The IMB search committee is announcing its intention to nominate Dr. Paul Chitwood, the Executive Director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, as the next president of the International Mission Board. The official vote will be held Nov. 15.
I have never met Dr. Chitwood but several of my friends, some of them part of the SBC Voices team, have. Every one of them speaks of him in the highest terms, both as to his character and his competence. The Kentucky convention is a large convention and Dr. Chitwood has led it well. A friend told me privately that he was the best executive director he has worked with in his long experience in Baptist life. Dr. Chitwood has unquestioned credentials as a Baptist statesman, has a long-standing commitment to the SBC’s Cooperative Mission, and is an able administrator.
He seems well fit to lead the SBC’s flagship entity, but there are some questions that have come up in private discussions about this nomination over the last couple of weeks – questions I hope will be answered by Dr. Chitwood in his announcement or soon thereafter. I have contacted Dr. Chitwood privately to ask these questions but to this point have received no response. This is not exactly surprising. I am guessing that he is fairly busy. However, I hope to hear his response at some point.
First, I have written about the importance of the president of the IMB having field experience. Dr. Chitwood’s only IMB experience was as chairman of the IMB Board of Trustees several years ago. That certainly gives him some insight into the workings of the IMB but does not give him the insight into the lives of missionaries that is needed. I’ve spoken to missionaries (active and retired) and they often feel that their needs are not taken into account in decision-making by upper management in Richmond, especially in recent years. David Platt’s closest advisor, like Platt, had no field experience and missionaries were hoping this would change with a new president. There may be further information coming in the near future to address this issue.
Those of us who have been around a long time have questions about the IMB policies that Dr. Chitwood was involved in developing, according to reports. They became a source of great controversy for the SBC and were formative in the development of SBC blogging. David Platt reversed those policies – the ones on private prayer language – while he was at the IMB. It would be good to know if Dr. Chitwood intends to reinstitute more restrictive policies at the IMB or if he intends to live with the policy guidelines in place now. I am sure some would like to reignite those wars but I have no desire to see those battles resurrected!
Of course, the biggest question for the future of the IMB is what Dr. Chitwood’s missiological focus will be. David Platt made some changes in the direction and focus of the IMB. Are they being brought in to continue what Dr. Platt started or to undo it and return the IMB to its pre-Platt direction? Inquiring minds want to know. Time will tell, of course.
I am disappointed that the IMB Search Committee did not present someone with field experience as their presidential candidate, but every person I have spoken with who knows Dr. Chitwood tells me he is more than capable. If my friends who know him are correct, he may be precisely the man that the IMB needs at this point. That is certainly my prayer.
I am sure that Paul Chitwood is a fine pastor and denominational leader, but it is disappointing that the IMB Trustees DID NOT listen to the field’s number one requirement: that our next president have extensive experience as an IMB missionary! What were they thinking?? As an IMB missionary, I am not happy about this one bit. Out of 4000 of us on the field, the trustees couldn’t fine one suitable candidate?
1. How many employees get to have that kind of input into who their next boss will be and can speak out publicly without fear of retribution? Almost none. You are more privileged than most folks in that regard.
2. In recollecting people I met at the IMB while I was on the field, I don’t recall meeting any that had the skill set to lead a global organization. I was in a part of the world with a lot of seasoned missionaries and I’m telling you that extensive field experience, even if your a team or group leader is not really comparable to the robust skill set needed to lead the entire organization.
3. I’m not saying it will never happen, but it is unlikely, in this modern age, that someone that spent 15-20+ years on the field will be selected as a final candidate for IMB president. They could serve a great advisory role (perhaps an employee advisory panel could be helpful in this case), but I don’t care where you’ve served or how faithful you’ve been, it ain’t RIchmond and all the complexities that come with overseeing 4000 missionaries scattering from Izhevsk to Timbuktu.
Wow, that’s a rather dismissive attitude toward what is a very important aspect of this ministry position. Your anecdotal evidence is simply not convincing (you’ve met some missionaries who, in your limited opinion, would not be good candidates for this position).
Then, your third point is incredibly cynical and, I would suggest, a lot of what is wrong with our denomination today.
My anecdotal evidence is limited, but tell me where it’s wrong. Now, I’ve known many great missionaries, but a great missionary and effective leader of a mission organization are two very different things. It’s like insisting that the CEO of UPS have spent most of his career as a delivery driver. Please spell out what this career missionary looks like that is ready to take the helm of such a large and complex organization.
