We are in a unique time in SBC life. Have there ever been five entities in transition? We have been talking about minority leadership at an entity over the last few years. With nearly half of our entity leadership positions open, it is inevitable that this is a key moment in SBC history. Our trustees need to act wisely at this crucial juncture in denominational history.
Here are the facts:
- The SBC has a shameful racial history – support of slavery, defense of segregation, racism – it hasn’t been good.
- We have been making progress in recent years and heart-attitudes have been changing.
- There has been recent push-back against efforts at racial reconciliation; pejorative labels such as Cultural Marxism and critical race theory have been thrown around and the use of the phrase social justice has been equated to liberalism and secularism.
- There are currently 5 SBC entities in transition.
- What we do in the next year or so will speak volumes. If we hire at least one minority leader for an entity it will speak volumes about the intent and purpose of the SBC to be a multi-racial denomination, not just a white denomination that welcomes other races if they wish to join. If we hire 5 white men as entity presidents it will send a chilling message to our black, Asian, and Hispanic brothers and sisters.
The next major step in racial reconciliation in the SBC will be the hiring of a minority leader for one of our entities. If it doesn’t happen now, in this window of racial angst in America, when there are five entities open, the window may close. The SBC may have charted a course for its own irrelevance. The future of America is multicultural. In a generation, we (Whites) will be a minority in America according to demographic info I’ve read. The world is a-changin’. If we do not embrace it we will regret it. Black Baptists have been patient but that patience seems to be wearing thin. The Trump presidency has been divisive (meant as a statement of reality, not of judgment). Racial tensions have reached a boiling point and we must choose what kind of denomination we want to be.
- We can be a white denomination that welcomes Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and other ethnics as long as they fit in with our ways.
- We can seek to be a denomination centered on Christ, not on the traditional cultural norms that are our comfort zone.
If we hire 5 white guys to lead our denominational entities, we may be telling our ethnic brethren, especially the Black community, that they are guests but not partners. They are welcome to participate in our denomination but they should not expect positions of real power and influence. The time is now. If we let this time pass, it may be too late.
“Excuses, Excuses, You Hear Them Everyday”
Please do not tell me we should be colorblind! Since 1845 the SBC has been anything but colorblind. We looked at everything through the lens of race and systematically excluded black people and others because of their race. Now, when there is a movement to include more black people (and other minorities) as trustees, in entity leadership positions, as convention officers, and yes, as entity presidents, suddenly people start championing colorblindness. Seems a little convenient to me. Colorblindness is a defect, not the natural way of things, right? It means you can’t see reality! Maybe racial colorblindness is a worthy goal – I don’t know. But this is not the time.
It is not about another apology! If you say, “How many times do we have to apologize?” I will pray imprecatory prayers against you (in Christian love)! This is about action – a demonstration that we view minorities as full partners in our denominational work. If you have sinned, then repent. But this not about repentance; it is about taking actions to shape a better future.
And please, enough with the, “let’s just get the best man.” Why do we suddenly trot that out when we talk about hiring a minority for a position? Do we assume that minorities are not capable, not the best man? There are some able and willing men in the pipeline with much darker pigment than this Iowa white man has. Why would we make the assumption that seeking to give them a shot at leadership is accepting second-best?
Why Should We Hire Minorities?
I would give the following reasons.
1. Because he is the best man!
We should never hire an unqualified, incapable man just because he is Black or some other race. That would be foolish. But there are good minority candidates for these jobs. We don’t have to settle, just open our eyes.
Strong arguments can be made for minority hires at our institutions. New Orleans is a unique town with a unique culture. Wouldn’t that be a great place to make our first non-white hire, if we haven’t already done it elsewhere? The EC could speak volumes by hiring a minority candidate and since the IMB works in African, Asian, and Central and South American countries, a minority candidate would fit perfectly. Wouldn’t a Hispanic president make sense at SWBTS?
Any of the entities would work and there are qualified and capable minority candidates for each of the five.
