation with our SBC entities.
You may find the full story at Baptist Press.
Will be interesting to see what changes a new generation of SC CEOs brings. There are quite a few in transition.
Change is coming in the SBC.
I also think change is in the wind. I don’t know why I am thinking this, but I think in my lifetime, and I’m 75 right now, there will a fairly marked change in leadership in the SBC — starting at the top. Specifically, I predict that we will have a president of the Southern Baptist Convention who is NOT a pastor or a former pastor. The person will be one of these: [a] a modern day incarnation of Charlotte Diggs Moon, or [b] a businessman or business women who is not ordained, [c] someone with former government and/or military service at a high level, or [d] someone with an academic background. In all cases the person would have to be a member of a cooperating Southern Baptist Church.
For item [b] or [c] I can think of a few people that are on the radar. I could mention names but this might be too bold a move right now since I have not done due diligence. Some of them are men and some of them are women. Some of them could have formerly been colonials or generals in the military or former congressmen or senators. Some of them could be former CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. What we need around here is some way to break up the good ole boy network.
One way to do this would be to bring in someone that has a solid Christian witness that is a member of an SBC church but is not part of “the network”. This same person would not be beholden to — or owe favors to — anyone else. He wouldn’t be afraid to break a few pieces of China.
Believe it or not there are a couple of names that come to mind who hang out right here in Oklahoma.
I’m not sure that “non-pastor” and “non-networked” are necessarily equivalent. In fact I would imagine there are many non-pastors of high social status that are very much connected with many of the well-known sbc pastors. Conversely, I could imagine there are many pastors who are not.
And while I don’t necessarily thing friendship with a past president is an automatic disqualifier, or is somehow nefarious, I do agree that perhaps going a different direction could be good, and do think that last years non-celeb pastors conference is a good model to follow.
To the rank and file SBC’er, do y’all think the difference will be noticed? Aside from ‘not a good ole boy’, what do you think will change?
Blake, as a very average rank, very rank and file SBC pew sitter based on past history the I think, the average SBC’er will not know or care about the changes that are happening. The old guard is being replaced in all areas by the new guard as the frog in the frying pan guys like me does not notice. It is a generational and cultural change that is inevitable as the majority of SBC members are trusting and complacent. I do not think ti will end well for the SBC as an organization as when the “majority” of conservative SBC members realize the direction of SBC leadership and the stealth like changes in SBC culture it will be too late. It is demographics, cultural change and success that will lead to the SBC following the path trod by the mainline churches as they made a progressive march. The lack of transparency and the trusting nature of the SBC membership will become apparent one day but it will be too late.
In most everything I see and read leadership is as committed to The Bible as ever. I think we are seeing them grapple anew with longstanding issues we have, such as race relations, but I don’t really sense a mass defection toward progressive theology.
Blake, of course the leadership of the SBC are committed to the Bible. It is the emphasis, interpretation, understanding and teachings from the Bible that may “evolve” as they say. I see a little of the creeping in that while abortion is important , a prime issue but how we treat people After they are born is just as important, that “we” only care about people who we are similar to, racism , pro immigration law enforcement is not Biblical, sexist and Islamophobia is on the same level as being opposed to abortion of unborn , innocent babies. Just seeing the nose of the camel in the tent, in my opinion.
I am old enough to remember the old days when the “dress” code was pretty standard to attend church services. Little by little the dress code is now pretty well gone as society and culture and a new generation took over. This is a bad analogy but I hope it conveys my concern. When you tell a person under 40 years old to put on their Sunday best, what would they put on? that would be different than Monday best. An example of how changes comes in inches until now the Easter dress and new clothes for kids is a memory of people like me, who urge you to get off their lawn.s
Just curious. Do you see the cultural and generational changes as inherently bad?
MIke Richardson, of course generational and cultural change is not bad, the only thing that does not change is that there will always be change. We pass on our knowledge and our heirs build upon it. Generational and cultural change can be good or bad. In the SBC for instance I would like to see more transparency, more accountability, less top to bottom bureaucratic structure and more involvement from the SBC members I believe the SBC should rethink it where it is going on new church plants, relationships with non SBC groups that “morph” into having SBC influence and moving into a cultural and social direction most SBC members do not support.