Dave just made the best response below. However, let’s consider the secular world for a moment (although, I’m not convinced that the secular world is always the best model we ought to be following – show me where I’m wrong 😉 ).
Many organizations have been well led by those who have much experience in that specific field, while many have been run in the ground by those who were brought in from the outside specifically for their “managerial/administrative” abilities. I’m not fully engaged with the scholarly literature in business administration/management (my old field was political science), but I’d suspect that the success rate of those leaders who have a solid background in the organization (or, at least, in the specific field) is significantly higher (statistically speaking) than those who do not.
Organizational culture, inertia, traditions, expectations, etc, etc, all play a role here. We’ve heard from so many of our missionaries in the field that they would like to have someone who is “one of them” – who truly knows and understands the challenges they face. Why are we so willing to callously dismiss their desires?
This is about more than simply a business decision. We simply cannot reduce it to that alone (or even that as the primary evaluative criterion).
Missionaries often rise from field service to administrative service to regional oversight. I don’t think anyone assumes someone would be plucked from serving in a small village to run the IMB, but I could see someone who is in upper level management after beginning as a field missionary have the requisite leadership abiility.
Why do you think being a missionary is disqualifying for leading the IMB?
Being a missionary does not disqualify someone from leading the IMB, but going from the field, even regional leadership, to President is a large leap and would take a very special person. I’m not saying that person won’t ever exist, but we shouldn’t be surprised if they don’t. I am not disparaging missionaries. I was one. There are very smart ones, but I don’t think we should look at the field as a pipeline to leadership.
I really want to give Dr. Chitwood a chance. Yet we live in a time when ideological loyalty seems to have become the primary criteria for leadership. Therefore, I think it’s fair for us to ask some hard questions about this appointment. Are missionaries with actual field experience sometimes viewed as ideologically “unreliable” because the facts they bring to the table can disrupt the trustees’ narrative? I think this is a question that must be asked; I saw this kind of thing first hand as a NAMB appointed missionary. I’m not accusing the trustees of this but I think it’s a fair question.
I understand what you mean when you say that many field missionaries don’t have the robust skill set to lead the IMB, but I refuse to believe there wasn’t somebody from within some structure of the IMB that was qualified.
Us on the field wanted someone who has walked and lived in our shoes. Someone who understands what it is like to live many many years away from home. Someone who has battled against the evil one in the tough rural and urban places in the world. Someone who has experienced having a sick child with no trusted doctor for 20 hours. Someone, who despite the immense challenges the field presents, perseveres and forges ahead for the cause of Christ. Someone who truly understands us and can represent us faithfully. We wanted someone we could identify with.
Having said all that, Paul Chitwood will be our president and IMB missionaries will pray for him and give him a chance. Who knows, he may be what the IMB needs right now. God put him in this position despite never having been a missionary and we ultimately will trust in his sovereignty.
As far as your point #1 goes, any employee who is a shareholder or a stakeholder in a company that is set up like the IMB would not only have input into who their next boss should be, but they would also have a vote in the matter.
The President of the IMB doesn’t “lead” a global organization. He leads the department heads and small group of executive level employees who lead the organization as it is segmented into departments of operation. Most of those department execs have been on the mission field, and I would strongly disagree that there aren’t any of them capable of leading the IMB.
The denominational and church-related institutions I’ve worked for do not allow trustees or former trustees to be employed by the organization especially as long as there are still trustees on the board who served at the same time. There’s a reason for separating those roles and relationships.
So in spite of all of the conversation about who might be considered and all of the talk of open opportunity, the trustees turned inward and picked one of their own.
Are you currently on the field?
I share some of the questions that are articulated in this article. I’d guess that the candidate is highly attuned to the needs of career overseas personnel.
I support the choice and pray for a long, stable, and fruitful tenure.
Second this question
I’ve know Paul Chitwood for a long time. He studied with me at Southern Seminary, and he took my PhD seminar on missions strategy. So, at least we’re sure that he has good understanding of strategy. 🙂 He earned his PhD in evangelism at Southern Seminary, and then he served effectively at a big suburban church and more lately as the Executive Director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. He served two full terms on the IMB’s board of trustees and also served as chairman of the trustees. He knows missions; he knows the IMB; and he knows organizational leadership/administration. So, I believe he will serve Southern Baptists well in this position. I trust he will choose an executive VP who has extensive field experience as a missionary.