2. Because it positions us for the future.
The world is changing and we must not cling to the past. Yes, we have been a white denomination but if we cling to that we are signing our denominational death warrant. There are so many stories out there of successful companies that refused to embrace the future and caused their own demise with foolish choices.
A decision to enthusiastically embrace non-white leadership would be a great decision for the future of the SBC.
3. Because it is right.
We are called to be those who break down the dividing wall of hostility in Christ. When we say that race is a gospel issue, that is what we mean. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with us about race to be saved, but that those who are saved unite in Christ and not in their culture and are willing to seek to break down walls of hostility that human culture creates. When we intentionally seek reconciliation and progress in racial matters with other believers, it is in line with the intent of Christ’s death. He died to create One People to worship him eternally.
4. It speaks loudly about who we are.
Recalcitrant resistance to racial progress does not either honor God nor does it help the SBC. By hiring one or two (or three..) minorities for our entities – men who are qualified, who are Baptist, who hold faithfully to our confession, our convictions, and our cooperation – we send a loud message to the world and to those minorities within our convention that we see them as full partners not just welcome guests. We tell them that our repentance was genuine and our commitment is real. One hire doesn’t solve everything, any more than electing Fred Luter solved everything a few years ago, but it is an important step!
We are at a crossroads. There is an open door but if we do not enter it now, it may close on us for good and we will never get another chance.
NOTE: I am headed up to Sioux Falls to speak at the Dakotas Baptist Convention – looking forward to that. Will not likely be able to interact much and frankly, I’m still kind of on a commenting break. You guys can have your say without my rebuttal. Probably.
No rebuttal? Boooo Yankees!
Anyway, excellent article. I agree. The time is now to increase the diversity of our leadership.
I used to ask the question: How are we going to hire a minority entity head without hiring him just because he’s black, Hispanic, Asian, etc…i’ve Come to the conclusion that we can’t avoid that, at least for the first hire. Fred Luter was elected president because he is a good man and he’s black. Does he get elected if he’s white? Who knows. Now, since Dr. Luter was elected, I’ve found myself wishing H.B. Charles would run in 2020, not because he’s black, but because he’s a good man.
I think it’s going to take one of those five entities to say that they want to hire a minority and not be ashamed or apologize about that. Looking forward to seeing who our five entities hire.
Dave, You’ve stated what’s obvious to many, if not most of us. Sometimes, it’s absolutely necessary to state the obvious. For certain, with 5 entity head vacancies, this is one of those times. By you stating the obvious now, I pray it renders it unnecessary for me, and/or others to have to point this out, after all vacancies are filled.
With eloquence, accuracy, & summarily, you’ve listed,and given, more than adequate responses to the predictable and commonly spoken objections & questions regarding targeting and recruiting minority candidates for one or more of these vacant positions.
Thanks for the courage, character, confidence and competence to say what was needed to be said here, in a humble, yet, provocative and prophetic manner, that will hopefully result in good success. Very appreciative that you pointed out that to hire a minority doesn’t compromise hiring a qualified person.
Finally, it was far better that you, or another highly respected Anglo SBC pastor say, what you’ve said here, rather than a minority. I pray others would echo your sentiments expressed here, so that this message will not go unheard or unheeded to, by the decision makers. Thanks so, so much again for pinning this powerful, well argued and prophetic piece. Blessings and encouragement!!!
Absolutely agree, Dwight. I also believe such a move will be FAR MORE POPULAR with the masses than another incremental ‘apology’ at the SBC.
I’m a Southern Baptist – not because of heritage or tradition, but by choice! As a young adult, I choose to affiliate with an African American SBC church because I felt the ethnic diversity within the SBC afforded the best opportunity to fulfill the Great Commission through its members – Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Men, Women, Young and Old – demonstrating the power of the gospel by living out the Great Commandment – before the eyes of a lost world.
While at times our actions and words have produced division and pain in the body and undermined out witness – especially among millennials ( I know, I have three of them!), nevertheless I (still) choose to believe that when we as Southern Baptists Love & Trust God enough to embrace the diverse giftedness He has placed in His body – through our selection of leaders, it will enable us to more effectively carry out our God-given assignment.
