William Thornton is the SBC Plodder.
Dwight McKissick was included in the article as saying, “The church lasks the moral authority to address the world about race before we set our own house in order.”
The article further notes that McKissick pointed that the denomination continues to employ all white as top executives and seminary presidents.
“It is obvious the rhetoric and reality is not matching, he said,”
For a lesson in rhetoric vs. reality, the link at the end of this sentence is the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission’s staff directory page. The Executive Staff is all white. There is one, out of 25, African American on the page. She is a consultant.
Danny Akin comments on the SBC and racial reconciliation with the words that, “My grief is we’re late to this party…We should have been leading the way. Not much of a party at ERLC HQ, it seems.
I like Russell Moore and think he is hitting better notes that his predecessor. Isaid so early on after he was given the position of CEO of the ERLC.
Moore had the opportunity to build his team from the ground up at the ERLC. He selected, quite quickly, a team that included no African Americans. His choices, seems to me from the SBC hinterlands, were sound but express the familiar principle that there are only so many high level jobs in the SBC and her entities and we like to hire people we know well and are comfortable with. This is an explanation (one that I offer for Moore, not one that he has offered to my knowledge), not an excuse.
Perhaps other issues were on his mind in 2013.
Brethren, blame the messenger if you like on this but these are optics that everyone sees. We could have been addressing this business of integration in both churches and our entities before last year’s flame up of racial issues. Moore is one of the SBC’s point men on racial issues. He should be expecting his own employment structure to be scrutinized and I’m sure he has a response prepared.
The headline I would be surprised to see is this one (maybe he has called for this, I haven’t see it):
ERLC’s Moore calls for greater diversity in top SBC positions
It’s pretty safe to sit in D.C. look at the camera and call for action by SBC churches.
William,
This is why I brought the motion I did at the SBC last year (which is now being worked on at the EC) and is why I wrote my book. I really do believe that Russell Moore cares about this issue sincerely. But, the problem in the SBC is that we choose and promote our friends and those we know personally. It is understandable. That is how the world works. But, when you are at Southern Seminary for years, the people you know and trust are also there and this is what happens. I like Russ Moore A LOT. I really do. But, we need mechanisms in place that bring us beyond who we know and that move us into the realm of who are doing good work from diverse backgrounds and ethnicities.
I hate to say it, but we need a mechanism for each of our entities and trustee boards to address this. I can see Dr. Moore being amenable to that and I do believe that the error at this point has more to do with us just hiring/choosing those we are most comfortable with rather than anything intentional. But, we need to change this.
Depending on the EC report in February, a bylaw change should be submitted at the SBC in June. 81 of 82 EC trustees are white. This is not going to change on its own.
Well said, Alan.
I don’t know that any “mechanism” is needed other than for those who hire to pay attention to what they are doing and what they are saying.
If 20% of SBC churches are ethnic minority then in an entity whose purpose in part is to call the SBC to ethical behavior relative to racial issues, then 81 of 82 trustees being white (I accept Alan’s stats, haven’t checked myself) is an eyebrow raiser in and of itself. I’m guessing that if ERLC is asked about this they will offer a stat that features the percentage of trustees who are African American, Latino, Asian, and other minorities.
It’s tougher to speak credibly on racial issues with this as a backdrop.
Thanks for the comment.
The EC’s trustees are 81 of 82 white, not ERLC. I was using them for comparison.
Amen Alan.
I would say that the first and foremost mechanism needs to be the willingness to intentionally develop close, personal relationships across racial lines long before it’s time to select teams. That way people have a base of godly, Christian friends they can call on to lead that is constitutionally diverse.
Right. This issue will be remedied when personal relationships develop, as I think we all agree that the real issue is not intentional discrimination but are more a result a buddy system or a boys club mentality.
Setting up rules by which minorities MUST be chosen over non minorities for no other reasons than a goal of “diversity” based on skin tone will be, IMO a huge step backwards. Intentional discrimination is not the way to solve this.
Jim, Tarheel: Hasn’t the “we’ve got to form relationships” also the problem? That isn’t happening and frankly it takes a long time to form any meaningful relationship. The clock is already ticking and has been for too many years. Why do we always want to slow down a process when it really needs to happen yesterday?
If this gets slowed down any more than it has been it will be at a stop. It’s now 2015.
The 81 of 82 EC trustee figure (I also am assuming to be correct without checking) probably has another factor that hasn’t been mentioned. Along with the ‘appoint my friends’ tendency, there’s also a lot of scrutiny on CP giving. I’m really grateful for increasing ethnic diversity among SBC congregations. Could it be that many of the newly affiliated black and hispanic churches (whether because they’re church plants or established churches who recently moved into cooperation) are not high percentage CP givers, according to the old formulas and preferences?
I’ve got no stats to back that up, but it makes sense to me on a practical level. Church plants and churches new to the SBC aren’t likely to be the ones giving 10, 12, 15 or 20% of their budgets to the cooperative program.
Alan
I agree completely. We do not need to way for the last vestige of friction, that may never come. The Boards just need to DO IT
This is not just an ERLC issue.
It is the continuing issue in all of the SBC. We elected Fred Luter. Well done! But until leadership and boards reflect the call to diversity, we have a LONG way to go.
I’m not sure I desire or would support any kind of quota – haven’t thought through it enough to say at this point. But this is where the battle is now. We broke down a barrier when we elected Fred Luter. But until trustee boards and entity staffs reflect this diversity, we cannot act as if we have arrived.
And we must continue to hold our own feet to the fire.
All of that said, Dr. Moore is still a solid, consistent voice for racial reconciliation. He is a leader on the issue. The conference is a great thing and is much needed.
Dr. Page at the EC has begun the process – I continue to admire the way he does things. I think Dr. Moore will follow suit and he will be a leader in hiring practices in the SBC.
We have a quota on the lay/clergy distinction in our trustee boards proving that we are not averse to quotas on things we care about. Considering it is 2015 and we refuse to address this issue on our own, perhaps we should institute quotas for the next 15-20 years or so to rectify this? We should be further along.
The EC will bring a report in February in response to my motion that calls for this to be looked into and reported. Let’s see what they say. If it has no concrete recommendations, then the next step is a bylaw change.
I am all for the ERLC conference, but it is also time (past time) to DO something. If we wait for Southern Baptists to address this on their own, it will be another decade or two, at the rate we have been going.
My mom was appointed to the FMB as a trustee over our pastor Rob Zinn because of that “lay”/”clergy” system in the 80s. It can work well. (I’d add my mom is arguably more qualified than Rob due to a SWBTS degree plus FMB experience, but I’m not at all suggesting that means he was unqualified.)
Oh, and I am no fan of quotas either. And I am also very grateful for Dr. Page, so I agree with all of that. I am just LESS a fan of the current situation and am looking at lessers-of-evil at this point.
I do not think that we are being actively racist. The problem now is not racism, per se. It is personal preference and doing what is most beneficial to one’s self – which plays out racially. I wrote a book outlining the history of this in American Evangelicalism since the 1600s. Continuing to focus on Race alone is jousting at windmills. We will NEVER solve the problem that way. We have to go deeper and see how when we hire our friends and appoint those we know only when we are a part of a massive, increasingly diverse denomination, we traffic in the same underlying cause that led to Racial division in the first place and we cannot even see it. Literally no one is looking at the deeper issue, but instead, we keep talking past one another in saying it is Racism. Racism is just a manifestation of the larger issue.
Alan, if you have a few minutes to listen to the Piper clip I posted below, I’d like to know if you think this gets to the heart of the matter. Thanks for your thoughts.
I hope we can see racial integration in the SBC power towers. A few nagging questions keeps popping up in my head…
1 – Do we bring in minorities just because they are minorities?
2 – If I were a minority, would I want a job offered to me just because I am a minority?
3 – Even as a white male, would I take a job because I fit some racial / gender profile?
The answers I keep giving myself are:
1 – This is a tough one that I cannot figure out. If I am not being hired for job “A” because I am black, the if I do get hired for job “A”, is it just because I am black?
2 – No, though if I needed a job, I might take it.
3 – Answered above but I would question my own integrity.
From a white male, mid 50’s, finally able to get a senior discount for coffee in the states – but alas… I am not in the states.
Then again, I am pastoring a church where less that 2% are white Americans, 30% or so are Asian, 25% or so are Indian, 20% or so are African and it is possible I was hired because I am a white male American. I dare not ask.
When I read this article it made me think about this short interview that Collin Hansen did with John Piper on the issue of being “color blind”. I think if our SBC leadership would all implement what Piper (and Alan and William) is describing we’d be on the road to true reconciliation. I pray that’s where we’re headed now, though the pace may seem slow.
http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/can-t-afford-to-be-color-blind
It seems to me that the ethnic makeup of the SBC leadership will change when the ethnic makeup of our churches change. And this goes for “white” churches and “black” churches. I’d be willing to bet (I’m not really betting, because I’ve looked) that people calling for greater diversity at the SBC entity level are serving in churches that are pretty racially homogeneous, especially at the leadership level. Speck/Mote.
I agree, Bill.
I would like to personally welcome the SBC to 1971.
Correction. I meant 1871
What percentage of the denominations boards, institutions and agencies would need to be “racially diverse” to properly reflect the constituency percentage of the denomination itself.
If folks are going to go down this optics for the sake of racial fairness route, shouldn’t the percentages reflect the denomination as a whole?
While we all think that “quotas” are inappropriate, they may be necessary. Or maybe any time a person is hired or trustees are appointed, in each case there should be a question asked. “Why was this person not a minority?” And that question should be answered accurately. I can’t say what should be done with the answers, but I do know that study after study have shown that you have to do something to get changes to happen. People are surprisingly consistent.
Do we have a job performance evaluation form–for trustees and employees both, perhaps? These would be different, of course, but there might be a surprising amount of overlap. If one of the headings on the form had to do with diversity, you might be amazed how much this could change things–especially if this is the second item on the evaluation form. You only change what you evaluate and measure.
Did not the early churches of Rome and Asia have their own social peculiarities?
Our unforced segregation’s are healthy. The Christ we love is no less the Lord of his Church
because we have cultural and stylistic preferences that vary to levels of benign disassociation.
We will not become more spiritual and Christ-like because we try to force such disparate harmonies.
We need not join the world and its campaign for quotas unless it is the world we care about pleasing.
As we see, the world and its politics will not stop at “Racial equality.”
As our country becomes more and more ethnically mixed we can find this potpourri refreshing.
Euro-centric, Eastern, Asian and Afro-centric cultures blend to a point in the USA until the intrinsic values become an inevitable distinction and a notable divide.
Or we can set up yet another commission at the tax payer’s expense that counts everybody’s marbles at the end of each day, then redistributes them based on someone’s idea of “fairness” and equality.
We are never commanded to force ourselves together, salving conscience and quota of those who conscript for a dubious office of Racial Czar.
Why do I feel this coming?
May our churches all continue their works of acceptance and unity through the Prince of Peace,
as natural fruits of obedience to Him, and may we do it intentionally.
Glenn, I am assuming your opening question was serious and not rhetorical. Yes, the early church had its own peculiarities and the apostles sought to diminish them and to form a unified church that was not separated by race or ethnicity or background. We see several instances of this: 1) Acts 15- the letter to the churches started in heavily Gentile areas instructing them on how to be “sensitive” to the consciences of their Jewish Christian compatriots without becoming Jews themselves and therefore adding to the Gospel. 2) Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians when Peter’s conduct changed upon the arrival of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem who viewed the Gentile Christians as abnormal or different because they did not keep the Jewish customs. 3) The letters to the Corinthian and Roman churches- both churches made of mixed races and experiencing issues as a result. These are just some examples of correction or to use your term “forced” racial reconciliations in the New Testament. I’m sure others could provide more examples. Your suggestion of “benign disassociation” is not acceptable in the New Testament why should it be so now? What you see as “benign” I see as the last gasps of a racist, slave holding past that needs to die- the sooner the better. It is a history steeped in the blood and tears of a people who were treated as less than human and less than the image of God. People who were sold as property and told they were under the “curse of Ham.” I’m not a fan of quotas, but they are needed and necessary when integration is resisted by the forces of history and habit and human nature. In this case, they may be the only way to break the back of the entrenched “good old boy” syndrome that has colored our selection of leaders. I have hope. I believe that people like Dr. Moore and Frank Page and Fred Luter and Dr. McKissic and others who labor tirelessly behind the scenes can and will end the unspoken and oftentimes unintended segregation that occurs in the SBC and truthfully in much of American Christendom. And if they have to use quotas to do it, then God bless the quota. I pray this discussion ends with my generation and is so foreign to my children and grandchildren that it seems inconceivable to them that we even had to… Read more »
Ryan–Thanks for the very encouraging words and scripture. I will continue to use benign disassociation and add benign association because I trust you will allow me further definition. Just as the intentional, unintentional segregation based upon ethnicity is alive and well. And so it shall be for as long as there is time. One is not so good, the other can be quite natural. Most of my black brothers in Christ don’t want to attend my church and it is not because they are not welcome to do so. No, welcome is not the issue and it must never be a cause. Its just that we are too boring. A Motet to them is a sister from Motown. The benign association is my friends trying to act, sing, preach and otherwise black as proof of non-prejudice.They are not impressed. My Mexican pals could care less about spending an hour with me and my folks at my church. The love me but their love for Jesus doesn’t have that much patience. My Japanese college buddy, minister, is struggling to this day with American cultural idiom. He still loves sticky rice and I Uncle Bens. (no comment on Uncle Ben please) And it works both ways. I am not ready to spend 3 hours in a “worship service”, and I need much more quiet, dignity, reverence and solitude than they typically offer. I don’t like to be yelled at in a sermon, but this is often an essential for them. I love to visit, but I don’t want to live there and yes, it feels good and right that I am made to be welcome. Three years doing missions in Hawaii re-affirmed to me that not all differences that separate are akin to theological factions with ethnic ties or the other way around. Then or now. My ministries back here on the mainland are the same. Only it was nice to be a “minority” in Hawaii and have my entire family experience true prejudice on occasion. I join you in your prayer for an end to a need for these discussions and I believe it will not be answered entirely until our quota of born again is of a much higher ratio to the general populace. We can make the rich man pay a higher percentage of taxes by law and force but much the better when he is taxed the same… Read more »
1. The idea that I should be able to wall off my little segment of Jesus’ church—which He owns, by the way, after paying a pretty high price—in order to make sure that my stylistic preferences are met to my satisfaction is a distinctively American (and distinctively anti-biblical and anti-Christian) conceit.