Good questions. I hope some of these issues will be clarified.
I wrote this article in advance, based on information I was given, some of which has not, at least to this point, been announced (about a nomination for Executive VP). I was in a meeting when the nomination was announced and the post went up with the original information.
I thank the team for correcting it while I was unavailable and I apologize for giving information that is either a) inaccurate or b) premature.
I really hate that we will have to give him up as our Exec in Kentucky Baptist life. He has certainly proven to be an exceptional leader of the KBC. It is my opinion that Dr. Chitwood shall serve the SBC well as President of the IMB.
Now, we will have to find someone to fill his shoes here in Kentucky. That’s going to be a big chore.
Get healthy, CB. I am sure you will be on the short list.
Infidel
Dave,
Baptist Press’ article shows significant missions activity on the short term basis. While that’s not the same as career, I am certain the amount of time he has put in as a missionary (short term) and his many other leadership positions do give him an edge.
I second your concerns about a reverse on certain policies from the Platt era.
Hey Dave, I’ve worked with Dr. Chitwood closely as a pastor through the Kentucky Baptist Convention. He’s the best of the best, both as an administrator and as a denominational leader, as well as a shepherd. I promise you, you won’t find anyone better for the position. While I’m sad for our Commonwealth, I’m excited for the nations.
I have heard SEVERAL testimonials from Kentucky Baptists who say he is a wonderful choice.
How old are his kids? In my opinion, this job requires more travel than is advisable for someone still raising theirs.
From a younger foster child to grown.
Here’s an article from a little more than 5 years ago.
https://sbcvoices.com/when-a-leader-leads-dr-paul-chitwoods-response-to-campbellsville-university/
I’m very, very pleased with the selection of Dr. Paul Chitwood. I dare to hope that a person who took the positions that Dr. Chitwood took ten years ago can serve the SBC well.
Since I have advocated you for just about every opening that comes up, I believe you know I think that is the case. But I don’t really want to revisit those days (or those policies).
I should’ve made it clear that I was addressing the crowd, not the author. Sorry.
Bart . . . you’ve always been clear. Crystal. 🙂
As a field guy, I’m cautiously hopeful, as always.
We need someone who the rank and file SBC member will respect. We need someone who knows how to lead an organization, and a guy who knows how to connect with the churches which support the work. On all counts, Chitwood seems to be a proper fit. As always, the lack of resident field experience causes some worry. Yes, I know about the mission trips and trustee gig; it’s not nearly the same thing, as I imagine even our presumptive president would agree..
Of course, there’s no reason to assume this lack of residential field experience will inevitably lead to Dr. Chitwood’s failure. Despite concerns, field personnel will pray and hope for his success.
Of greater concern to me is what some view as being a lack of qualified IMB field personnel. We used to promote from within, picking former field leaders who had risen to the top by whatever means. Platt broke that pattern, and Chitwood’s appointment continues that deviation.
To what do we attribute this lack? Do we blame the VRI that devastated our veterans? Have leaders in the last 10 years stopped raising up the gifted and called, thus eliminating a solid pool of applicants? Or has the SBC changed, following our culture’s tendency for tribalism to the degree that people want a president who thinks like they do, someone from this side of the ocean?
For every pastor search, presidential search, custodial search—you name it—you define your ideal candidate and then you look at your candidates and realize that your ideal candidate has not applied (does not exist on Planet Earth, generally speaking).
My ideal IMB President would have extensive on-field experience PLUS extensive experience as a pastor PLUS extensive experience in denominational service. He would be an amazing preacher, an exceptional administrator, and be a licensed CPA. I completely understand why on-field missionaries would like to have someone with field experience as a missionary (as would I). Can field missionaries understand why the churches who support the work would like to have someone who also can build good relationships between the IMB and the churches? Wouldn’t it be good to have someone who can relate well to the apparatus of our convention? I’m 100% comfortable with the desire that the IMB President be someone with field-missionary experience so long as that desire is situated among desires that are representative of other IMB constituencies.