With FIVE national leadership positions now open, my greatest fear is that this incredible window of opportunity God has opened to us – to be a living testimony to a divided world – will close before our very eyes. Not only will the eyes of our ethnic brothers & sisters and those who have prayed for reconciliation to begin in the house of God – be watching the decisions that will be made, but more significantly, the eyes of those seeking truth and love, will be watching as well!
Dennis Mitchell,
National Executive Director
National African American Fellowship (NAAF), SBC
Your love for one another will provide to the world that you are my disciples – John 13:35
I know you said you won’t mention names but I will. Personally, I’d love to see Kevin Smith at the Ex Comm and Walter Strickland at NOBTS!
Agreed. Those do seem to be good candidates, Jay!
Bad Jay. Go to your room, young man.
Obviously, those two men come to mind. There are others.
I think Ken Weathersby is a candidate who is a minority that would fit well in the CEO of EC position. He’s been with the EC for several years as a VP, and before that was at NAMB and NOBTS. Which puts him having worked in entities that make up about half of what we do. The fact that he has been working at outreach demographically, and evangelically is an added bonus.
Well said.
Heard Dr. Weathersby speak last Thursday, and I agree
I agree wholeheartedly with my brother Jay. In fact, I was thinking the exact same names for the exact same positions. I think Ken Weathersby would also be a phenomenal leader as well.
Ken is great.
I would say at least two, one black and one Asian or Hispanic. In an organization as large as the SBC, I am sure there ARE a number of qualified men from all kinds of backgrounds that could head up any of these entities. To select a minority may not be selecting somebody’s favorite candidate or ‘heir apparent’. But that is a VERY small price to pay for much needed diversity at the highest levels of SBC life.
I have thought that my alma mater, SWBTS, could do great things with a Hispanic president and a focus on serving that community.
Just an idea.
I think if they don’t at least consider it (if not execute that idea), they are foolhardy. I say that as a Texan with a struggling SWBTS campus minutes from our church building in Houston. I wonder if BUA is getting it done in terms of preparing ministers. And I don’t think anyone in the valley is making it happen. SWBTS has an opportunity here that could reshape theological education in the southwestern US for a generation or two. I don’t think that’s overstating.
This is s unique opportunity to move forward and we are defending the status quo with false appeals to fears of affirmative action and reverse discrimination.
We never hear this until we start talking about minority leadership.
Boo Yankees!
I too would love to see well qualified, godly, sincere, theologically astute, active and proud southern baptists who are focused on the purpose of the entity and possess an above average business sense fill each of our open entity head positions. The ideas you put foward in the Article you recently wrote concerning the IMB vacancy comes to mind as a pretty good template.
I’m sure the entity boards are reviewing resumes and recommendations they’ve received to search high and low for such an individual.
I’m also sure there are human beings, created in the image of God, of all skin tones, who meet the qualifications we’ve posited. In fact, There’s probably some persons out there who exceed those qualifications and even bring more to the table.
I’m praying for the boards do not hire, or pass over, anyone based on a consideration of skin tone.
“I’m praying for the boards do not hire, or pass over, anyone based on a consideration of skin tone.”
This is well-intentioned, but it’s a head in the sand approach. Intentionally including people from diverse perspectives and backgrounds is not the same thing as choosing someone or passing over someone because of their skin color. The SBC has a terrible history of racial bigotry and hatred. That is not overcome without intentionality.
Praying the boards do not hire on the basis of race is basically advocating for all-white leadership. That isn’t Cline’s intent, but it is the effect of that attitude.
It is going to take intentional action to break historical trends.
Miller,
My attitude is meant to convey an utter despisal and hatred of skin color based discrimination in any form, whatsoever.
Thank you for acknowledging my good intentions.
“Praying the boards do not hire on the basis of race is basically advocating for all-white leadership. ”
Well, if that rhetoric true – then is praying the boards hire on the basis of minority basically advocating against Anglo leadership”?
“Well, if that rhetoric true – then is praying the boards hire on the basis of minority basically advocating against Anglo leadership”?”