2. The idea that our racial segregation is benign vaporizes the moment you engage anyone in our culture about same-sex marriage or any other controversial issue. Thinking lost people will take about zero-point-zero seconds to tell you that your church has no credibility to discuss what is right or wrong because you are and have been wrong on the question of race. This sin of racial segregation is quickly revealing itself as the Achilles Heel of the American churches.
As one who is pastor of a church that is now running about 50/50, I can flatly say that if we do not have the intent in our actions to be inclusive, it’s probably not going to happen. And it’s not just being welcoming and loving to any who may come, but being inclusive to their cultural ways and incorporating them in to how we go about worshiping and serving as the church. The absolute biggest obstacle apart from hardened hearts, which thankfully we are not dealing with, is leading people to be objective and honest in assessing “their” church and how things are done that they are comfortable with and seeing things through the other persons eyes and being welcoming to things that will make them feel equally comfortable, like they are truly wanted their. Wanted to stay, not just visit
Well said, Bart. You have hit on my missional and biblical motivation here. I am happy to spend my life holding open whatever door I can grab hold of to help people from other ethnic backgrounds fully participate and lead in the SBC in order to strengthen our churches and our gospel witness in a 21st century America. It is Biblical, right, and totally necessary. It is past time for this change to really take place.
Thank you.
Case in point. It’s possible to realign one’s interpretation of scripture (context ex post facto) through the filters of political correctness and social engineering.
Proof-texting to support a pre-calculated position in support of quotas adds nothing to the argument IMO
Ain’t buyin that one.
I assumed that the “q” word would be bandied about on this. I didn’t call for it or use the term. I don’t recall anyone other than Rick Patrick calling for quotas ( he prefers ‘parity’).
I just thought it worthy of note that Russell Moore calls for church integration while not exhibiting any significant degree of the same in the organization over which he presides. This is not sinister on his part but rather a hindrance to his racial reconciliation thrust.
I neglected to say that Rick calls for C/non-C parity, not racial parity.
William,
Like Rick substitutes “parity” for quota – It seems Dwight, Alan and others have substituted “mechanism” for quota.
Hi Friends,
Been a while. I actually like the term “proportionality.” And while we are on the subject of Moore’s hiring habits, I believe in hiring Southern Baptists for the ERLC of the SBC. (3 out of his first 5 hires were not Southern Baptist at all.)
It still amazes me that people fail to see the value in leadership that “looks” like our membership. If one in ten Southern Baptists are African American, then the ERLC should have about three African Americans and at least one entity President should be African American.
If one in ten Southern Baptists are Calvinists, then the same should be true of our entity Presidents. If seventy to eighty percent of our convention is Traditionalist, then Steve Gaines should not have been an afterthought at this summer’s Pastors Conference. (I understand they added him later.)
But 100% of our entity hires should be Southern Baptists on the date they are hired…because 10 out of 10 Southern Baptists are Southern Baptists.
You can call it quota all you want, but tell me you don’t do this at your church… We are forming a Search Team for a new position. In filling the Search Team, we are trying to balance both genders and all age groups so our committee “looks like” our church and is “fair and balanced.”
I stand amazed each time someone comes on and makes this sound like a bad thing.
Actually, my favorite word for this is “proportionality.” Although sometimes derided as a quota, I do think our leadership should “look” like our membership. Hence, if 10 percent of Southern Baptists are African American, then 2 or 3 of the ERLC’s 25 staff members should be as well.
Similarly, if 15% of our members are Calvinists, then one of our six seminaries and one or two of our eleven entities should be led by one. If ten speakers are on a Pastors Conference lineup, maybe two or three should be Calvinist, and there should certainly be an African American in the group. By the same token, if 60-70% of our convention consists of Anglos espousing Traditionalist theology, we should see that reflected in our leaders, publications, conference speakers and hiring decisions.
Since 10 out of 10 Southern Baptists are Southern Baptist, then all of our hiring for SBC entities should be drawn from people who are Southern Baptist on their date of hire.
Whether one uses the word “proportionality” or “adequate representation” or whatever, the concept is absolutely sound—leadership should “look like” membership.
One last example… We are forming a Search Team to fill a position at church. We seek to put people on the committee who “represent” the various age groups and ministry areas in our congregation, not to mention both genders. We want the leaders to look like the members.
That so many people malign such a basic principle of fairness by charging it with the verboten “Q” word is a phenomenon that never ceases to amaze me.
Seems we run all over the world to assist people with the gospel in their heart language. These groups are plainly affinity groups who would not come an worship in western circles. Frankly, having served for many years, I think we are creating attention to an issue that perhaps is really more a matter of affinity on both sides as opposed to any real race issue. Now before you heave stones, it would help you know my own brother has a wife who is black and I performed the wedding. Also, when I served in a predominately black county, I asked a black mega church to allow me as an associate and I would swap places to create such a blended environment. It was clearly not to be, not because of racial hatred on either side, rather affinity preferences. Interestingly, Romanians come to the states, learn the language and still create Romanian baptist churches, whey not the concern here? Affinity.
I see a lot of talk about quotas. I just have to observe that Paul didn’t implement quotas. He dealt with this extensively in Corinth and Rome and we have his letters. His solution was not quotas. His solution was admonition. His admonition was founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ and expressed in several ways. His admonishments were authoritative because he was an Apostle. We don’t have that kind of weight in our position, but we have that kind of weight in the words he left us and as people filled with the Holy Spirit. We all like to fuss about such things as Calvinism, Catholics, Charismatics, and carbohydrates. We need to fuss as strongly about this on the basis of what we have been given from God in the words of Paul.
And since he based it on the gospel, in a way that makes it a gospel issue. If you don’t heed the words of Paul in the way we should act like the Body of Christ, I’d say it makes your faith in the gospel weak. Participating and leading missions in some small way has given me a taste for the ways that our brothers and sisters worship God around the world. I’m kind of addicted to worshiping God outside of my comfort zone because I love how God is worshiped in manifold ways. One of the strengths of the gospel in the Roman empire early on was its ability to be communicated accurately to people of vastly different cultures. As they were filled with the Holy Spirit and came to faith, they turned their cultural practices around for use in worshiping God.
Implement quotas and you will engender distrust. Appeal to Christ and you will see the Holy Spirit work in the hearts of people in the SBC, from the average church member all the way up to the good old boys in leadership. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t change hearts, He’s not in those hearts. It’s not a question of style. It’s a question of the gospel.
Jim,
Your thoughts are spot on to me.
The ERLC and the SBC exist to serve Christ and his church but it is never too difficult for this to reverse it self.
I want a church that welcomes , loves and integrates, not only other ethnics, but all the other social “minorities” as well. I would love to see this a convention wide reality. I would love for all churches who name Christ as head to follow Christ teachings and examples concerning prostitution, johns, gays, “white collar” criminals, “financially challenged”, satanists, alcoholics, atheists, Mormons, Muslims and agnostics alike.
(shouldn’t we have these people in our churches, both as seekers and converts–“Such were some of you”–could they be announced as our convention and ERLC leadership?)
If we listen to the world and allow the world to tell us when we are “correct” we must also have a convention on how we can explain why these people we hate so much might be so disproportionate to all the “good people” in our churches. Then move forward with a convention approved, color coded plan of action.
Jesus never got his disciples to come around to this sort of “liberal” thinking and from my view, local pastors may themselves reach forward in welcome—and as they do, several of their disciples come rushing to their minds. A pastor thinks, “If I welcome this person as I must, he will likely be clobbered by those under my teaching ministry that are yet mature in their faith.”
If he further convoulutes this with fears of the world discrediting him, his convention looking down from on high, self imposed quotas or those “suggested”, well, he needs his counselor friends close by.
To me, this is where your “addiction to worshiping God outside your comfort zone” comes into action. That’s great!
Local pastors can be told what to believe here, but if it is not already in their soul as conviction, little will change. If it is in their persuasion from God, they needs no decree–they are already in go mode and allowing God to teach those under their care.
I have been saying for a while that the place to address these issues is to institute aggressive recruitment of ethnic minorities into our seminaries. Brent Hobbs’s point is well-taken, and it’s a shame that it hasn’t received any more comment or interest than it has. We must ask ourselves whether we care about tearing down racial barriers in our churches. Alan and Dave are 100% correct in calling for us to think about this and to act upon our stated convictions. Is racial openness a priority for us in the SBC, or isn’t it? And yet, alongside asking whether this is a priority (and it should be), the next question we have to ask is where it ranks among our other priorities. Among those (primary among those, in my opinion) is the cause of carrying the gospel to a world of lost people who are going to Hell. The stakes in that priority are the souls of billions of people—almost all of them belonging to races that would be minorities in the United States—who are in peril of dying without ever having the opportunity to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, I ask you, when Southern Baptists decide, for example, to select a new President for the International Mission Board, which priority comes first? Assuming that you believe (as I do) in the value of the Southern Baptist approach to Cooperative Missions, if you find yourself considering a number of candidates, some of whom on the one hand have spent forty years developing and demonstrating a thorough understanding of Southern Baptist churches and Southern Baptist institutions and who have accumulated the leadership equity among our churches to be able to accomplish good things, and some of whom on the other hand are great and highly skilled people but have never really gone “all in” on this SBC missionary enterprise, but they represent ethnic minorities, then out of which pool are you going to choose to make that hire? I submit to you that your answer to that question will reveal which of these two priorities you elevate over the other: racial integration vs missionary zeal. As a parallel, consider my work to try to forge a closer relationship between our churches and those who left us a century ago to form the Baptist Missionary Association. I love those people. I think we can work together. I’m thrilled to… Read more »
Hi Bart,
Back in the 60’s our Mormon friends went through the wringers of Civil Rights and Social Justice advocacy. Mormons held similar prejudices as most all Americans at that time.
Their 1969 Apostle vote failed to reach unison and it was nine more years before
a miracle revelation would instruct them to overturn their previous stance on blacks and Mormonism.
Today they are “reaching out” to the black community but, to this date, the Mormon hierarchy and President/Apostle leadership has not prevented individual Mormons from their continued prejudice against blacks.
What, in your opinion, can we learn from the Mormons about Ethnic Relations?
Bart, I’m curious, since our giving standards have changed since the implementation of GCR. Doesn’t all missions giving count? Why wouldn’t giving to BMA count? It’s missions giving. By the pre-2011 standard, would Ezell or Platt be qualified as having total “buy in?” There is so much gray area now. How do we determine what total “buy in” is?
Bart handles far more money than I do and is used to large numbers therein…but if I might reply:
All giving counts, just not in certain categories. Churches, though, can only include giving to SBC causes (national entities, state convention causes, or association) as Great Commission Giving. Local church spending on mission trips, direct local missions, support of Gideons, or other mission causes that are non-SBC may be reported but not as GCG.
One might note here that somewhere around 20% of SBC affiliated churches don’t file the Annual Church Profile, so any giving not received by our entities, where a record of such is accessible, will not ‘count’ for those.
It makes sense to have a way to assess the ‘buy in’ (since that’s the catchphrase du jour here) on churches and individuals who are considered for leadership positions.
I agree with those who say that a church with dual affiliation should at least be seen as having divided ‘buy ins’.
Bart, you ought to rework this into its own post, too many people are going to pass over it in the comments section.
I would also like to see some numbers about CP giving among black, Hispanic, and Asian congregations so we can evaluate if that actually could be a factor to consider or if we’re just offering it up as an excuse when the facts don’t really support it.
Also, we need to ask if the CP giving percentage is a hindrance to more diversity among the boards, who needs to budge first? Do we need to lower CP% to the 2nd, 3rd, or 5th on the list of evaluation? Maybe just in cases of promoting ethnic diversity? Or should we just wait until we see the percentages rise? (I can hardly imagine the last option being a good idea.)
Who’s going to take the first step?
And those minorities you “aggressively recruit” for the sake of “proportionality” will also fund the denominational apparatus “proportionally” in line with the effort and cost of cultural correction?
Bart, great post.
I could not help but notice that you are taking active steps through relationships (#1 -3).
I agree wholeheartedly with #6.
Bart, one more thing…Thank you for not looking the SBC entities to deal with this and actually doing something about it yourself.