Now, with all of that having been said, when they look at the actual candidates who are available, if they go with someone who has no pastoral experience whatsoever, I’m still going to be supportive of that president. Do I think that having pastoral experience is an asset to an IMB president? Absolutely. But the candidate who has all of the strengths I want him to have probably does not exist.
Every hire is a compromise.
So, the next key question is whether the president staffs to supplement the areas of compromise. I’m sure Paul will do that.
It is my understanding that he intends to hire an Executive VP with extensive field experience.
I believe IMB personnel know there’s more than one constituency here, or at least two sides to the matter. One is the field, and the other is the body of churches. And yes, churches need to be able to relate to the organization via a relatable leader. And yeah, Chitwood just might turn out to be that perfect fit for churches.
Perhaps the extreme disconnect arises from emphasizing which aspect of the office of the president should be more important. The field says “Field experience” and churches say “someone like us.” As you’ve astutely noted, nobody’s perfect.
It is my opinion he will do at the IMB what he did at the KBC. He will surround himself with spiritual and capable admin staff without a single “yes man” among them. One of the reasons he has done well in KY is because he made good choices in administrative hires. We have some godly and capable leaders in the KBC, far better than some state conventions in which I served.
Disappointed.
Woke up this morning on the other side of the world to read/hear this both from Richmond and here.
He may be the most wonderful person/leader in the world, but he still doesn’t have any field experience; not even three or four years.
I feel sad and tired.
Once again, we on the field have been disregarded. What most of us felt was a huge need in the way of a leader was disregarded. It just feels like our concerns really don’t matter or play any part in the decision making.
I don’t believe our opinions are irrelevant; but it does feel that way at times. Add in the near unanimity of field opinions on this, and the choice of a non-field personnel looks even more like a blowing off of our opinions.
Perhaps trustees simply have different priorities than we do in this one matter, and while our opinions are on the list, it’s only one of many issues they consider.
Hello brothers, please also remember that the IMB is a massive organization with many on the field. So we can’t necessarily say they “didn’t listen to the missionaries” because some missionaries wanted a guy with field experience. Maybe there were many who said otherwise, and they listened to those missionaries too, and prayerfully decided what was best for everyone as a whole? Do not lose heart JG!
I know that those on the field wanted someone with field experience. One third of the force just left the field because the last three presidents were not strong fundraisers. The board needs a fundraiser so that the rest of you can remain and more can be sent. Hopefully chitwood will be a great ambassador and fundraiser for the work and will let those experienced in field work handle that part under his supervision.
Platt was certainly a fundraiser. I don’t see any evidence that Chitwood has a history as a fundraiser. Also, if he had not field experience but had been a church planter, that would have been a reasonable compromise. Also, the IMB has an urban focus, and I understand his experience hasn’t been in church planting, overseas church planting, or urban ministry. The IMB president must do much more than raise funds. He ultimately is responsible for direction and overall strategy. He might be a great guy, but we also need a good communicator. In his role with the KBC, he found his way into many debates (casinos, senate races, NRA, etc.). If he comes with this attitude to the IMB it will be detrimental to our work overseas if he is tied to our work. We need someone who is at least culturally astute enough to stay out of these kinds of arguments. I hope he can do this. Unfortunately, there is not erasing all the YouTube videos that exist.
One third of the force did not leave the field because the last three presidents were not strong fund raisers. It was because staff and trustees made poor financial decisions with the money and resources they had. It is not the job of the president of the IMB to be a fund raiser. It is has job to lead the IMB in strategy decisions and communicate the need to reach the world with the message of salvation. The fund raising will take care of itself if the churches hear that our missionaries are carrying out their call with respect to the Great Commission.
It was also because the method decided on by Platt and Sebastian was to sacrifice the career missionaries with the most experience to make up for the mistakes of board staff and trustees.
You’ve got four comments here and I always appreciate your input as a retired mssy. Your first one, I agree with completely. It has the ring of SBC political reality.
The last one, the one this reply addresses, is unfair and dishonest in that it ignores critical facts but one presumes it reflects your emotional state relative to the IMB’s recent travails. If you could manage to avoid ridiculous statements like DP and ST “sacrifice[d] the career missionarys with the most experience” I would find your contributions more credible.
For the record, no mssy was “sacrificed.” All voluntarily accepted retirement or resignation packages. There were a number of bad choices. The choice made was the least bad and not one person has made a credible case for any other solution that would have been more palatable.