Yes. Dave C. At least in my prayers. We have to be deliberate on hiring,
Do we post in our search for these positions… Whites need not apply?
Don’ t misunderstand me, I hope and pray God will raise up some might men of God who are not white to lead some or all of our entities (as positions become open). Yet, more than this… I want us to find God’s man.
My struggle is that we seem to keep the racial division a division when we speak in such terms of there being a division so we must hire someone based on being a minority because of their skin color.
Adam,
I did not say to “not intentionally include minorities” in the process… In fact my initial comment to which you respond specifically says that there are certainly those of the minority community who *should be* “involved in the process” as they are qualified and would make very good entity heads.
I detest the history of racism and bigotry you mention and I Do not want decisions to ever again be made using that lens – ie my comment about “passing over”. I am thankful that the SBC corporately has long since actively repudiated such.
I do not feel my approach is a “head in the sand” approach.
For some reason it seems like a long search process is the norm whenever new entity heads are brought in. I guess this has something do to with the fact that in the SBC the boards function differently than with other organizations is our society.
For example, look at the BNSF railroad. This is one of the largest transportation operations in the world. As most of you know it is part of Warren Buffet’s empire. When the chief operating officer of the BNSF announced his retirement last week it was evident who the likely successor would be. As I write this the board of the BNSF has not officially announced the new chairman but this will probably be announced soon — a matter of days or weeks. The guy who will likely take over is a guy who has been more or less groomed for the position.
I don’t know why this is, but it seems that in SBC life when an entity head vacancy comes up that the process basically starts from “ground zero” each time. What’s wrong with having people in the organization waiting in the wings? While It is true that in other organizations sometimes the board will go outside for a new CEO we often see boards being more proactive in terms backfilling key leadership spots in the organization.
But the default pattern with the SBC entities seems to be that no one is thinking about succession until the vacancy arises. Is my perception accurate? Wouldn’t it be beneficial to start developing a “bench” within the organization?
Great idea about grooming successors and always focused on passing the baton. No one is bigger than the entity and recognize we are all just temporary stewards of the positions God has entrusted to each of us. Always be focused on mentoring and passing the baton to the next person in line.
If I were to be a member of a search committee, and were this to be a set requirement, I’d resign immediately. It seems to me that the purpose of said committee should be to find the best possible candidate, who would do the best possible job leading the entity. I would not be willing to pass over the #1 candidate merely because of his or her race.
Are you saying that we will only hire a minority if we DEMAND a minority be hired?
Could it be possible that the BEST candidate for a job is a minority?
“Could it be possible that the BEST candidate for a job is a minority?”
Of course. Absolutely.
That’s exactly why My prayer is that hiring/passing over doesn’t happen based on skin tone.
This desire and prayer is precisely because I DONT want them seen as a token. I want there to be no doubt that he IS the best and highly qualified.
I truly think that If the above paragraph is not the impression – we will gravely set back the progress we have made in wiping away the stains of the past.
I agree wih your token statement very strongly Mr. Cline. That’s very important. And it’s why adtively adding multiple people of different racial groups in the SBC to leadership positions must be an intentional priority.
So paying attention to race, actively recruiting minority candidates, and being diverse in our selections must be an intentional part of the process.
Sure. If he is the best candidate, likely to do the best job.
God called men are the only men we need. When the dust settles the trustees and the men chosen must be able to say without qualification that they have been led by the Lord’s strong hand.
Now, and always, may “the fear of the Lord” be our wisdom.
Can a Black man be a God-called man?
How about a Hispanic? Or an Asian?
Why is it every time we talk about breaking down racial barriers we get this response?
Is it possible that we HAVEN’T gotten “God’s man” in the past because we have been unwilling to consider a minority?
We have had some good leaders but frankly, more than a few of “God’s Men” that we have hired in the past have not worked out that well. So the idea of opening our minds to hiring a minority shouldn’t cause us any angst, should it?
“Can a Black man be a God-called man?
How about a Hispanic? Or an Asian?”
Yes.
Good.