I appreciate the lengthy comment and take some of your points, especially the point about aggressively recruiting by seminaries.
Articles here often lead to comments that have moved from a rather specific issue to a treatment of the broader application of the same. Here, I’ve made a point about the ERLC whose mission is not the same as NAMB or IMB in regards to evangelism in NA and the world.
The ERLC is our point entity and Russell Moore is our point guy on racial issues. He has, properly and candidly, called for integrated churches; however, the ERLC could hardly be called an integrated SBC entity at this date. I do not know who was and is available to fill top ERLC administrative and policy positions but it would have sacrificed nothing that I can see to have aggressively searched for at least one African American to fill a top post in our entity that deals with racial reconciliation.
I will offer a wild conjecture here: Sometime this calendar year Russell Moore will hire an African American in a high level post at the ERLC. It diminishes Moore’s stature somewhat that he did not do so prior to 2014’s racial turmoil and will be seen as not having been pro-active in this.
The primary reason we have segregated churches is because of the white church’s history of slavery and racism. The secondary reason we have segregated churches is because the black church (due to this context of slavery and racism) became not just a house of worship but a cultural beacon, an island of solidarity in a sea of oppression. This is especially so given the black church’s key role in the abolition and civil rights movements. From this outside segregation and internal solidarity arose a unique church culture with its own styles of music, preaching, and ecclesiology. For many black Christians in America, preserving those styles is more than a matter of preference or habit; it is fidelity to a cultural and racial identity. Given this history, what is my white church to do? Is it reasonable to think that we can or should incorporate some of those black-church identifiers into our worship in an effort to gain more black members? At a broader level, is it fair for my white church to expect our black neighbors to choose our church instead of the black churches in town? In some ways this seems like the discussions about how to get more black people involved in country music or golf. To be sure, a history of exclusion has contributed to their absence. That history has also resulted in other forms of activity and expression that are now more closely identified with black culture. Do we whites have the right to expect them to abandon those forms and join us now that we’ve extended the olive branch? Racial integration means more than managing ratios in our own denomination and local churches. It also means working together with other churches of like faith to reach the community. I regret to say that there are two black churches within two blocks of my own church, and I don’t know anything about either one. I’ve been here a year and a half and have never met their pastors. Granted, that’s probably due as much to my introversion as anything else (I only recently met the minister of the white Methodist church in town). But shouldn’t it be strange that there could be brothers and sisters in Christ living together who have nothing to do with one another? To be clear: there is absolutely no reason, justification, or excuse for any Christian church to discriminate on the… Read more »
Jeff, you have a point in regards to the identifiable church cultures. What we have found, in a neighborhood 80% black, is that a person who has roots in the church is unlikely to choose us. However, a lost, unchurched black has little in the grounding of the black church culture, just as a lost, unchurched white has little grounding in the white church culture. The fruit we have seen as we have intentionally sought to become inclusive to all is from souls coming to Christ and from children in our densely populated neighborhood where except for a couple of very small(we’re small, they are micro) churches, we are the only game in town. Their are very large churches near us, even an SBC mega within two miles, but they are a non-factor in our neighborhood. We are in the process of being more inclusive as far as style of worship and such things, as we have different cultures, but I’ve served in other churches where the opportunity was not great to have, if you will, a blended style that would have cultural appeal to the varying cultural norms. Two of those church had racist tendencies and wanted nothing to do with inclusion. The other was in an area with a miniscule minority population. It is very dependent upon where you are. But we have countless SBC churches in neighborhoods, particularly inner city, where the neighborhood has changed and the church has not adjusted. This is where real opportunity lies, and it is incumbent upon each congregation to analyze their culture and make the adjustments necessary. As for your situation, I would highly encourage you to build bridges with those black pastors close to you. It is one of the things we have attempted to do with some success.
Jeff P,
Thanks for your reply. I recognize that our church is far too insulated from our community, both black and white. One of my goals as a pastor is to change that. I agree with you that those individuals without a church background are less likely to know or maintain the cultural identifiers I mentioned. In our very small, rural town, most folks identify with a particular church even if they rarely or never attend. And knowing our church members’ perspectives and abilities, it would be difficult for us to integrate “black-church” elements in our worship with any credibility. We must do whatever we can, however, to build bridges.
Jeff, you wrote, “Maybe if we focused more on inter-church cooperation instead of intra-church recruitment, we would create a kind of credibility that would actually make black people more at home in our own congregations.”
I think this is an important place to start. Black Baptists will wonder about predominantly white churches wanting them as members when there isn’t even any inter-church cooperation between their churches. This could come off as paternalistic, even if it is not intended to be. Starting where we are is the beginning of getting where we want to be.
I have heard my father speak of times (that would have been in the first third of the 20th century) when black and white churches in neighboring communities had a visiting relationship between them (at least in our area). That is, some members of each church visited the other church during their revivals, etc. This was in a time when segregation was the order of the day, but at least there was some kind of relationship between the churches. By the time I came along in the latter half of the 20th century, those relationships had ceased to exist. I don’t know if the next generations just were not proactive in keeping it up, if some particular incidents caused it to cease, or if general hostility increased (or some or all the above). My father (and others of his generation) are not around to ask. IMO, though, this went from a situation that was not the best, to one that was even worse.
To all concerned, Should ethnics have total buy-in to a denomination where 37% of the churches say that they are fine with single race churches, 81 out of 82 EC members are Anglo, and all the entity heads are White. Those optics are staggering. Does that denomination really want your buy-in or just want you in for their own benefit? If the SBC really wanted multi-ethnic leadership at all levels, they could make it happen. It’s a question of will. The church at Antioch made it happen(Acts13: 1,2), and so could the SBC. The optics at the EC board, entity head level, and the expressed desire of 37% of the churches in effect saying that they have no desire for inter-racial churches speak a strong message to minority churches. Jesus said, you can’t pour new wine into old wine skins. Therefore, if someone asked my advice-and nobody has-I would recommend that A. The SBC launch sim kind of new affinity group, officially sanctioned by the SBC, that’s totally committed to the concept of intergrared churches. B. This new group would need to function almost as a denomination within a denomination, yet accountable to the SBC. C. The new group needs to start out, like the Antioch church in Scripture, with inter-racial leadership. D. There sole objectives should be threefold: (1)planting inter-racial churches (2) merging interracial churches(3) providing discipling, developing, and fellowship opportunities for churches & church leaders commited to inter-racial church ministry. Trying to integrate the current SBC is probably never going to happen in any significant manner. To much baggage & distrust running both ways, which explains the lack of commitment to the CP, and the need for other affiliations that Bart & Brent have referred to. But, a new movement or organization without the history & baggage & distrust, might be appealing to many. The most appealing part would being in in the ground floor. Developing the new policies and recruiting leadership & commited members. As oppose to being invited with a jaundiced eye to participate in a party & movement that was expressly designed & developed to exclude & discrimate against you. William, thanks for writing this post. What you’ve said here & in the comments would be as significant as anything said at the ERLC conference. Finally, I have the utmost appreciation & respect for Russell Moore. I love the fact that he’s hosting this conference.… Read more »
Dwight: Do you have any thoughts on my suggestion that we can’t expect a diverse leadership before we have diverse congregations?
One way to demonstrate that you are serious about wanting a diverse congregation is to diversify leadership. The church I attend has a black worship leader. I suspect that this encourages black people to attend there. He is also very good at the job which is likely how he came to have it to start with but he probably improved on the job too.
Bill Mac,
If we wait on congregations to integrate before the convention leader ship integrates, we will probably never see the convention integrate.
Our churches will only integrate with intentionality. Just as the convention encourages & promotes whatever else that they want to see our churches engage themselves in, the same should hold true for integrated churches. If your point is a grass roots integration movement is better than a top down “let’s get ‘er done” movement….I agree. But, it would certainly help the movement-be it grass roots, or top down-if the convention was integrated at the ebtiry head level, and there was an office in place to provide consulting & assistance toward that end.
Dwight: I don’t know if I disagree or not. I just think we open ourselves up to charges of hypocrisy if the people championing greater diversity in SBC leadership are in churches where the leadership is a sea of all-white or all-black faces. If we cannot effect change in our own congregations, how can we effect change at the national level. What we are saying, in essence, is that someone else has to fix things.
Bill Mac,
You make a valid point. I know of three White Baptist professors who actually joined and were/are actively engaged in Black National Baptist Churches. Their credibility in the Black community is huge. And it is directly attributed to their seeking to understand before being understood, and their willingness to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.
However, those who advocate inter-racial churches need not necessarily be from thoroughly inter-racial churches in order to have credibility, they simply need a track recorded of where they have power and influence, they made the right decisions regarding race; and from this point forward they are willing to create a new paradigm-and lead by example-of modeling inter-racial inclusion and empowerment. Everyone understand how we got into this ditch….we are looking for someone to lead us out of it. After all, MLK did not hail from an inter-racial church either.
Dwight,
I think you are making excellent points.
mike
Never criticize someone unless you’ve walked a mile in their shoes. And then it is OK because you’re a mile away and they’ve got no shoes!
Dwight,
I have some questions that I hope no one takes as being judgmental, it really is just curiosity. Are conversations like this taking place in the historically black denominations? Is there a concern for greater integration? Or is there a high percentage that would rather remain segregated?
Jon,
Fair and relevant question. Based on my observation and conversations, I would answer, No! Conversations like this are not taking place in Black denominational circles-at least not to my knowledge.
There are three reasons why I think this conversation is not taking place. 1. The thinking is that Whites really would have zero interest in genuinely and meaningfully having this dialogue. 2. There is a distrust level, based on history, that in my judgement, that causes the majority of Black denominational leaders and their constiteuency(sp) to not want to have such a dialogue either. (3) The general feeling is that Whites want to be large and in charge. They would not subject themselves to a meeting where the two groups sit down as equals and hammer out some kind of role sharing or integrated church planting or any other cooperative ministry. (However, the moderate Baptist have managed to sit down and at least form some kind of ongoing worship service and dialogue with predominately Black Baptist congregations.)
However, where this discussion is taking place is among younger, independent, and non-denominational Blacks who would embrace the label “evangelical.” Of course some of these are independent or loosely affiliated Baptists. There is an openness with Blacks who have little to no denominational affiliation to engage and actually seek to build an inter-racial congregation, than it is for Blacks who are strongly engaged in their denominations.
Dwight,
You said that this conversation is not taking place in historically black denominations – and then you said by way of explanation the following;
“three reasons why I think this conversation is not taking place. 1. The thinking is that Whites really would have zero interest in genuinely and meaningfully having this dialogue. 2. There is a distrust level, based on history, that in my judgement, that causes the majority of Black denominational leaders and their constiteuency(sp) to not want to have such a dialogue either. (3) The general feeling is that Whites want to be large and in charge. They would not subject themselves to a meeting where the two groups sit down as equals and hammer out some kind of role sharing or integrated church planting or any other cooperative ministry.”
Do you realize you essentially just said “black denominations aren’t talking about diversity – but it’s all the fault of the white folk”.
Shouldn’t the imperative of diversity relate to all?
Tarheel,
I answered the question that was asked, which was; is the discussion of integration of churches happening in Black denominations. I then gave-to the best of my knowledge-an honest answer. I proceeded to give 3 reasons why I believe that this discussion is not taking place among Black denominations. I am not blaming White persons for Black denominations not holding this discussions; I am simply reporting the news; not making the news. Biblically speaking I believe that it is a mandate that we be one. I believe that segregated churches-no matter the color-are out of the will of God, if their segregation is by willful intent or neglect. So, no, Tarheel… I didn’t blame anybody for the lack of diversity discussion among Black denominations. I simply reported that they are not happening, and I speculated with you as to why.
Dwight – here is one place I think you miss it –
“Should ethnics have total buy-in to a denomination where 37% of the churches say that they are fine with single race churches, 81 out of 82 EC members are Anglo, and all the entity heads are White. Those optics are staggering. Does that denomination really want your buy-in or just want you in for their own benefit?”
I want faithful BFM2000 affirming southern baptists at head of entities and as trusteees.
I am an SBCer and “buy into” the SBC b/c of our shared values not a particular skin color of its leaders.
No one is asking for “buy in” other than into our common missions endeavors and theological underpinnings.
Tarheel, would you “buy in” to an organization where you basically had no voice or representation even though you shared values with that entity?
I guess we need to define basis for “buy in” as it relates to Southern Baptist denominational organization.
I mean by “buy in” that I embrace the values, goals, and theological underpinnings of the SBC – therefore my voice and representation is found when my leaders embrace, and proclaim if you will, the values, goals and theological underpinnings ( the BFM2000) I share.
Skin color has nothing to do with it.
Tarheel, but right now we are making it about skin color. The ERLC is doing that right now with their call for integrated churches from a platform of non integrated leadership. Until we practice what we are preaching, why would any black who agrees with our mission believe us? We say to them we want you and need you, yet how do we actually show that when their are hardly any given any leadership responsibility in the convention?
I agree we should practice what we preach – however preaching and teaching on this (as with other matters) happens in the local church not the corner office suite at the ERLC headquarters.
I happen to believe – that true and meaningful and appropriate gains in this area must happen in local churches – then and only then will we see it happening in our entities – in fact, I believe gains have been happening in many local churches.
The cold hard truth is that instructions from an SBC entity head that does not have his origination in local churches, and with “regular” pastors, will not – in fact, according to our polity cannot – happen.