To sum up the SBC needs to remember what group really supports the SBC and at least give much consideration in their viewpoints. Change for change sake and to “attract” people with anything other than the Gospel is to be avoided.
steve, [or is it clint?](-:
The dress code was wrong to begin with. Most NT Christians didnt have but one set of clothes. Millions of Christians today, especially those living south of the equator dont have Sunday best clothes. And many here in the USA do not own a suit or can afford one. America is a rich country and someties we let our way of being to be the norm for right thinking when it is not. The idea that we must dress upto go to Gods house, the church building, belied the truth that we were God’s house, the Church. It put the emphasis on the outer man and took away from the place where we need the most reconciliation: our hearts and minds: the inner man.
It got people looking at each other’s clothes and some feeling better and others worse: feeling like they didn’t belong. Nothing wrong with wearing a suit. Nothing wrong with not wearing one.
Leave the dress codes for the high faluting country clubs.
M White, I stated it was a terrible analogy but my point was not lobbying for a dress code but now once “change” is set in motion there is no going back. Of course no person would advocate for a formal dress code and of all the issues on the subject of change this is the least but it is illustrative. Children use to know that going to church was special and it was a special day . As most people attend churches in their neighborhood or social economic group the definition of Sunday best was relative. I refer to Little House on the Prairie , where the Ingall family and the neighbors each wore their Sunday best, no big deal but they by their dress and conduct were in a special place for worship. Just to be clear, I do not disagree with you about clothes indicate anything but an outward appearance. However coming from very humble background I know the people in the poor little church my Grandmother and Mother drug me. to dressed the best they could. No one ever mentioned, was critical or mocked or made anyone feel uncomfortable about their clothing. However it was the “norm to dress as good as you could . It was a voluntary show of respect , not required but honored as a tradition not a requirement. New Easter clothes was a big event even in our poor environment because if ever little girls and boys got new outfits it was Easter.
I am of course citing my USA experience and again share your viewpoint, because we know Jesus accepts us as we are not as we dress. People dress down now to be comfortable and to me , an old geezer, it takes away from the idea that the corporate worship gathering is special and we should try to convey that.
As I stated it was not a good analogy but one I , only I , feel is illustrative . I do think that how people dress affect their actions and attitude toward the place they are in. When my wife makes me go to a top tier restaurant where whether it is stated or demanded by diner peer pressure, the mood, the tone, the atmosphere is changed by the more formal clothes.
However you are absolutely correct and represent the vast majority and that is a change from fifty years ago and we are not turning back. Even resturants have a no shirt, no shoes, no service policy, just being silly. Come as you are is certainly the policy of all churches now and backed by popular support but I think we lost something.
Steve et al:
I think you are on to something. I don’t want to put words in your mouth but one aspect of what you are saying is that because the “social fabric” is unraveling, any organization, such as the SBC, is becoming a dinosaur. People are so unattached that they just sit home and stare at the TV or hang out in their favorite chat room. They don’t join any church or go to the Elks Club or the local lodge or anything else. They don’t even hang out with their friends playing poker on Friday night.
I guess I’m guilty as charged. I have not been involved in my SS Class [more formally known as a ‘Connection Group’] for several years because I have been taking care of my wife, who has MS and needs what is tantamount to 24/7 care. My wife went to a Long Term Care Center last week and so I went back to Sunday School for the first time in a couple of years. It is a miracle that the rafters of the building didn’t collapse.
Let me ask another question. In today’s society where things are not very hierarchical who says that the SBC even needs a president? Couldn’t the entities survive if all we had was a nominating committee made up on 2 people from each state convention who picked the nominees for the BoT of each of the entities. Under this scenario the Exec Committee would become an “entity”. Many successful operations have shed layers of management and never missed them. There would still be an annual meeting. A pastor from the host city would give the annual sermon. Each entity would give its report as usual. The exec committee would direct that someone act as the chairman of the meeting to hear motions etc. He/she would be assisted by a “professional” parliamentarian as per current practice.
Who knows if we need to act on resolutions at the annual meeting? I’ll leave that questions for others to ponder.