Then we are on the same page.
I’m not sure we are on the same page, Dave. The impression I get from your post is that if a minority is not elected then one or more of our trustee boards has sinned. Is that accurate or am I not reading you right?
If you simply read what I said it takes away the need to put words into my moutg that I didn’t say.
Glad my impression was wrong and that we are indeed on the same page. I want those elected to be of a certain type also, but more than that I want the man of God’s own choosing. At least, that’s what I want to want.
The other day I heard a trustee offer what I thought was the right prayer regarding the search process. “Lord, it isn’t for us to decide whom to choose. It’s for us to discern whom you have chosen.” I hope all the trustee boards are praying like that.
I am not sure it would not be sinning given how God hates racism and discriminiation. But if it isn’t it would be terribly wrong not to.
That prayer is sometimes used as a cop out prayer. If the person is white, well, God chose him. I do think it is up to us to choose and praying for wisdom instead of the above prayer. That “prayer” has gotten almost all white males in leadership.
So, if the Lord has left it up to us to choose why would choosing only Anglo Christians ever be a sin or terribly wrong?
Why just men?
Bingo, Bill Mac!
Dave – //Is it possible that we HAVEN’T gotten “God’s man” in the past because we have been unwilling to consider a minority?//
If we have, in the past, been unwilling to consider a minority, then the answer is very likely – yes.
Agreed.
I Would further contend that if we decide now that we must have a minority… We could very well “miss God’s man” who just might be white.
That’s why hiring or passing over someone based on their skin color is unwise and counterproductive.
That’s the typical generic statement that we don’t need. Passivity and avoidance of the issue only furthers the discord.
Ditto, Dave. Great thoughts.
Thanks Dave, this is excellent. You’re right and I’m glad you made the case as clearly as you did here. Moreover, I hope those involved with the search committees read this and understand the importance here. If we miss this, it will be disaster on par or greater than our 2017 initial failure to adopt the alt-right resolution. But there won’t be a next-day fix this time.
I hope the legal counsel for the entities will specifically tell the search committees not to read this and follow it.
Hoping for the best candidate, irrespective of race, as required by both the law and the Bible.
Great article! Absolutely agree.
This is a great idea.
Except it is explicitly prohibited by the Bible.
Racial diversity in leadership is exemplified all over the Bible, particularly in the early church(Acts 6, Acts 13, Ephesians 3, Rev 5:9; 7:9). I’ll take ur word that this direction may be illegal(I don’t know, but affirmative action was/is legal, intiated by Republican Prez, Nixon). But, I know for certain racial diversity in leadership is modeled in Scripture.
Also, forgot to mention – also prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
On this point, you might want to warn that anyone who is a trustee who will be making any of these decisions should not comment here, as it could be used in a racial discrimination lawsuit that would be filed by an unsuccessful applicant if it is determined that an SBC agency decided in advance to hire only a racial minority to fill a certain post.
I am not a trustee. But I would never want to go on record legally or morally that I would use a person’s race as a factor against them in a hiring decision.
Louis,
This isn’t about “a person’s race as a factor against them in a hiring decision,” as much as it is advocating for a person of color to be intentionally considered for leadership. This is not utilizing race as a mitigating factor in the hiring decision. This is about race being considered as a beneficial factor in the hiring decision. As others have stated, we often advocate for political candidates based on policies, and gender, and race. I understand that analogy pales in comparison to the level of importance we give to the kingdom work of the SBC…but we must be intentional in advocating for such or it will most likely never happen. I see us (the SBC) as attempting to show to others that we mean what we say when it comes to the value we place on God’s design in creation by advocating for a candidate for EC, NOBTS, SWBTS, et al., to have value placed on him because he is a person of color. Like John Piper has stated in his book, Bloodlines, when churches (especially those which are monolithicly Anglo and trying to reach an ever-diversifying culture) are hiring/calling ministerial leaders, and two candidates have identical/nearly identical stellar qualifications….and one is Anglo and the other is a Person of Color…we would do well to consider what a great opportunity we have to show the world the impact of the Gospel by calling the Person of Color to that leadership position.