Tarheel, it must occur in both areas. Yes we need local churches integrating. But we send a message that is loud and clear if we also don’t integrate our entities.
Jeff P. ,
My point is – The extent it happens at the entities does not necessarily mean it will flow down to local churches. In fact it probably won’t.
Conversly, if it happens in churches it will happen in the entities.
Great question, Jeff P,
I wish Tarheel would answer it.
Answer what?
Tarheel, no disagreement that an appointment by an entity or even adding minorities to trustees or staff of entities will not flow downhill to the churches. It would however communicate to society at large and especially black Baptists who are skeptical we are serious about it. Until we back up words with action, our words ring hollow
What value is “communicating to society” if it has no effect on our churches? The churches are the real SBC. I know some might take this the wrong way, but in some sense the leadership is a facade. So we have a diverse leadership and continue to have all white and all black churches? It seems to me that what we are communicating would then be a tad deceptive.
Just in the interest of full disclosure, if someone were to track my involvement in these comment streams regarding race, I’m frankly all over map. Sometimes I’m shoulder to shoulder with Dwight and sometimes it seems like I’m squaring off with him. I see the big, philosophical point and then the practical realities move me to the other side.
Bill Mac,
I think that describes me as well.
Disagreements with Dwight and others on this issue stem from proposed solutions not the general idea.
Tarheel,
Here’s Jeff P’s question that I wanted you to answer. Here is a paraphrase of his question:
Would you buy into an organization where you had no voice, no decision making power, no representation, no one that looked like you in a leadership position, no one that looked like you in a hiring/firing position, no one that looked like you who was in charge of a budget…would you want buy in there?
I will answer the question first and then explain why I reject the premise of the question.
I would likely not “buy in” to an organization if the situation you presented were in fact the case.
With that said – I reject the premise because in the case of the SBC – representation, voice, leadership, ect…is determined not by skin color but by whether or not those “representing” me are qualified faithful southern baptists who share my vision for missions and my affirmation of the BFM2000. So long as my “representatives” meet that criteria I will “buy in” and encourage my church to “buy in as well”…skin color is irrelevant.
i have said before I would not have a problem if EVERY single entity head and elected convention officer were to be of a different skin color than I am – so long as the requirements I laid out are met. (Faithful SBCer, BFM2000, missionary endeavors, etc…)
I reject the basis of your question in that in implies that ONLY persons with the same skin color can adequately represent those with that skin color – I find this unfounded reasoning that has its basis on skin color preference and not based on established principles of cooperation amongst southern baptists.
I also reject your oft repeated assertion that positions have been filled or not filled on the basis of skin color in the upper eschalon of the SBC. Should you have proof rather than anecdotal evidence seen though the prism of your presuppositions of skin color discrimination I would like to hear it.
(I am not trying to be a jerk or mean here and its not that I do not understand your arguments on this matter – its just that I respectfully reject them.)
Tarheel,
Those in have bought into the theological underpinnings & the shared missions endeavors. Bart was calling for a deeper buy in financially & he alluded to “other affilations” being an indicator of less than the level of but in that’s necessary for entity head leadership. He used dual affilations with the BMA & SBC as a disqualifier for entity head leadership. That’s a buy in beyond embracing the theological underpinnings & the missions endeavors of the SBC. I think we’re talking past each other.
Dwight is right. There’s more, for me, than just agreeing with our theological underpinnings. I think it is institutional suicide to put at the helm of our convention or our entities anyone who doesn’t really give a rip about our convention or our entities. Where’s your heart? I want leaders who love this aggregation of believers and churches.
The mere presence of a dual affiliation, I should clarify, is not a disqualification in my view. But if another affiliation is your heart-affiliation—if another group is your wife and the SBC is your mistress—then that could lead me not to support your election as an SBC entity head. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t be happy to see you serve on a board or give other forms of leadership. But an entity head needs to be someone who is “all in” in my opinion.
There are black leaders (and other ethnicities) who have already bought in with their hearts and who have demonstrated their commitments to the SBC. Fred Luter is one. Terry Turner (former SBTC President) is another. Kevin Smith comes to mind. K. Marshall Williams. I could go further.
Bart,
Your concerns are valid for any organization regarding “buy in” before one is placed in leadership at the pinnacle levels. The problem with your position though is, who determines what the bar is related to “buy in.” You & Tarheel obviously have different bars. How does an ethnic joining the SBC know what the bar is; and who determines, what are the metrics for distinguishing between the wife & the mistress? Who decides where one’s heart is more toward the SBC or some other organization?
I agree that the names you call have what you call “total buy in” to the SBC. I also know for sure that one of the three were turned down for a pinnacle level(entity head) job although we agree that they have demonstrated what you call “buy in.” Therein lies the problem. The SBC is yet to demonstrate that one with “buy in” would be hired for an entity head position.
Finally, whatever the unwritten definition of “buy in” is to be an entity head hiring threshold; shouldn’t that be made known to all? Southern Baptist have doctrinal & buy in litmus test that they choose not to provide full disclosure regarding. That makes it difficult for many ethnics to navigate through SBC waters. There are those who can’t reveal their true selves to the SBC for fear of rejection. That is also unfortunate. However, the theological underpinnings, and agreement with the mission endeavors of the SBC, I believe should be the only qualifications for leadership, because that’s all that’s revealed to qualify. If there are other qualifications, integrity demands that they be made known.
Agreed Bart – agreement on theological underpinnings is but part of the reason for cooperation one might say – Shirley there are other reasons for cooperation. I’m simply arguing that skin color should have nothing to do with it.
I am arguing that I am “represented” in the SBC when faithful Southern Baptists are leading the entities. I don’t look to skin tone for my representation.
If every single entity later were “Minority” – and they were faithful Orthodox Southern Baptist I would have no issue with that whatsoever.
I don’t care what color someone skin is. People are people – and as far as the Southern Baptist convention – Southern Baptist are Southern Baptists.
*Surely not Shirley
*every leader not every later
Lol
You raise a great point Dwight. Perhaps they don’t want the buy in. In addition my suspicion is you can find similar percentages of status quo acceptance across racial and ethnic lines.
I know enough about human nature to know that my inclination to “buy-in” would be a scenario where my ethnic-cultural affiliations are in a majority.
Problem in my opinion is the social engineering of optics that may or may not reflect a movement of HS.
I’m just curious, but does anyone know if there are statistics regarding the ethnic mix in new church plants versus older churches?
Jim, I would certainly hope so as much of our church planting efforts through GCR are focused on unchurched, urban areas which in many areas means largely minority. Then again, as mentioned earlier with the still predominant whiteness of our seminaries, if we are sending white church planters to largely minority communities, they are facing many of the issues of trust that have been discussed in this thread. But yes I’d like to see that info as well
Mark Dever has said that pastors tend to over-estimate what they can accomplish in one year and tend to under-estimate what they can accomplish in ten years.
Russell Moore has led the ERLC for one year. Maybe we ought to wait before we pronounce any verdict upon the accomplishments of his administration in the area of racial integration.
Good point, Bart.
Respectfully, one really doesn’t have to wait ten years to perceive that Moore’s coming out the gate in full social-engineering mode.
Smacks of Washington.
He’s made statements about sbc churches being (present tense) pockets of “unreconstructed racism” … a charge lacking any presentation of data to support the claim.
The reference to post civil-war “reconstruction” demonstrates his lack of grasp on American history IMO.
If any internal “reconstruction” is going to happen, I prefer the initiative and direction of the HS as opposed to systems and quotas based on anything other than the content and character of the individual.
Bart, Brent, Tarheel,
Volfan reported a short while back that an Asian was rejected to head the IMB. My assumption is he had to have demonstrated buy in to have been named a finalist. Hispanics have told me that a highly qualified Hispanic with a Ph. D, fluent in Spanish, was rejected for a high profile job. The job was given to a less educated Anglo, who could not speak Spanish, and speaking Spanish was important for this particular job. Again, I know for certain that one of the four African Americans that you name as having buy in-and I agree with you-was rejected for an entity head job. I hope that the ERLC conference can figure out a way to solve this problem, or at least define buy in, so that we can get minorities appointed to some of these positions. Low CP giving has not been a disqualifier for some Whites. But, it is used to disqualify minorities. The standards need to be the same for everyone. We just need to know what the standards are. They seem to be a floating target.
Question: Why are we comfortable with quotas when it come to a clergy-laity ratios, but not comfortable with quotas with racial ratios? Is it because clergy-laity quota ratios are more important to us than racial quota ratios?
I’d vote to hire those men.
Bart,
I’m sure that you would hire those men. But, my point is that men who have met the “buy in” threshold, still haven’t been appointed to entity head positions. When one considers that 81 out of 82 persons on the EC committee is White, it raises the question: Why wasn’t persons appointed to the EC commitee from the churches pastored by the four men that you named that meet the “buy in” threshold? Members of their churches certainly qualified. How can we have 20% of our churches classified as minorities and only one lone minority selected to serve on the EC committee? That is an injustice.
Until the definition of “Buy-in” for the SBC does not have to include that you were present at all of the CR-related annual meetings, we will not make progress in reflecting today’s needs. Nor will we configure for the future.
Further, like many organizations, it’s not the written rules that are the problem, nor the stated intentions. It’s the unwritten rules–like one’s involvement with the CR or serving under a pastor that was–which are driving the decisions and relationships.
We need to recognize that there are faithful servants of Jesus who weren’t anywhere near the SBC in 1981-1995, and allow those folks to join in. I think the church-level of the SBC has grown somewhat more diverse since then. More as monoethnic churches of non-white ethnicity have come in, not “more integrated in the same church,” but it’s a start. We need to find a way to include them.
And if it means a defined, guaranteed participation? We have some of those spots on the ABSC Exec Board for women, and it forces us to look beyond just those few spots. It started where we just had those, but now there is better male/female representation. It takes time, and now the “quota” probably isn’t needed, but it stays there because by-law changes are a pain.
Right now, it often looks like we are building a Maginot Line for the SBC to defend against the next onslaught against Biblical truth, rather than recognizing the future threats.
I’m not sure I but into (see what I did there? LOL) your working hypothesis that these men you speak of were rejected because they were minorities…That would be overtly illegal and certainly immoral if true…therefore, Unless you have first hand knowledge of that assertion it might not be wise to repeat it.
Personnel decisions are by nature a bit, for lack of a better term, secret and for good reason. There are a myriad of factors that go into the decision whom to hire or recommend to the trustees for hire.
Tarheel,
Would you explain why it is the minority that’s always excluded when it comes to hiring & the decisions to do the hiring is usually made without any minority involvement? Do u believe that is fair & balanced in a convention that boast of 20% minority churches of my money serve me correctly.
We focus too much on relational connections when considering trustee and entity level appointments. I agree with all that Bart has said here and it is very good. However, I am concerned that the bar for “buy in”
might be artificially set higher for ethnic minorities in certain regards than it has been for Anglo leaders. We elected a slew of SBC Presidents whose CP giving was around 2%. Were they bought in? We just named David Platt as IMB president. His churches CP giving was very low. We elected Ronnie Floyd as SBC president. His CP giving is up, but was terrible in 2006 when he first ran. These men are all “bought in,” but if they were black, would we have thought so?
It seems as though the bar might change. “Yes, his church gives 6%, but he never comes to our pastor’s conferences.” You can add any other qualification there for white pastors to keep appointing their buddies who they believe will be a better mobilizer of the rank and file SBC than the minority candidate. Al Mohler, in his speech FOR Ronnie Floyd as SBC President, appealed to just such a qualification for leadership.
The “buy in” argument, if we are not careful, could become the equivalent of the poll tax for minorities in the past. Or the voter registration tests where the bar was actually set HIGHER for blacks than it was set for whites.
Bart is saying none of that and I so very much appreciate his perspective here. I am just looking at how this plays out practically. We appoint and elect those we know and those we believe will best represent us and mobilize us. The fact that we keep picking white guys should not be seen as a reflection on the lack of qualifications of ethnic minorities, but rather as a reflection on our own priorities.
My “buy in” comments relate more the theological underpinnings than certain level of monetary contributions to the CP – although, I readily admit it is a metric that many use to determine the “Southern Baptistness”.
Our church gives generously to the CP because we “buy into” the missionary endeavors and theological underpinnings (BFM2000) of the SBC – For us it has nothing to do with “representation by skin color”.
Granted, I have stated in other threads that my personal opinion is that SBC churches should give generously and substantially to the CP and and my preference is 10% – but I am not hung up on demanding it be just so for entity leadership, etc…
I know I will likely have intermittent areas of disagreement with anyone who holds office in the SBC as the perform their jobs – so uniform agreement is not even a requirement in my world.
I want faithful Southern Baptists who are men of sound Christian integrity, adn qualified for the jobs they hold serving as leaders in the “top spots” (I firmly believe we have that now at every post I might add) – those are my requirements.
Skin color does not matter to me. I feel that for example – both Fred Luter and Frank Page meet those requirements.
Question for those posting in favor of quotas (or whatever you call them) and saying things like “its past time we do this” and “its 2015”, etc…:
Would you support a denominational rule that local churches have pastoral and support staffs look like the community they are in? If, for example a church has 4 staff (A Senior Pastor, An Associate Pastor, a Music Director, and a Secretary) and they are in a community that is roughly – for discussion – 50% African American and 50% white – then should there be a convention rule that 2 of the staff persons be white and 2 be black?