I do appreciate your clear eyed indictment of the two previous IMB administrations which allowed the crisis to grow to the point where only catastrophic solutions would fix it.
Thanks for you comment William. I do appreciate what you offer to this board.
I did regret using the word sacrifice because it was probably too strong for those on this board to understand. I went back to change it, but it was too late to edit. I was going to say, “Platt and Sebastian decided to ask the career missionaries with the most experience to make up for the mistakes of board staff and trustees.”
That being said, I do not think the term sacrifice was unfair, dishonest or ridiculous. I was on the field during the VRI decision making time. You were not. I met with, discussed with and counseled several missionaries in the VRI process. Many missionaries I know would agree with my use of the word sacrifice. Some were given options that made them feel like they had no choice. It is true however that it reflects my emotional state and I understand others not agreeing with me.
From the field…. Concerning his time on the Board, what responsibility does he have for being complicit in any cover-ups (including but not limited to the one that Wade Burleson was censored over)? Also, does he bear any responsibility for the fiscal mismanagement that sent over 1000 of our colleagues back to the US?
I would like to hear answers to all of these questions s well. And also your question about Landmarkism below.
Knowing Wade, he probably will post some insights on this on his blog.
And, is he a Landmarker?
Zane Pratt, Edgar Aponte, and John Brady are 3 VPs that heavily influence field ops and they all have field experience. Why is it so important to have a president that has field experience as well? So far, on this board, that answer has essentially been empathy from the very top.
Several on here have been talking about how Platt destroyed the IMB with his VRI and other policies. I know lots of folks who came home because of it and weren’t happy, but he had to do it, in part, because the previous presidents kicked the fiscal can down the road. The IMB didn’t get in bad fiscal shape overnight. What could he do differently? Put yourself in his shoes. Your mission organization is hemorrhaging money and you’ve got missionaries in places that have a Gospel presence and in some cases with local baptist associations that are perfectly capable of plant churches without IMB personnel there. Platt chose the greater good over bolstering is reputation because he was increasing the number of missionaries. I believe he was able to see clearer because he didn’t have all the emotional baggage of all those years on the field.
How do you think things would have been different if Platt had served at least one career term somewhere or was promoted from regional leadership to the President?
No one on this particular board is denigrating the job Platt did, and especially not with the VRI and HRO. You are correct: He was dealt a bad hand and he did the best anyone could have done with it. While folks disagree freely on the approach his team took, no one disputes that there were hard decisions and he addressed them head-on.
I believe the objections being raised point towards some of his less prominent decisions, and how those decisions seemed to flow out of the lack of field experience; more specifically, how did Platt’s inexperience on the field lead to mistakes and how might we see this pattern repeated in another field-deprived president?
For example, a large number of new Richmond hires knew nothing of life on the field, and it showed in their decision-making and expectations. I’m referring to the non-leadership or lower-level leadership folks. As well, Edgar Aponte – a great guy and VP of mobilization – came in without knowing the IMB. Another fine man (and I mean that) Sebastian Traeger, Exec. VP, knew nothing of life on the field and how Richmond decisions trickle down and impact field people. There was, in the minds of many field folk, a certain disconnect as a result. Again, this is not to attack the character of those selected nor of those doing the selecting, but to question the soundness of choosing those particular policy-makers and policy-implementers.
There will always be a certain discordance between Richmond and the field simply because there’s no way to keep in mind every conceivable culture and scenario. However, knowing the field from an experiential perspective keeps this disconnect (potentially) from overwhelming matters.
That said, if Dr. Chitwood ascends to the office, folks around the world will pray for him, give him grace to learn the job, and will continue to push forward wherever and however they can.
How do you think things would have been different if Platt had served at least one career term somewhere or was promoted from regional leadership to the President?
I don’t want to debate specific decisions because that sounds petty and critiques individuals who aren’t here to offer a different perspective. Let me just repeat what I said earlier, and hope that addresses your question: some of the internal decisions and Richmond-based hires would have unfolded differently. There were decisions made which Richmond viewed as sound only to reverse them later; to which the field responded “Had your decision-makers been around longer, they would have known…” I’m not talking about viewing every mistake as a referendum on the leaders, but a pattern of decisions which seemed (and that’s an important word) to flow partially from a lack of awareness as to what works and what doesn’t, what hurts the work and what helps. And many of these decisions seemed to trace back to advisory groups or decision makers who lacked an understanding of the organization.