Scott:
I understand you are trying to help.
But it still boils down to an unsuccessful applicant receiving this message – “We decided against you because only because your skin is the wrong color. And we chose the successful applicant because he had the right skin color.”
Neither the Bible nor the law permit discrimination like this.
You don’t correct past sin by more sin.
Somehow we excluded minorities for nearly two centuries without a problem but including them violates the law?
Minorities can and should be included in any and all job searches in the SBC. I applaud inclusion. That’s how you do it.
But you cannot announce in advance that the job will only be filled with people that have a certain color skin.
That is clearly illegal and has been so for over 50 years.
Louis: What Dave and I are saying is that according to you then, we have broken the law for nearly 2 centuries and you said nothing. We have not included minorities in anything but low level positions and they were few in number even in those positions. Now you speak out? We are breaking no laws. If it is to preserve whites being considered, look around you now. How many white to how many Black, Mexican, Asian?
Debbie:
I see your complaint is basically because racial discrimination in the past went in one direction, you are now in favor of racial discrimination in the other direction.
I am saying that is not legal or ethical.
If you want to go on record supporting that, that is your business.
Btw, I haven’t been alive for 2 centuries. I wasn’t around to “speak out”.
But if you were alive back then, tell us when you spoke out? Dave and William might have been there too?
Louis: I didn’t think I needed to but obviously need to clarify. You have not spoken out against too many whites being in leadership, when we are all white, which we have been for 2 centuries. Clearer?
Why would anyone speak out against leadership on the basis of race when it is sinful to discriminate on the basis of race?
Louis,
“That is clearly illegal and has been so for over 50 years.”
And yet in the last 50 years we have seen no minorities fill entity head positions. Do you mean to say that for at least fifty years there have been no qualified, God-called minorities? Or are you saying that over that 50 year period there have been boards which have sinfully passed over God-called minority leadership?
For us, this should not be a legal issue.
And if that is the case Louis, we broke it many times a long time ago, based on that we have all white males in leadership except for a handful of women and men of color. Actually less than a handful statistically. Less in Mexican and Asian, Marshallese etc.
What’s up with all this “we” language Lone Ranger?
Louis, I’m with you completely. I would think that any minority would find it offensive as well. I was married to a black man for more than 17 years (God rest him) and he detested affirmative action. He wanted jobs that valued his talents and gifts, and that’s what he got. Equal Opportunity means just that. EQUAL.
There is obviously nothing qualifying or disqualifying about someone’s skin color or ethnic heritage. But skin color and ethnicity can often be a proxy for a set of life experiences that can be considered qualifications. Why do you think minority outreach positions are so often filled by minorities?
What are the five entities? And do they have their own boards that hire independently of one another or is it one board that will hire all five?
Two seminaries: Southwestern, New Orleans
LifeWay
International Mission Board
Executive Committee
Boards are independent. Each hires their own CEO, acting in that entity’s best interest.
“The SBC” doesn’t hire any of these, which means that no one individual nor body (not even the SBC in annual session) may direct or order that one or more of these five must be a minority. Nothing wrong, though, with public pressure and scrutiny in the hiring processes of the five.
Wasn’t that long ago that some were calling for non-Calvinist quota or parity in entity heads.
I trust the trustees to make clearheaded, informed, sober decisions in hiring new leaders.
“Wasn’t that long ago that some were calling for non-Calvinist quota or parity in entity heads.”
Yes. And some of those who opposed those quota articulations – are also opposed to these.
No one here called for a quota.
Facts are our friends
No, you haven’t called for a specific quota ……But you and others have openly suggested that we should intentionally hire entity leaders because of skin tone and thusly intentionally deny others because of theirs.
I’m against any and all discriminatory practices that are based in skin color.
Sigh
My stating I am against discriminatory practices based on skin color solicits a “sigh“?
Interesting.
Acting as if promoting the hiring of qualified minorities is somehow equatable to racial discrimination is deserving of a big sigh.
Every effort at racial progress gets opposed with that kind of illogic.