I’m not necessarily for quotas, but take Alan Cross’ point in regards to the trustees of the EC being 81 of 82 white. 2 minorities would be an improvement. As far as your question, it’s a strawman. You know churches are free to govern and staff as they see fit, as they are accountable to themselves. As for our entities, the are accountable to all of us, at least supposedly
Oh, so church autonomy trumps what is being proposed here as the right thing to do?
If it is the right thing for Southern Baptists to do…then why not support it across the board?
Why not, by quota, make our church staffs and deacon boards look like what we demanding of entities?
Still apples to oranges in your scenario. Although many churches are indeed making an effort to “look like the community in which they serve,” we are talking about making the *leadership* of an organization look like the *membership* of that same organization. Thus, if a church’s *membership* is 50/50 white and black, then I think it would be wise for the church’s *leadership* (including staff, teachers and deacons) to look like that as well.
One other point… I think sometimes people reject this notion of fair and balanced member-leader representation because of the “rule” aspect, or the “requirement” aspect.
Let me just say that in the “fair and balanced” search team we are forming at church, no one *required* any kind of a quota, but every single person immediately saw the value in making sure that the Search Team consisted of members from all areas of church life.
“Quota” is quick to say and has many pejorative connotations. But “fair and balanced leadership representing proportionally all of the types of people that are found among the membership” is a more accurate way of describing what I desire.
Tarheel, unless you are looking to change SBC polity what you state is impossible. So why even pose it? Our churches are autonomous, but are our entities?
My point is that if it’s the right thing to do – it’s the right thing to do – autonomy aside.
Heck maybe we can start with those howling for diversity in the entities actually having it in their churches. Set the example.
If Moore is called into question for not living up to his rhetoric on diversity – shouldn’t bloggers be as well?
Tarheel, so I guess that means I speak from a position of credibility, see as we run about 50/50?
50/50 what?
We run 100% humans – well maybe with a few church mice.
😉
Tarheel, you were the one who called for those calling for the SBC to diversify and become more inclusive to exhibit it in the church. So since we do, is it OK for us to call for diversity, at least progress towards it?
I have no problem with calls for diversity I have problems with calls for quotas. I highly doubt you instituted a quota for your church membership – but if you did and you want to argue for a quota for the entities then by all means go for it.
Lol.
You do realize that my comments on that were a bit tongue-in-cheek and were meant to illustrate my point that diversity has to start within the churches – by your testimony you’re doing it – and like I said I bet you did it without quotas.
Also, didn’t you post at some point that your church is not in the United States?
I’m told that the divisive issues surrounding skin color are not as prevalent and lots of other countries as they are in the United States – is that true in the country you’re serving in?
Tarheel, and I agree about quotas. Stated that earlier. But how about some progress? Any progress? As a church we don’t match the demographics of our neighborhood yet, as it runs about 90% minority. But when we arrived 3 1/2 years ago we as a church were 2% minority and 98% white, and old to boot. So at 50/50 we have made progress. That’s what we need to see, and so far, all we see is talk. We’ve been intentional about becoming more inclusive, so must our leadership and entities in addition to our churches. None of this will happen overnight, but eventually, we need to take some steps in the right direction
Jeff – I’m just sincerely concerned that the push for quotas (some call them mechanisms – others call it progress or steps in the right direction – but when it’s really fleshed out it’s quotas) is truly a step in the wrong direction – I think with many the motives are pure but I truly believe that trying to shortcut this by instituting quotas will make the situation worse.
It’s almost like some people think that if we just had a black seminary Pres. – or a black entity Pres. – or black chairman of the Board of Trustees that immediately things would be better and minorities would flock to the Southern Baptist convention – Let me be clear, I would be fine if those things were to happen – UNLESS they only happened because of the persons skin color and a quota system – then it won’t matter how qualify they are – it won’t matter how theologically sound they are – none of the really important stuff will matter – they will always be viewed as “the black guy who got the job because he was black”. ( I even suspect internally in the back of their own minds they may even view it that way themselves as well).
I see that is a huge step backwards not forwards
Tarheel, we’re in Columbia…….South Carolina
Where the confederate flag still flies on statehouse grounds. Race is an issue we deal with often
Lol….South Carolina – not sure why I thought you were outside the states – someone I thought said that – sorry for the mix up.
Anyway – lol.
Tarheel, well….we did try to become our own country one time 😉 Kinda involved the same issue we’re still discussing today
If I’m right about where Tarheel is, I’m somewhere between you guys, geographically speaking. Even spent some time in Columbia at CIU.
Jeff said something thought-provoking: “Kinda involved the same issue we’re still discussing today”
You’re right, but the cause of the issue is less related to slavery and more related to Northern aggression, although I don’t think even that is quite accurate. A little closer to something that is less politically charged what many churches in my area have been going through: worship wars. Older folks want the younger folks to come to church as long they “buy in” to the way things have been done for a long time. Younger folks want to be included in the ministry of the church, but don’t think the way it’s been done for a long time is flawed and focused on the wrong things.
The answer to both the worship wars and the integration of leadership is discipleship. This isn’t just passing on information, but developing a relationship with a suffering Lord who is Master of both the leadership of the SBC and its constituent churches as well as any who feel disenfranchised for any reason. It’s a poor decision to put people among the leadership of an organization who don’t “have skin in the game” which is part of what it means to be disenfranchised. It’s a poor leader who has “skin in the game” that fails to recognize those disenfranchised by his leadership.
Likewise for a church in a city that is say – 75% African-American and 25% white then shouldn’t – say 4 staff member church have 3 African Americans and one white staff members? Wouldn’t having 4 whites on staff – according to arguments made here that – be an injustice?
Maybe such a church should institute a quota?
Following the conversation up to this point, I think there’s a question that’s being begged: that white people can only represent white people and that black people can only represent black people. We will never integrate with that mindset.
Dr. Luter, as a counter-example, represented my interests (I’m pretty much a white guy) as president of the SBC, yet not my interests as an individual but as a member of an SBC church. What’s the difference if every single leader in the SBC were black? Would they not represent my interests as such? I think they would even if I doubted that they fully understood me as a white guy. I doubt the white guys in leadership fully understand me. But they’re not there for me alone. We have a gospel to proclaim as an organization. That’s what they’re about and that is the interest I have that they should “buy in” to and represent.
Jim,
You make a valid point. But, given the reality of the existence of qualified & willing minorities to serve as entity heads, why aren’t they given an opportunity?
In Acts 6 the early church solved this problem by selecting 7 Greek-speaking men to distribute alms to the Greek widows. That resolved the complaint. The early church could have easily said that the Jewish leaders could very well represent the Grecian wifoes. But, they didn’t say that. Why make such a claim when capable, available, & willing Greek men are willing to serve.
Exactly Dwight,
It is always about inclusion, not about integration (at least as is politically defined). As an example…If there were a situation where I was allowed to serve with a group of men, 50 with a darker colored skin, and 50 with a whiter colored skin,…yet I come to find out that only 50 of those men were Godly and had a darker colored skin. Those are the men that I would serve.
Serving is based in commitment, knowledge, doctrine and inclusion,… forced participation, ranked by skin color, is simply a trap maintained by Satan.
Chris, your comment on Jan. 29 at 12:18 is a great one, indeed.
I’m sure I don’t know who all is willing to serve or not to serve. I’m also not sure the example is completely analogous. The Greek men weren’t chosen to have positions of great power, but it seems like we’re talking about a power struggle in the SBC. Do we…
A) have men who desire power?
B) want to convey the idea that we’re all in this together to people who don’t trust anyone except members of their own race?
C) have existing leadership doesn’t trust people of a certain race?
If it’s A or C, then we need to rebuke them. If it’s B, then we need to find a way to earn the trust of people. Whichever one it is, answering either of the other two instead isn’t going to accomplish a thing.
One other thing: Just being ready, willing, and able to serve isn’t qualification enough to serve. I’ve had to let go of plenty that I’ve been ready, willing, and able to do in Kingdom work that I simply wasn’t needed for. I’ve had to sit by and watch others do something that I could do better. But God made the way for them to do it instead. So I understand the frustration there, if that’s a factor. People with a servant’s heart want to be needed. It seems to me that developing relationships so that we can learn of the people who would be a good fit in various positions in the organization would be the most helpful thing we haven’t been doing.
I heard Tony Evans recently on a Moody broadcast.
His comments about their evolving ministries (in their “neck of the woods” for us suthenuhs–or “hood”, or neighborhood for others) revealed that they are not very much on the radar of concern for how many whites, Hispanics, or Asians are numerically proportionate or represented. They haven’t joined in with CNN and Politico to insist that the SBC, UMC and other religious organizations get their act together concerning white male domination and homophobia.
They are just way too busy seeing God transform lives and inspire very non-traditional methodologies and programs in the process.
I don’t sense that they are engrossed in titles, positions, pay-scales, office towers, traditions, ethnicity and histories–how all this needs to change to properly reflect “we are sorry for the past and we are going to change the future”.
My impression of his sermon was that anyone who wants to get on board is welcome. In fact, he instigated and established a requirement that all members had to sign up for a ministry.Period. (could the ERLC do this?)
This upcoming ERLC conference will define what we hope to mean by “the gospel”, “racial”, and “reconciliation”.
What we do with those definitions is something I look forward to seeing.
If it is not more than, “Our socio-economical divides will have to take a back seat for a while until we fix this ethnic ratio disparity.”
Or, “Our gender-sexual orientation concerns are important , but…”
Or, “the CEO and Executive organizational needs are suffering. We may not have the position/funds at all available–for any ethnic choice or vote”.
Once again we find that individuality reigns. A culture of narcissism and prejudice will not bow to any decree from mans directive.
They must have a heart transformation, not a political manifesto, before hope reigns.
We can expect individuals, churches and their leaders to change–we can command them to change–we can punish them for not changing their minds about discrimination or any other of Christs commands.
But until the heart is truly “reconciled to God”, we have impotent words and class action personalities speaking on our behalf. Reverend Al anyone?
I think I’d rather hear from Tony.
Thanks, Glenn. I have a lot of respect for Tony Evans. He hasn’t always been perfect, but I think he has gone a long way. I even sent him a handwritten letter once commending him on a message and he responded with a card with a short, handwritten note on it. That’s way more than I expect from a man with the time constraints I’m sure he is under as a pastor and a national public figure.
My grandfather, who was a Baptist preacher in another time when racial sensibilities were not as good as what they are today, in his later years showed me an article he had read about Dr. Evans and spoke highly of him. Individuals change, but building bridges of trust where people can give each other the benefit of the doubt takes time and the intentional effort to extend that kind of trust where only suspicion has lived in the past. My goal in this is to encourage people to have the courage to take those steps.
Dwight,
Jesus and his apostles were a group “representing” a single, what might say, “race”….so was Jesus committing an injustice in not including other “people groups” in his close nit group of Apostles? Is the message they shared suspect because it was not initially carried forth by people “representing” varying skin tones?
Tarheel,
If you study the complexions of the Jews of Palestine during the time of Jesus you will discover that they came in a wide range of colors. Jesus himself was a person whose “hair was like lamb’s wool,” and “his feet was like bronze or brass,” “his head was white”[the greek word used for ‘white’ in Revelation 1 describing Jesus indicates the color of white whine, therefore we can surmise that Jesus complexion resembled the color of white wine]. Jews come then and now in a wide variety of colors. There is no reason to believe that all of Jesus’ disciples were the same color.
I hope this answered your question.
But it’s safe to say none were black (so to speak) so I ask again was Jesus’ ministry based on what buys give – and not giving “voice” to those with darker skin tones?
*what buys give – should read *injustice
Wow! How did you get there from here 🙂
I thought I was bad at spelling.
Wow. Your autocorrect has some issues, Tarheel.
One might admit that whatever Jesus did was absolutely right, and therefore is beyond question *when He does it.*
But you take that same group of folks, and the second problem in the church, after lying about money, is that there is perceived racial/ethnic injustice, isn’t it?
And do we not see, typically, that part of the response in Acts 6 is to broaden the ethnic base of church leadership–even if meant “creating” positions for the new group?
I don’t know quite how that all should mirror over into today, since we have 2000 years of existence as churches unlike in Acts. But it’s worth noting that in Acts, Galatians, Colossians, and Revelation we find clear statements that the Gospel, the Church, the people of God, are all bigger than one ethnic group.
Maybe we could do a little better at reflecting that, right here right now.
Heel, bloctem surtsin johtu lave.
Your friend, dean
Tarheel,
No it’s not safe to say “none were Black.” Many of them would fit the American definition of Black, in complexion and features…”hair like lamb’s wool”…”feet like bronze or brass” They were a mixed multitude-African and Jewish(Exodus 12: 38).
Tarheel,
Jesus certainly “gave voice to darker skin tones.” His voice was one of them.
So he gave no voice to white folk, then as there were none of them in the inner circle?
My point is – your line of argumentation purports that only those with dark skin can represent those with dark skin and only those white skin can represent those white skin so if Jesus and his apostles had dark skin – then were whites were treated with injustice, by the lack of “representation” right?
I say of course not – the message of Christ and the apostles is universal and skin tone is irrelevant to that message – both with regard to the messenger and with regard to the one who receives that message.
This is why I reject your premise that only blacks can “represent” blacks.