Even so, these were honorable people doing the task as best they could. They deserve more praise than critique, and indeed the only reason we’re offering an implied criticism is because of the similarities in hiring.
Thanks for the questions, Blake.
Ethan, was there an obvious candidate that field workers favored? I realize you may not want to name someone at this point, but I’m curious whether there was an obvious choice, or whether support would’ve splintered multiple ways.
I’m clueless on specific names. No one shared that with me. I’m just a lowly field guy. The consistent refrain, both stated and implied, has been, “Please – a field guy this time….but we’ll love and prayerfully support the org no matter which direction it goes.”
The Global Cities Initiative was a bust. Most leaders said, we’ve tried this. It has to be done differently. Then, there were major problems with its implementation, and it took 20 percent of the total budget. This is an area that across the board was regarded as badly implemented and where some affinity leaders and cluster leaders were ignored.
There was a disconnect with language an culture acquisition and what pathways Ms could really contribute without these. So, it’s great to connect to US churches, but if they haven’t served it’s a HUGE learning curve to figure out where they could fit best long term. Often, people who haven’t served assume life is like a short-term mission trip, and it rarely is. Often short term opportunities are very ineffective and provide a picture of our task that is much different than the real issues with which we deal.
Also, we don’t need a political president. Chitwood has at least shown in KY that he is very involved in political issues. We can’t have people from other countries identifying IMB with a US political party. It could be detrimental to relationships with others who don’t care where we fit politically or even to foreign governments. We need a neutral president as far as his online presence. In the country where I serve if they see Chitwood’s NRA interview about giving guns out to encourage people to go to church, they would label us extremists, we would have visa issues, etc. This is not hypothetical. Everyone I know who knew we were with IMB, googled us, and told us something about Tom Elliff or David Platt. Fortunately, it was all positive. I’ll be very careful sharing about my organization at the fear someone will google our probable new president. This isn’t his fault, but it doesn’t make him a good choice.
We can’t just say, “IMB personell around the world will pray for him, so everything will be alright.” Yes, we should pray for our leaders. It’s okay, and not un-Christian to say your opinion: “This was a bad/unwise choice.” I pray for the foreign leaders in the country where I serve, but it doesn’t mean that I think they were good choices as leaders. Believing in God’s sovereignty doesn’t mean that every decision is magically a good one. It means we can trust God regardless of what we as Southern Baptists do. I certainly don’t think God is relying on us to get the decision right so He can act, but I also don’t think it’s irrelevant who we choose to lead.
Ethan there are some on this board and many among the missionaries I know who disagree with the way Platt and Sebastian carried out the VRI and HRO. That is not to say he did not do many good things.
As a career IMB missionary, I wanted our new President to have field experience. However, Paul Chitwood has my full support, and I have great hope that he will be a strong and effective leader for years to come. Why?
1. I trust my former (and current) leaders Jerry Rankin, Clyde Meador and Gordon Fort, all of whom have given Paul strong and unqualified endorsements. .
2. I trust Rick Dunbar, IMB chairman, who loves missions and missionaries as much as anybody I know and has strongly endorsed Paul.
3. I trust Chuck Porciau, the chairman of the search committee, whose sole focus from the beginning has been to seek the Lord’s clear direction.
These brothers’ endorsement of Paul is good enough for me. Fruitful days are ahead for the IMB.
We’d like to hear anyone’s opinion. Please make an effort to do something other than link your own blog. Thanks.
Looking at the discussion, and the comments from those on the field as well as those who “know” Dr. Chitwood, it seems that a well-placed, well connected Baptist bureaucrat, with the obligatory “he’s a good guy, he’s done a good job, he has the right theology and perspective” compliments thrown in, has been picked to lead the IMB over anyone else working in the organization itself, including those in leadership positions who have served on the field. With this board’s track record, as well as what has gone on with some of the others, what it looks like is that those on the field were ignored and the choice was made along the same lines that most of these selections get made in the SBC, based on a person’s ability to influence those he knows in order to get his name placed high enough to be considered and selected.