Please don’t put words in my mouth…
When and where have I opposed the “hiring of qualified minorities?”
I have repeatedly and unequivocally said that all qualified applicants should be duly considered.
I do oppose setting skin tone as a qualifier/disqualifier…
There is a difference.
And speaking of illogic… when will you address questions that have been asked that if our trustee boards are to determine whom they are going to hire based on skin tone … Then how is it they, by so doing, are not actively discriminating against those who don’t have that particular skin tone?
Also, If they determine to hire based on a person skin tone /using your logic – are they not at that point assuming that there is no one of a white skin tone that should get the job?
If you want to elevate skin tone as a qualifier/disqualifier for employment… That’s fine.
I don’t.
The wrongs of the past cannot, in my view, be corrected by advancing the same (yet opposite direction) wrong tactics.
Sigh
Nice.
Let me try another way.
Is the following statement a desireable/acceptable hiring practice for our entities:
“We will/will not hire this or that person because of thier skin tone.”
Dave(s), I’ll go on record saying that 1-2 of the entities should absolutely hire a minority because of the ministry that needs to be done through them in (a) advancing the cause of the institution and (b) representing the institution in ministry throughout the SBC and (c) because of the context of ministry they are pursuing.
I struggle to see how this is different than me hiring a female kids minister BECAUSE she’s female. I wanted a female voice on our staff. I wanted moms of preschoolers and young school age kids to be comfortable with the ministry we’re doing (much more likely when a female is at the wheel). And I sensed the suburban context in which we find ourselves makes for having a female kids minister a better option than a male kids minister. Call it discriminatory, but we did not consider male candidates. On purpose. Because we thought it wise.
So “we will not hire this or that person because of their gender” was an accurate statement in our kids minister search process.
That sounds as if under no circumstances would it not be racist. But what if there was a church that was predominately Hutu and had never had a Tutsi pastor. In fact they had historically disallowed such a thing. But as the gospel works in that community this Hutu dominated church decides that to communicate unity with their fellow Christians who are Tutsi they decide to hire only someone who is a Tutsi. A qualified Tutsi of course. Is that racist?
I would actually say it is the opposite of racism.
Mike,
I’m not one who is suggesting those on either “side” of this discussion arec racist. I’ve gone to great effort to avoid using that pejorative. Because I truly do not think that those advocating for what has been dubbed “intentionality” are racist at all. I truly don’t.
Many making that argument are my friends, some very close friends, and as far as I’m concerned, despite our disagreement, it’ll stay that way.
Excuse me. Ben Simpson just called me a racist and you said “yep” to his comment.
DAVE MILLER – UNEQUIVOCALLY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION OR PURPOSES OF EVASION – I do not think you are a racist – End of sentence.
Can we please move on?!?!?
Fair enough. So let me reframe. Would it be wrong/inappropriate/counter productive for the Hutu church to do such a thing
Mike, I think regenerate persons called out from among the warring groups like the Hutu and Tutsi might demonstrate the power of the gospel to bring whole life change by doing what you mentioned.
So how is that different from what we are suggesting? We have a racist past. We are known for our racism…and that’s in our not so distant past. So why not say the power of the gospel has united us where there once was sinful division. To demonstrate this (and here is where some can lob virtue signaling charges) we intentionally hire a minority entity head. Just as the Hutu church intentionally hire a Tutsi pastor.
I’m not sure I’m following.
Whites and minorities are not at war are we?
Tutsi and Hutu are also the same skin tone aren’t they?
So I’m just not following how it applies as snuggly as you suggest.
Also, I don’t think anyone… Certainly not me… Is suggesting that there has not been racist actions and intentions in the past…. I just can’t help but wonder if our recent past has resulted in “white entity heads” not because of the continued racism sins of the past – but because the trustees and other powers that be are appointed by their friends who are other powers that be who appointed their friends, mentors, and mentorees … and so on.
I have another suggestion related to this, that I’ may make on the “opposition” thread.
Im saying that we were warring in the past. Slavery. Unjust hanging. At least in the same ball park.