Tarheel,
No where have I argued here or elsewhere that only “Blacks can represent Blacks.” Please retract that erroneous and deliberately false allegation, or demonstrate and document where I’ve made such an outrageous, unbiblical, untrue, and impractical claim.
What I have said that 81 out of 82 EC committee members being White is an injustice…and it is. I’ve said that zero entity heads who are Asian, Hispanic, or African American is blatantly non-reflective of the multi-racial composition of the SBC. That my friend is simply a fact.
Why do you think that there is a ample representation of Black speakers at the upcoming ERLC Race Conference? Because, it would obviously be a huge tactical, practical, and imbalanced proportional error to exclude Blacks on this platform. Given the subject matter under discussion, the conference would start out with an huge credibility gap, if there was only one Black speaker…Agree? Given the high percentage of minority churches that belong to the SBC and who have been there since the mid’ 50’s, likewise it presents a credibility gap of monumental proportions for not one ethnic minority to have “qualified” for an entity head position over this almost seventy year history of ethnic churches belonging to the SBC.
Again, please retract this false misrepresentation of my position on ethnic inclusion in the SBC. Thanks.
Dwight,
I think you’ve you some pretty harsh language – deliberately false? That’s essentially calling me a liar, is that what you mean to do?
No, I do not think you have use those exact words – but I am not the only one on this thread who has understood that to be your inference. Please read the comments by others who have stated the same understanding of your comments.
You’ve been pretty clear that you feel that blacks do not “have a voice” in the SBC because they are not represented in the leadership – you said that you have trouble “buying in” to the SBC because of what you have identified as unfair representation – you’ve even indicated that the lack of blacks in leadership is intentional (you’ve stated that qualified blacks were intentionally overlooked) so it seems to me that you’re saying that the white people who are in leadership can’t represent you because they’re not black. Is that not what you’re saying?
Tarheel,
White scholars have argued that everyone in the Bible is White. William F. Albright, A H Sayce, Dake, and many, many others have made such a claim. Most White scholars would argue that the disciples were White. Therefore, they had a voice according to White scholarship. I believe that one could find all colors represented among the disciples. That’s simply the racial makeup of that area, and that was more-so true in Bible days.
Furthermore, Tarheel,
Russell Moore represents me and the entire composition of the SBC in an excellent manner. I’m grateful beyond measure that Moore is at the helm of the ERLC. He is God’s man for that job at this unique juncture in our nations history. I am proud that he is my representative and more importantly the Kingdom’s representative regarding race issues in my denomination of choice at this hour. I dare venture to say that if a Black, Asian, or Hispanic man had made some of the statements, and taking some of the positions that Russell Moore has taken up ’till this point, they would have been fired. Make no mistake about it, he has caught a lot of flak because of his bold, biblical, courageous, and uncharacteristic like stands for the SBC on race issues, but, he is still standing, because he is on the side of right. My point is, you don’t have to be White to represent me.
I felt the same way about Fred Luter – I have stated many times that I do not care what skin color or a person has – it is a relevant to me – I care more about who the person is (i.e. their character, their value system, what they believe, etc.)
I voted for Dr. Kim for president – because I felt that he would be a better president in lots of ways than Ronnie Floyd – and none of those reasons had anything to do with skin color.
*Irrelevant.
Dwight,
You said – “White scholars have argued that everyone in the Bible is White. William F. Albright, A H Sayce, Dake, and many, many others have made such a claim.”
And that claim is patently ridiculous. Several years ago we had all of the “portraits of Christ”/”portraits of apostles” removed from the hallways and classrooms of our church – reason? Because of the patently ridiculous caricatures of blonde haired blue eyed American looking Men.
Jesus and his apostles were not “white”, was not “black” – he and the apostles most likely looked like people we identify as “Arabs” today.
Tarheel,
I am saying that Whites in leadership ought to include people who look like me, especially if
they meet the buy-in threshold.
For the last time, yes, Whites can represent me, and Blacks can represent Whites. That’s not the point. The point is that all should be seated at the table, not just Whites. To extrapolate anything else from my words is to put words in my mouth. Please retract the allegations that I am arguing that Whites can’t represent Blacks. As much as you regret it, President Obama represents you, simply because he’s the President & you & I live in America. Neither one of us voted for him. But, he represents both of us, whether we agree with him or not.
BTW, Jesus probably looked like President Obama. He had four ladies descendants of Ham(Africa historically & biblically was known as “the land of Ham”) in his bloodline. Semitic people range in complexion from chocolate to chalk. Jesus & His disciples ranged in complexion along those lines. The cross breeding between the children of Ham, and the children of Shem was so great, until they often could not be distinguished from one another. That is even seen in some names overlapping in the Table of the Nations(Genesis 10).
Several years ago, we too, took all the pictures of European looking Bible characters down from our walls for the same reasons. You & I have found a point of commonality.
You all but admit that I did not say, nor have I inferred that Whites cannot represent Blacks. So will you please retract these outrageous claims you’re making that I said Whites cannot represent Blacks. None of the quotes that you accurately attribute to me make or imply that claim. They simply point out the desperate plea & desire for inclusion & empowernent. That’s the point.
I’m not against inclusion – I’m for it – I’m against appointing anyone to position because of their skin color and further my opposition to that is just as strong and just as fervent as my opposition to excluding a person because of their skin color.
Respectfully Dwight – I’m sticking by tge assertion that you’ve implied what I said.
If you’re adequately and fairly represented by Moore and people of his skin tone – then what is your point in insisting blacks be there in avoid what you’ve called “injustice”?
Additionally – as I said I am not the only person on the thread who has taken your comments to imply what I have asserted that they imply. Why are you not demanding retractions from them?
Dwight and Tarheel, If I may offer a few words of peace… It seems to me that Dwight is saying that Moore represents him but he still wants blacks on the ERLC for other reasons. And also in other places. Dwight, good non-racist white people are color blind. And they can’t understand why you are not. I think your goal should be to become colorblind as well. But just like the white folk just didn’t become color blind overnight, it isn’t going to happen very quickly. [And by you, I mean non-racist good black Christians, as a whole.] Is not the goal that we all just see each other as people? and not people of one color or another? Or one gender or another? or even one language or another? Tarheel: Good non-racist black people like our brother Dwight and his community need a little help in becoming colorblind, just like many of our white brethren needed help. Its different kind of help because they have been and are in a different place. So what they need is a visible show of acceptance and trust from the white brothers by making it a reality that people of all colors are working together in the upper echelons of our entities. So while Dwight is confident that brother Moore represents him as a SBCer, what he is fighting for is an integration that will evoke a spirit of brotherhood and trust between SBCers of all ethnic backgrounds. It is a very reasonable request that when filled will greatly enhance race relations by allowing people of all ethnic backgrounds to grow together [and become more colorblind]. What I suggest is that brother Moore, or whoever has the power and authority, gather a group of non-white leaders, like Dwight, to aid our entities in placing select and qualified brothers and sisters from his community, in real jobs, new ones if need be, in these entities so that these men and women can show their worth and value, and can use their ideas and spirit to grow the SBC into a better servant of our Lord. And as they are known by their coworkers as men of integrity and value, they will be moved up the ladder, some a little, a few a lot. Yes, that will cost money. But it is well worth the effort, and the cost, to integrate our entities with various… Read more »
Thanks Mike – your comments are welcome and will be considered. You’ve made good points. I appreciate it.
Mike,
Your comments were/are appreciated. I get your point. I agree with the sentiments that your points convey,
Slight pushback though. The goal of being colorblind is not a biblical goal. God made the colors(Acts 17: 26). All of His creation is colorful. A one color world, race, and creation would be rather boring. The goal is not for Tarheel or me to become color blind. Usually those who argue for colorblindness are the ones already included & empowered. The goal is to not allow color to be a barrier or hindrance to full inclusion(Acts 2: 5, 13: 1,2; John 17: 21). I do believe your comments though help to bridge the gap between Tarheel & I. Thanks.
I am headed back to my eye dock this week.
It seems that I am not color blind and I perhaps “should be”. Maybe he can fix me.
I am neither color blind, nor ethnicity deaf.
And I hear real good too. My wife wants me to grow up to be a mute. If I refuse, she just wants me to grow up.
I have numerous friends who are mixed ethnicity (like our President). Talk about a slice of our society that gets an extra dose of prejudice–darts from both sides. This group is growing rapidly in our country.
If I look hard enough I can see which ethnic parent is dominant.(should I be doing this?)
While the ERLC is meeting, I hope that they will consider the plight of these folks and consider them for positions of authority as well. Wait a minute–how will they do this if they are all blind?
I say we invent glasses that we can put on and off for those moments when blindness to real life or to our prejudice is needed.
For me, color is a way cool intelligent design. I refuse to pretend it doesn’t exist in order to satisfy another’s need to prove the absence of their prejudice. It doesn’t work. We all have a multicolored, or black and white world to live in.
It is full of people who are lost and as such, may or may not, demean others because of skin color. It is full of people who are saved, and as such may or may not demean others because of skin color.
No, outward acts of hatred and violence are not as common, thankfully, but the inside thoughts, the crude jokes hidden from all (unless there is a microphone accidentally left on) can and will continue because we are not blind…because we walk after the flesh and not the Spirit.
I would like to chime in if I may. I believe Dwight when he says that he believes that whites in the SBC can represent him. The very fact that Dwight has remained with the SBC and not left us speaks to that truth very well. He is just saying that it is time for a change, time for the cronyism to stop, time to look at qualified folks outside of the usually candidates. I for one agree with him completely.
“He is just saying that it is time for a change, time for the cronyism to stop, time to look at qualified folks outside of the usually candidates. I for one agree with him completely.”
I do too – I just don’t favor making skin color the basis – that would be simply exchanging an undesirable system of cronyism with another undesirable system of skin color-based preferences.
Tarheel,
It’s a little hard to diversify if you don’t take note of those differences. If you have qualified candidates who are people of color, why not at this point give them an extra look? It’s not affirmative action, it’s convention working toward diversity. Diversity must be intentional.
My issue is with the focusing on external differences as if they are foundational to the character and the soul of the person – truthfully skin color is no different in determining who a person is then the color of their hair – but it would be absolutely ridiculous – and rejected by everyone – if we set quota in place for people with large noses versus people with small noses.
People are people skin color is simply an external matter – it is my position that we make it far too important in our society and that does nothing but cause division – Fostering an us against them mentality –which is unequivocally unbiblical.
I hear you Tarheel. And I track with you until I am reminded of passages like Genesis 11, Genesis 12:1-3, Acts 2:5-11, Galatians 3:28, Revelation 5:9, etc. I am like you. I am not sure I understand WHY skin color matters any more than the size of one’s nose matters. But what I do know is that it DOES matter. It matters to those who feel disenfranchised by a system that has led to ONLY white entity heads and MOSTLY white trustees. And I believe it matters to God, as evidence by the passages mentioned above. We ought not to play down our differences. The Triune God created diversity. He loves diversity. And He loves unity in diversity. That is what we should seek in the SBC, unity in diversity.
It matters to God in that he created us that way and we should never be ashamed of who we are, what we look like, or how we been created – Shall the clay say to the potter why has not made me thus? I’m with you there.
I am not sure those cited passages imply that there are *differences* between people of different skin color in the eyes of God – in fact I think those scriptures teach that there is unity in our common need for the gospel – and Unity in celebration of such – regardless of skin color unity is found in the gospel – our unity is Southern Baptist is in the gospel – it’s in our missionary endeavors – it’s in our common theological framework – its In other avenues of “buy in” but it’s not (or shouldn’t be) based on skin color.
I think we all agree that in the past the Southern Baptist convention was formed out of a division based on skin color – that was wrong – I’m glad that has been apologize for and I’m glad that we have moved away from it – but what I can’t get away from here is the feeling that choosing people for appointment based on skin color is a huge step backwards – back to those days when skin color divided.
As I’ve stated before I firmly believe that if the attitude is there must be black people in leadership in order for black people to feel a part OR there must be white people in order for white people to feel a part – then the unity and diversity that you speak of will never happen.
As Dr. JW said earlier in the thread – there is but one race – the human race. Yes, there are cultural differences cultural differences – but we are all on the race.
I also think that it is in embracing of the world’s view that is being touted here – it results in an elevation of skin color to a level that divides.
Our son pastors a church that is integrated. We have about five or six black members and at least two integrated families, i.e., white wife and black husband, black husband, white wife. These days, the church will take any and all who are willing to receive and follow Christ as He is presented in the Bible. It helps to say that the last church I served had Blacks who attended sporadically. Some were friends of our son in grade school and high school. We had at least one young man who come and spend a night with our son, and our son would spend a night with him and his family. His mother was a person who could prepare healthy, diet foods and make them taste great. It helps to have knowledge and training in order to have a meaningful relationship with people from a close but different culture (there is only race, the human race; it is cultural differences that give us trouble).
Good thoughts, Dr. Willingham. We have several members of our church of recognizably different ethnicities. Nevertheless, we are still a mostly white church.
We just had a funeral this week for a black member with ties to the black community. (Most of our neighborhoods are integrated these days and she didn’t live in the traditional black neighborhood in town, which even has white people in it too now. It’s not fitting to say that there is a black neighborhood per se, but we all recognize that there is a black community because of extended families, etc.) Because of her ties to black churches, much of the funeral was done by the black pastors she knew although it was facilitated by our pastor. It was on of the most uplifting funeral I’ve been to, not because black folks have better funerals, but because we were together, not as black and white, but as brothers and sisters in Christ; and we recognized among us the One who gives us true unity.