The fact that he once served as chair of the IMB trustees should be disqualifying, not qualifying. There would still be quite a few trustees who were on the board when Dr Chitwood was chair, and that makes it possible for him to lobby and advocate for himself in a way that other candidates wouldn’t have. I’m now working in administration for my second church/denominational related institution that’s not Baptist and both have strict policies which separate board leadership from employment both during and after their term of service. In this case, though, given the size of the SBC missionary force and the leadership structure they use, I just can’t really understand why they refuse to consider someone who has been on the field and has experience in the organization’s executive leadership.
The denominational influences that put most of the trustees in place who are now serving have made this their pattern when choosing executive leadership. I expect that most, if not all of the other entity leadership positions will go to well-placed, well-connected individuals, mega church pastors or perhaps former trustees. In the middle of a downward spiral of membership and attendance, enrollment, and just about everything else the SBC does as a denomination, rewarding the faithful is still prioritized over seeking the kind of visionary leadership that will help reverse the trends and grow the institutions.
It does appear to be somewhat of an inside job, which certainly isn’t new in the SBC. That in an of itself does not disqualify him for service. Just doesn’t “look” quite kosher (Can Southern Baptists be kosher? If not we need a SBC word for kosher). The field personnel certainly seem to be very disappointed, so there is something that just doesn’t seem to be right. I guess its kind of like finding the perfect pastor that everyone will like. Maybe it’s impossible. If he is elected by the trustees, I pray he has an effective and productive ministry and our IMB continues to reach the nations with the Gospel.
Paul Chitwood may turn out to be a great IMB president. That is my prayer. But if we wish to discuss the process that resulted in his selection, there is probably room for criticism and for congratulations.
I am told by people I trust that members of the selection committee have stated they felt that it was more important for the president to be able to communicate with and influence those in the states than have missionary experience or relationships with our missionaries. This should not be surprising since probably all or most of the members of the committee’s mission experience is at most short-term trips. I am sure they interviewed missionaries, but I doubt if they seriously considered anyone with mission experience as the process moved to the final days. I am not sure how important they considered the wishes of those on the field who responded to their requests for input.
As an emeritus IMB missionary, I admit I am biased in favor of having a person with mission experience as president. The names I heard most often mentioned by missionaries were John Brady, Zane Pratt and Gordon Fort. Gordon would have been my choice, but this might not have been a good time for him to serve as president. Brady and Pratt would have been acceptable.
I only met Dr. Chitwood once for five minutes at a Board of Trustees meeting in Jacksonville FL on the same day that Dr. Rankin announced his retirement. As most of you know, various factions of the Board were at war with each other. Without considering who was on the “right” or “wrong” side of the war, the Board of the IMB was dysfunctional. Dr. Chitwood was the guy who became chairman of the Board to lead the IMB out of the wilderness. At least he presided over the Board and kept it more or less “on track” as opposed to the huge infighting that we saw previously.
I am not qualified, nor am I interested in, discussing who was right in the debate over “private prayer languages”, “sign gifts”, or whatever was the stupid argument was that drove the Board into state of disintegration. The fact is that the Board of Trustees was being used by people as a platform to advance their own narrow theological agenda — an agenda that had nothing to do with running a missionary organization.
It might be a good idea to have a guy at the top of the food chain at the IMB who is not hung up on theology. Instead he/she is actually motivated to reach the world for Christ.
I must say that 90%+ of the members of the BoT were not participating in the infighting. But for some reason, that I don’t know, no one did much to put things on track until a few voices in the wilderness, such as Wade Burleson, spoke up.
Dr. Rankin sent a letter to the board telling them to tone down the infighting but the board ignored it.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK
Dave,
Great article because you raised some important questions.
My concern is of a practical nature. Starting churches and reaching indigenous people with the Gospel is more difficult “over there” than “over here.” Therefore, I would pose these questions and they could apply to any leader that may be called to lead the IMB while only having a history of working stateside:
1. How did the candidate lead his state convention in starting and sustaining a church planting movement in his sphere of leadership?
2. How did the candidate do in raising up indigenous leaders to start new congregations?
3. How did the candidate do in leading churches to train people to engage the unreached with the Gospel?
4. Did baptisms increase or decline?
5. Did total membership increase or decline?
6. What was the mood and morale like about state staff?
Well, you get my drift.If the leader isn’t getting it done stateside, it will not be an easier task in leading a much more complex missionary sending organization with global expectations.
Blessings!