Here is a question for you? Why does the IMB [or any other entity] need so many members on the BoT? Wouldn’t a measly 20 members suffice? During certain year pairs a given state might only send a BoT member to half of the agencies. Then they would only send a BoT members to the other half in opposite years. This way there would equal representation on the BoTs from each state and the total number of people on all boards would be a small integral value times the number of state conventions.
Sorry to hear about your wife having to go to the care center.
Change is coming. I don’t know what it will be.
Many of the younger leaders tend to have a more collegial style – less imperial. But that is not universal. We will see. I don’t know whether the change is good or bad, but change we must.
I am hoping a lot will change and we will be as fruitful and cooperative as I think we were in Dallas this year.
Blake, a change in the Exec brought a massive chance to Florida. We went from a 57/43 split with Florida keeping 57% to 51/49 real with the 51% going to the CP. Dr. Tommy Green announced this week that in addition to the 51% we send to the CP, that everything above our $30 million budget with go to the CP in its entirety. We gave our whole state missions offering to Send South Florida (over $700,000). If you think I am proud of being a Florida Baptist, you’re right.
An exec can make a big difference.
Wow. That is a difference. An awesome one.
That’s impressive. I’ve always doubted that the CP split could be adjusted incrementally. Different states have differing issues.
Ya gotta love this from the Baptist Press article: “he grew Trinity Baptist Church in Lake Charles from 2,500 members to nearly 3,500.”
No need for the Holy Spirit or for any laymen, I suppose?
Paul planted, Apollos watered; but David Hankins gave the increase? (1 Cor 3:6, New Baptist Press Version).
If change is coming, I hope it starts with this foolishness.
Roger, you mentioned that SBC agencies/institutions could function with fewer trustees. Actually, several institutions have downsized their trustee boards. I know that Southern Baptist Seminary did this; and, if I remember correctly, so did the IMB. Beyond that, the IMB trustees meet less often than in the past. The institutions made these changes in order to save money. The large boards (many trustees) were an effort to give all the state conventions representation on the various boards. We can understand that motive, but it resulted in big boards and expensive meetings.
Mark:
I did not know that some agencies had trimmed the number of trustees and/or reduced the number of trustee meeting per year. I wonder if the management of any entity been negatively changed because of fewer trustee meetings per year or fewer trustees at any given meeting. My guess is the answer is no.
Similarly, couldn’t we eliminate one whole layer of machinery in our overall setup? Right now we have associations, state conventions, and then the national entities. These both cooperate, and sometimes “compete”, with each other. For example what used to be “home missions” — now NAMB — sometimes bumps into what states and/or associations are doing. This layout grew up organically. However, if we were starting again from scratch would we setup something like this?
If we brought in high powered management consultants from the Wharton school they would probably re-draw the SBC org chart. Well of course there is no org chart because every layer of the cake is autonomous. No one is claiming that efficiency is part of the equation. In fact, there are no metrics for efficiency. It is really a free market system on steroids. Layers compete for funding based upon a mixture of historical precedent and effective marketing.
I wonder about the allocation of resources across all of our operations? How much is the annual budget of First Baptist Church of Holly Grove MS per member compared to the per member budget of Cedar Creek Baptist Megachurch in suburban Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas, or Oklahoma City? I don’t know the answer to this question. My guess is there is quite a large dichotomy. If so is this a good thing?
Roger, you’ve raised good questions. Sixty years ago this is the way the SBC functioned. The Sunday School Board (now Lifeway) staff would decide to implement a new program. The staff would call a meeting and communicate this to the Sunday school directors for the state conventions. They in turn would call a meeting and pass on the information to the associational directors of missions, and they would call a meeting of the pastors and Sunday school directors at the churches in their associations. Now, of course, because of the internet information is available instantly. You are right in stating that our system is archaic, but our SBC polity works against change. You understand correctly that each level of SBC life is autonomous: church, association, state convention, and national convention. You are also correct in writing that we have redundancy in the SBC, especially between NAMB and the state conventions. NAMB tries hard to alleviate that problem by negotiating Cooperative Agreements with each state convention. These are memorandums of understanding in which NAMB and the state convention agree on what projects will be done and how the projects will be funded (amount provided by NAMB and the state convention). NAMB also holds meetings with state missions directors and evangelism directors to coordinate efforts.
I am sure that is better than it decreased under his leadership.