William,
Thank you for the post, it would appear from the discussion that we all agree that there is a problem but disagree about the right course of action. If the intelligentsia of the Convention push for a social progressive approach ( redefining the Gospel, quotas for entities and Seminaries etc) this means that many must be willing to step aside to let others go before them. Some of course will not voluntarily step aside so they must be sacrificed on the altar of social progressivism for the greater good of the organization. The discussion on this blog shows that many are willing to relinquish their own positions for the sake of diversity.
Wilbur
You’re right Wilbur – i’ve asked the question a couple of times whether Dr. Moore (for example – but he would be the one since he’s “Leading the charge here”) would be willing to step aside so that a “minority” could be placed in his position? I ask tgis a bit tongue-in-cheek because I don’t really want or expect him to do that – but if he were to and were to announce that was his reason and a minority was put into that position that I think people would see the point that the new appointed would, in the minds of many – most? be judged on their character and qualifications and only be seen as the “affirmative action hire/appointment”.
Or to really bring it home how many of the multi staff churches represented by people calling for diversity with quotas would have/offer resignations on their single skin color staffs so as to hire a minority? How would that go over in a local church? “Johnny Q pastor will be resigning because he’s white and we need minorities on our staff.”
Million dollar questions: Would such an action bring about harmony or disharmony among those with different skin colors? Or if that was the intent but the reasoning was not announced – would being deceptive be the better course of action? – and how exactly would that be biblical?
*NOT be judged on their character and qualifications and INSTEAD be seen as the “affirmative action hire/appointment”.
Tarheel,
I remember meeting you in Baltimore, and appreciated our brief visit. I recently read that when you meet people & get to know them “the horns come off”-:). “Your horns came off” in Baltimore-:). But, with your latest “affirmative action hire” quote…you are about to put your horns back on. That almost tops the outrageous comments that you’ve made here…and that’s pretty hard to do. No one, absolutely no one, is advocating an affirmative action hire. No one is saying substituting color for competence. To suggest such is patently offensive. That’s why I question the wisdom of “buy in” with mind sets like your in the SBC. Do you think that your “affirmative action hire” quote mindset represent the majority of White SBC’rs?
Dwight,
Respectfully, truly respectfully, I realize that you have not said that you want an affirmative action higher but when what you’re advocating is taken to its logical conclusion and that is what you have – quotas, no matter how lofty the goal – and how sincere and good intended the gold may be and in this case is – the reality is that when a person is hired because of a quota then those questions are always going to be in the forefront – this is why I oppose skin color quotas so strongly – this is why I oppose affirmative action so strongly – because, although well-intentioned I truly leave it makes the situation worse. I truly think it exacerbates tensions.
I’m very sorry that you think I have Horns – i’m very sorry that you’ve taken our disagreements as being personal – that’s the problem with blogs – all I can say to you through this computer screen is that my Objections come from the heart that is firmly planted against skin color discrimination – I absolutely hate it.
Its hard to discuss these issues (in person or on a blog) because is much easier to label or attack a person that we disagree with then it is to actually discuss the hard matters.
I’ve tried really diligently to discuss this matter philosophically and on its merits and not personally – however It seems as though I’ve really upset you because your last post seems to have come from a place of anger and lashing out – that has not been my intention.
Dwight,
I enjoyed meeting you too in Baltimore – I hope to see you in Columbus!
Tarheel,
Precisely, philosophically many ideas sound really good, even admirable but in the application things can go haywire. This is why the conference must spell out exactly what they want the SBC to do and then let us in the trenches discuss this within the context of the local church. We all agree that racial reconciliation is close to the heart of God the question is how can a denomination address the issue without embracing a secular philosophy that has thus far yielded poor results not to mention tampering with the Gospel itself.
In my hind the Gospel is the answer.
wilbur
Wilbur,
Would you be more specific regarding who is “tampering with the gospel” and in what way is the gospel being tampered with?
Dwight,
It has been suggested on this blog that social justice is innate to the Gospel. My viewpoint is that justice is the result or byproduct of the Gospel. The distinction is important.
wilbur
Yes, it’s a very important distinction.
Wilbur,
Jesus called the gospel “the gospel of the kingdom.” The “kingdom” implies all people, “every creature.” Therefore the preaching of the gospel includes the reaching & the reconciling of the races. Jesus called the greatest commandment loving God and loving people. Therefore, racial reconciliation is a gospel demand. A gospel that centers on the cross of Jesus but neglects the crown of Jesus-his reign, rule, and authority, over the affairs of man…is not the gospel that Jesus preached. A gospel that wants people souls slaved while simultaneously enslaving them, is a gospel that is woefully insufficient and misinformed. That’s the gospel that the SBC preached from her inception ’till ’bout 1950. That’s because they preached a gospel that didn’t demand a Kingdom perspective, as taught by Jesus.
Wilbur,
Social justice, to me, means justice in the sphere of society or the world. Peace between people. But that is not the work of the church. The work of the church is to proclaim Jesus Christ is that peace.
But how can we proclaim that He is that peace IF we are not at least working towards peace within the church?
There is then at least two issues. One issue is the social justice issue in which the church should be proclaiming that trust in Jesus is the answer. The other issue is that within the church, we should, since we have embraced Jesus as Lord, be seeking to live out that peace in a practical and visible way:
The world will know that we are His children by our love for one another.
The world will praise God when they see our light shine.
When it comes to righteous issues, the church should lead by example, not just in word.
peace,
mike
Wilbur,
Paul clearly equated the gospel with racial reconciliation in Galatians 2: 14. A proper understanding & application of what Paul said there, should forever settle the question of whether or not the gospel demands racial reconciliation.
Brother Dwight,
Thank you for your lengthy response. I agree with you that
“racial reconciliation is a gospel demand.” Racial reconciliation is a gospel demand as much as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring for orphans and widows, ministering to the handicapped, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, concern for the persecuted church, acting to stop pornography, suicide prevention, advancing literacy, advocating smoking cessation classes etc, etc. Each of these and so many more are “gospel demands”. And as such local congregations need to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s leading in how to address them at the local level.
I have been committed both in belief and behavior to racial reconciliation since I was about 7 years old. What works is when each person is persuaded to do what is right in each unique situation. An institutional top down bureaucratic program to bring about racial reconciliation will not work.
My hope for the conference is that the Holy Spirit will move to impress upon the attendees to be faithful to the Gospel . Where the Gospel is preached souls will be won and social change will be the result. This is God’s way.
You and I dear Brother in Christ cannot accomplish in our flesh what God wants to do through us in the Spirit.
Blessings, wilbur
Wow Wilbur. I totally disagree with everything you have written in your comment. And strongly disagree.
Tarheel, tell me if you think it a reasonable expectation that THE one SBC agency that calls for and promotes racial integration, harmony, and justice has at least some minorities in top leadership.
Then tell me if you think that the notable LACK of any minority in high level position at the ERLC opens them up to criticism and undermines their general call for racial harmony and their specific call for congregations to be more racially diverse.
I haven’t called for the ERLC CEO or any other head to be replaced by a minority or that any concrete numerical policy of affirmitive action be adopted.
This is the sort of discussion that we in the SBC would really rather not take place. It’s so much easier just to have a big confab and invite a bunch of minority speakers.
I don’t doubt Moore’s sincerity. He could enhance his street cred on this with specific, in-house action. I predict that he will.
William,
“Tarheel, tell me if you think it a reasonable expectation that THE one SBC agency that calls for and promotes racial integration, harmony, and justice has at least some minorities in top leadership.”
Hopefully though he’s not advocating preferential actions based on skin color (which will end up With quotas) but if he does – then I think he should live up to The rhetoric.
“Then tell me if you think that the notable LACK of any minority in high level position at the ERLC opens them up to criticism and undermines their general call for racial harmony and their specific call for congregations to be more racially diverse.”
See above. 🙂
TH, the question was (1) is it a reasonable expectation? Either it is or it isn’t, and (2) do you think credibility would be enhanced on racial issues?
But if you want to answer questions not asked, fine.
Yes, it’s reasonable and his credibility will be increased if he practices what he preaches.
The principle of diversification is one that we all agree on – it’s the methods of implementation that lead to the disagreements.
I’d like to know what implementation methods he’s calling for.
So far as I know he is calling for church racial action by use of education and persuasion which are what I would expect the ERLC to do.
In regard to his own staff, he hasn’t volunteered and hasn’t been asked.
I, for one, do not think that Moore has to fix a perceived problem before calling for the problem to be fixed. I’m not sure there is a problem, but I fully understand why a black man would like to see other black men in leadership positions. I also understand the wisdom in SBC entities reflecting the “look” of the churches. There are certainly a great many capable folks of all types to fill these positions. A call for color-blindness rings hollow when compared to the reality of the world we live in. Race matters, but racism is sin. A quota isn’t inherently evil, and certainly may be a good idea if a group places the quota on themselves.
Don,
Your comment here is a 5 star comment. I give it a million likes.
Dwight,
As I have read and followed this discussion it seems to me that Dr. Moore has been left off the hook. As William has pointed out, perhaps Moore had his mind on other things when elected, but before he gets in front of cameras or writes commentary that churches should get their act together, it would seem that he should have looked in the mirror and dealt with his own oversight on staffing.
My question to you Dwight is, “Reading that you respect Moore greatly, have you had any correspondence with him (either by phone, email, etc.) speaking of the things you passionately speak about on this blog?”
I would thoroughly enjoy hearing Moore’s response to you and think it would serve well as a post you could write in follow-up.
Nate, Russell Moore & I met each other, when we debated each other on the gift of tongues at the SBC San Antonio. We have no close personal relationship. I see him at the annual SBC. He heard I was on Southern’s campus in the library doing independent study, & he made his way there to greet & welcome me. Beyond that, we have had no ongoing relationship or communication. During the Trayvon Martin controversy, he made what I considered a great statement in response. I publicly lauded his statement & he sent me a communicaid thanking me for my appreciation of his statement. That was a couple of years or more ago when the Trayvon matter was more prominently in the news. There has been zero personal communication between Moore & I regarding Ferguson or New York(Eric Garner). On his blog, I have made a comment or two, and he has briefly responded, as he does with other commenters. That’s been the total of our interaction & communication. I simply applaud & appreciate all that I’ve read that he’s said/spoken about race-related issues. My guess is Moore would rather I be silent ’bout my admiration & appreciation of him. But, I believe in him; and I am thrilled with the upcoming conference he’s hosting. Never before in the history of the SBC to my knowledge has such a conference been held, especially with as many top-notch African-American & Anglo speakers. I love what he is saying ’bout the gospel & racial reconciliation. It is completely bogus and a distraction to drag into this discussion the racial make up of his staff. We all know that all White staffs has been & is the standard practice of SBC entities historically. The one Black female hire represents progress. I’m proud of that. The courage to say the things he’s said & call the gathering he’s called far outweigh any feeble attempts to discredit him based on the racial makeup of his staff. One of the points of the conference is to admit that all of us-including minorities-have been guilty of racial sins &practices. But, it’s time to acknowledge our sins & wrong past practices, and launch a new course of action. I admire him for that. I don’t understand the condemnation. All of us need to improve in this area, including the ERLC. But, why condemn the messenger? MLK could have… Read more »
Thanks Dwight.. I’m sorry if I came across as blaming Moore as that wasn’t my point. I do think he could set a great precedence (when he took office) because he does believe what you have described and I do think leaders in high profile positions lead best when they lead by example. That was my point and I still would encourage you to consider sending him a note to encourage him as well (perhaps you have).
Just as MLK fought for the integration of society, Russell Moore’s legacy might be having fought for the integration of the SBC & her churches. The fact that the SBC ERLC is leading & hosting this discussion & not the NBC is significant. Just as it took King to lead the fight for the integration of society–it would have been easier to dismiss & silence the voice of a White leader calling for this–it’s going to take a White brother to lead the fight for the integration of our churches.
“it’s going to take a White brother to lead the fight for the integration of our churches”
I think that is a correct insight, but you and others will need to work inside the historically black church affiliations as well.
Thanks for being a willing participant.
Nate,
I believe that is why the Lord has brought me to the place of leadership at the Associational level, and growing acceptance at the National level within the NBC; so that I can be used of God to advance His Kingdom in cooperation with the people of God who are Baptist & of color. I pray that God would use me to help bridge the gap. Thanks for your response Nate. I appreciate what you had to say in it.
The bottom line in my mind is that there doesn’t have to be a quota, simply an intentional effort at diversification. We have several very capable black men in the convention. Dwight McKissic, Voddie Baucham, H.B. Charles, and Bryan Carter just to name a few.
The idea of an “intentional effort” as the key seems like the way to start.
John Wiley, Parsonmike, Tarheel,
“Intentional effort.” I’ll vote for that. Now, if we can get Tarheel to vote for that, I’ll take the”horns off of him.”-:).
Personally, Although there are lots of positions that are desirable, I would like to see a black seminary president. They bring a fire to the pulpit that I would love to see reignited in the SBC.
Ken Fentress, Senior Pastor of the Montrose Church in Rockville, Md would be someone who could fill those shoes, although I don’t know that he would have an interest.
I sat under him for two Hebrew courses and a class on Genesis. His daughter and my daughter were friends at the school they attended. I was sad to see him leave Southern Seminary.
Is he the guy who was nominated for SBC president? Or was that a different Maryland pastor?
That was Dr. Kim.. different guy..
Ken Fentress would make a great SBC seminary President. So would Robert Smith. Golden Gate has a Black Professor who made the finalist list when they hired their current President. He would also make a great President. His name escapes me at the moment.
Thanks Nate
Brother Dwight,
I am glad that there are so many qualified brothers out there who would fit the bill nicely. That fact alone should be enough to set aside any comparison to affirmative action or quotas. I am also glad to hear that the professor in California at least made the short list in the process.
I’d need to know how that noble sounding phrase is defined…before I’d vote for it.
So I guess for now – the horns stay on – whatever that means.
Maybe the application process – or vetting process – should be changed so as to hide identities of applicants until later in the process so that there is no racial preference debate whatsoever.
Maybe all applicants (instead of nominations) do so by computer and are assigned a number by computer – and identifying information is not part of the process until vetting process takes place based on qualifications and strengths.
This way we remove the boys club/cronyism from the process and whichever applicants (without reference to skin tone) rises to the top will rise to the top. Perhaps identifiers are not even part of the process until the final stages of the process.
Tarheel,
As much as our race (and yes there are races) has discriminated against the black man, you are genuinely worried about us showing a little intentionality toward a person of color? If they meet the qualifications why does it matter that their ethnicity is also considered? People of other ethnicities bring so much to the table, and it runs much deeper than simply skin color. It includes customs, and perspectives, and experiences. We ought to embrace an intentional consideration of minority candidates for key positions.
Tarheel,
Are you familiar with the NFL rule that requires NFL teams to interview at least one minority while looking for a head coach? That rule has lead to at least 3 Black head coaches competing for Super Bowl championships & (I believe, if memory serves me correctly) two of them one the SB. Without that rule in place they all maintain that they would not have been interested viewed or hired for the head coaching jobs. We ought to at least require such a rule in the SBC. That would be intentional minority consideration for entity head hiring.
Tarheel,
I think that a better idea is t devise a way that intentionally mixes up the racial makeup in targeted entities.
The idea is to jump start an inclusion of minorities.
Now will the best person for the job get hired? Who knows, but who knows even now? Aren’t many hires part of a system or network? So Admin A hires applicant B because B is from A’s alma mater. B is qualified but is hired over C because of a separate reason.
So instead of that reason, hire D, also qualified, who happens to be a minority: An Intentional Act to help bring Unity within the SBC between those of the status quo and minorities.
-mike
John,
I just don’t think another form of discrimination is the answer to discrimination – and a quota – by definition – is discrimination.
I just don’t think you fix a wrong by implementing a different spin on the same wrong. It’s wrong to intentionally NOT hire a person because of their skin color – so it stands to reason that it is wrong to intentionally hire a person because of their skin color – That’d be wrong because in actuality you are discriminating against people who are not a certain skin color because they can’t get the job because they don’t have the right skin color.
See – it’s still discrimination, and I thought we’re trying to get away from that. I would love to get away from that
Perhaps I should’ve said to fix a *perceived* wrong – because I do not believe for a minute that there has been intentional discrimination based on the skintones resulting in a refusal to hire as it relates to the top jobs in the Southern Baptist convention – as I’ve said before and I think most of us probably agree the hires/appointments are more of a result of the cronyism and boys club mentality. It’s the same circle of friends and acquaintances that get these jobs.
John, you said –
” If they meet the qualifications why does it matter that their ethnicity is also considered?”
Are you afraid that no minorities would rise to the top in a process like that? Do you think that minorities need the help of Whites granting them position to succeed because they can’t do it without receiving special treatment or consideration?
I truly doubt you think that – but at its root – affirmative action/quotas suggest exactly that.
This is why I suggested the “blind computer model” so to speak where skin color it’s not even a consideration until the final stages of an hiring process.
I happen to I agree that there are plenty of dark skin persons who would make wonderful entity heads if given the opportunity – I would suggest though that they’re not given the opportunity not because of the color of their skin but because they (and lots of whites too, BTW) are not part of the boys club, or in crowd, so they will never be considered.
Tarheel,
Many times both or many applicants are equally qualified for the job, and the one chosen is not more qualified than another. So the one chosen is chosen based on some other consideration.
In the idea of Intentionally Choosing Minorities, the equally qualified minority would be hired over all other considerations, with the idea of promoting reconciliation and unity. There wouldn’t be a quota but a concerted effort to hire qualified minorities.
mike
In my comment posted at:
January 31, 2015 at 10:45 pm
Of course, when referencing not believing that people were intentionally not hired in the SBC because of skin tone – I’m referring to modern times/currently. Of course this type of discrimination happened in the past – I obviously don’t deny that.
Mike, I know that – that’s why I suggested not knowing identities until final stages of process when those other considerations like you speak of come into play.
At that point – so long as there’s not a requirement to hire One skintone over another – that may form of “intentionality” I may could find agreement with.
I just have a hard time getting on board with us saying we must have a minority at the beginning of an hiring process because that discriminates against anyone who is not in that category.
Tarheel,
Minorities were intentionally left out of that circle for the far greater part of SBC history. Wouldn’t you consider that a “wrong” that needs to be corrected?
We can’t correct the past.
I just have trouble with the idea of atoning for sins of the past with a “new and improved” form of dscriminatory practices.
Tarheel,
My final word on this subject for the night. Please don’t ever express in writing or verbally that when a minority entity head is hired that it is an “affirmative action hire.” First of all that would’t be true. Secondly, it’s intended to be a criticism/put down rather than a compliment. Thirdly, it would cause their cola borers, staff, SBC family, outsiders, and others to view them in that light. That would be so unfair to the person hired, and to those that would celebrate an appreciate the hire. One thing for certain is that cannot be said ’bout President Obama. And I honestly don’t know how you could say that about a minority hire as an entity head, if they are elected by a vast majority White trustee board.
I would not have to say that or write that for people to think that if a quota is put in place.
IMO, Quotas (whatever we call them) don’t help the further the cause (we both desire) they create more obstacles.
The problem with your argument is that it ultimately leaves us with no remedy. To simply say, oh well, the answer lies in color blindness is not dealing in reality. The only way to remedy this disparity is by being intentional and deliberate in our actions. Just like getting rid of cronyism will require deliberateness.
My remedy is a blind applicant process until the final stages….this deals with cronyism and this issue as well.
Do t you think People of all skintones would rise to the top in such a process? Or again, do certain people need help to rise to the top? Are they incapable of doing so on their own merits?
I happen to think that people of all skintones will rise to the top without the help of quotas.
As I indicated to Mike above, I understand that in the final stages when you have several equally qualified applicants that all sorts of other factors come into play I don’t have a problem with that.
Tarheel,
How would the blind applicant process work? Would the applicant’s name be known early in the process?
No – the applicant would submit application by computer and the computer was assigned a number to that individual and the committee will only be looking at numbers and data not names/locations/church names/place of employment etc….all identifying data is stripped until “top numbers” are chosen.
I have never even heard of such a thing. Is this sort of thing already in use by some employers?
Forget the blind processes…will never happen for significant SBC positions, maybe for any SBC positions. We’re all about power: power to give jobs, power to influence job givers, etc.
But have a fun discussion anyway…
William,
It’s not just the SBC. But what it will take is a single person in power who has the integrity not to hire his friends.
I serve on a school board and a few years ago we were in the process of hiring a new superintendent. The principal placed his name in the hat, and there were some on the board who simply wanted to place him in that position. What we ended up doing was treating him like any other candidate. In the end, we chose to hire a different person. What I am trying to say is that all it takes is one person to stop cronyism.
John, the difference between your BOE experience and the SBC is that the former has, by law, to be public and open. The latter does not. School boards can still hire in house pals but it has to be done openly and pay etc. is public.
William,
You’ve got a point there. But I am a believer that things can change and great improvements can be made.
Even though our process was open in hiring a superintendent , we still could have simply hired the principal. It would have pleased a lot of people, and we would not have been required to interview anyone else. Although we are required to post the opening and receive resumes, we were not required to consider any of them. My point remains that one person in power making a conscious choice to end cronyism is all that is required.
Actually John, wouldn’t it be a majority of the board required to end cronyism?
One person insisting on interviewing other applicants would prove pointless if the majority of the board were dead set on the “crony”, right?
Tarheel,
It has been my experience in life that most people are naturally followers, so it only takes one assertive person to turn the tide. And while it is true that the majority have to vote that way, swaying the vote isn’t all that difficult.
True enough I suppose – unless you had two assertive people pulling in different directions.
🙂
William, I agree wholeheartedly! That is the real problem that must be dealt with.
This is why I suggested the blind computer process. It eliminates much of the “appoint my friends” power structure.
John,
I would think that companies use such methods as they require online applications and identifying questions of skin color, gender, etc…are not even asked…you have to pass through several predetermined computer “filters” before an actual person even sees the resume.
In fact – I would hope that churches do not ask ascertain the answers to questions regarding skin color of candidates who send resumes for the committees consideration…in fact unless the candidate submits a pic, video or other skin color identifying info the committee might not even know the skin color of the candidate until they ask for and receive a video or sneak into his correct church under cover to watch him preach – LOL.
Our church is going through the process of hiring another pastoral staff member and that was certainly true for us.
This all reminds me of what Oliver Hardy told Stan,
“Here’s another NICE mess you’ve gotten me into.”
I had lunch with three ladies yesterday. Didn’t mean to. One of them asked me if I was a minister and it went from there. Turns out these are 3 sisters, each living in a different town here in Georgia, but meeting together for “church”.
We had a great time. I asked them to give me their wisdom on the subject we have been discussing here on this blog for the last few days. My only regret is that I didn’t have a recording device. These ladies of color who love Jesus (One of which I would vote (blind of course) for president of ERLC) had some choice words of wisdom.
One stand out was, “How far are you willin’ to go?”
Then I saw all the pics of the grandchildren!
Glen,
Do you mind sharing a little more specifics ’bout the 3 sisters comments. I couldn’t glean from your post what they may have indeed said; or what their take actually is.
Hi Dwight,
Each of them brought in their own experience and church back-ground.
1-Pentecostal
1-AME
1-Non-Denom
They found more than a few points of disagreement along the way in which I could have gone out for a hair cut and I don’t think they would have missed me.
What they did agree on was:
1-If the pastors ain’t for it (better relations and associations) it will never get better.
They each had pastors they loved and knew they loved them.
2-Folks can be scared until they meet and talk eye to eye. The deliberate need is for pastors to have regular occasions where they bring the people together. This won’t happen unless the pastors themselves include and expect one another to be in good association as leaders.
3-The common cause is not about race relations (that’s givin it way too much importance) We’ve got to meet and serve our Lord–our community–together–hand in hand. Unity of purpose can make gettin along a mere symptom.
4-Our children are our strongest common denominator in the Lord. Plan events in which we support and care for them together. And don’t leave this up to the schools to do it all.
5-Go all the way. Teach your people what the bible says and lead em to do the work it says.
6- Most important (at this point I was summarily hugged by all three) don’t be shakin no hands. Give folks a hug just like in the bible.
7-They gave me the names of all their churches and invited me to come any time.
One did ask me if she would be welcome in my church. She had some serious good eye contact too–wasn’t going to let me give her a pat, polite answer lacking honesty.
Wanta know what I told her?
Glen,
Thanks for the details. I think these kinds of conversations lead to better race relations. Thanks for engaging them. Sounds like a really great time of fellowship & exchanging info-seeking to understand each other.
And Yes!!!! I want to know how you answered the ladies question.
Dwight,
It was very much the pressure, I suppose, of a news reporter asking you a question you’d prefer not to answer. She never lost eye contact with me. I could tell somehow that she had asked this question to others before as well.
I said,
“I hate to tell you the truth, but the reality is—a majority in our church would welcome you with open arms and heart. But in my heart and experience, I also know that your chances of a rejection are real. No, they won’t come right out and say, “go away”, but it will be the same. These people are most certainly in a minority. You and I have to decide just how much we will choose to empower them by our response to them or not.”
By the look in her eyes, and her verbal response, I could tell that she already knew this to be the truth. I also believe that it was a test of fellowship. I also know that from our conversations, she knew that I could ask her the same question and get a very similar answer.
PS. This coming week, her granddaughter is bringing home a friend who just happens to be a Muslim… and so it continues.
How far are you willing to go? Does that cause anyone else to think of Jesus commanding us to go the extra mile with NON-believers? If we’d go the extra mile with them, how much further should we go with our fellow members of the Bride? Or said a little differently, is there anything that a priori we should be opposed to doing on the grounds that it expects too much of US?
Galatians 3:26-28(NIV)
(I’m a white guy, and the relevance of my disclosure of that will become apparent in a moment)
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Certainly verse 28 can be extended to include… fat nor skinny, tall nor short, BLACK nor WHITE.” Because we are all one in Christ Jesus, we should avoid the secular labels created for the purposes of division. Should the SBC stoop to the level of secular culture but premeditating how may people of a certain race should hold a particular position, all for the perception of inclusiveness and diversity? I think the best qualified people should fill the positions, without thought as to how many (insert race here) are appointed. If the most qualified people are all black, then so be it, and vice versa. Followers of Jesus Christ shouldn’t stoop down to the demands and expectations of politically correct secular culture, because when there are predetermined rules or expectations in the interest of fairness and equality, the results are never fair or equal.