And its not about skin tone…it’s about a people group unjustly treated by another but the gospel has overcome that. And so how do we demonstrate that.
And as for the good ol boy club more than racism couldn’t agree more. Thats why we need intentionality. Because just “pursuing God’s man” keeps giving us the same result.
“Im saying that we were warring in the past. Slavery. Unjust hanging. At least in the same ball park.”
I, nor you, nor anyone discussing this (I assume) have been involved in, supported, endorsed or sought to continue those practices. In fact, I’d bet that we’d all come unglued (together) if someone did. I abhor them and I hope we never return to them.
Yeah, the boys club is the real problem – been saying that for years.
Dave, do you happen to know how many minorities and/or women serve on the search teams for the 5 positions?
Great question.
Thanks Ryan. My point in asking is if we aren’t inclusive with the search teams are we not just perpetuating the cycle? Not trying to be antagonistic.
But what about minority women?
Keep intersectionality in mind.
Yes Louis I thought that was understood in my comment, but I appreciate you clarifying for anyone who might’ve misunderstood.
I know race is probably not mentioned when looking at search committees. It was just something I was curious about.
The names of the search committees are made public. Their race often is not.
I am pretty sure women are represented on all or almost all. Minority representation is not something I know.
I think most BoT have tried with the diversity.
After a long history, and the whole spectrum of international missions being changed, it would seem that there would be a highly qualified candidate for the IMB from among those who have been reached for the gospel by its work. There should be a number of indigenous people won to the Lord on the mission field who are now in positions of management and responsibility at the IMB to understand that position, and be able to do a good job.
I wonder if the SBC is done with deciding these positions should go to megachurch pastors? I don’t necessarily see that as a qualification. I don’t think the interest is there, many of them have sideline “ministry” businesses that take up a lot of time, and there are a lot of people who have worked at those entities who are familiar with their operation through and through, and committed to serve and stay.
Lee,
Those are wise words.
In addition to theological, moral matters etc., my chief qualifications would be:
IMB – missionary experience, prior executive experience.
LifeWay – Executive experience, some knowledge and experience with book biz or retail biz.
SWBTS and NOBTS – I have already said make the interim at SW the head – if he wants it. But both should have earned PhDs but relatable to ordinary folks. Would definitely make sure no academic or philosophical hobby horses. And make certain there is full commitment to the BFM.
Executive Committee – most important of all IMO because it touches everything else. Demonstrated executive leadership. Not too heavily aligned with any faction in the SBC so that he is trusted by as many groups as possible.
Mega church pastors do bring the ability to draw a crowd which helps in SBC leadership. So I wouldn’t count them out.
Why not just go to the three largest Afro-American organizations and have them submit a list of qualified men? Of course it would be just a list of nominees but I am sure the list would be excellent. I would suggest that perhaps on of the positions would be head of the ERLC and Dr. Moore could assume another position as he is so well qualified, perhaps even a seminary head. What a message it would send if the official spokesman and religious freedom defender were a person of color who would have a perspective that would bring a new perspective. Work on a possible consolidation of minority religious groups into the SBC.
How about the trustees, are they to be inclusive also as they should be. Why not speicifically invite and welcome minority chruches into the SBC and promote local megers of majority white chruches with neighbor black churchs with the leadership positions going to the minority Pastor in the beginning to show sincerity. Just some ideas as it is a major problem.
I really like what the Bible says, “Do not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly,” (Leviticus 19:15, CSB).
I believe that Bible principle extends to the situation that Dave has brought to our attention here. Do not be partial to the person of African descent or of Asian descent or of European descent. People shouldn’t have shown partiality decades ago, and they don’t need to do so in this situation either. Judge that person fairly!
It seems like I heard somebody say one time that he had a dream that his four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
That sounds like a good way to go with these entity head vacancies.
And praise God whether that person is red or yellow, black or white.
Do you think that MLK Jr. meant by that speech that we should still hire a all white staff? I think this speech, like the Bible, should be read as a whole speech and in context Ben.
No, I think he meant that he hoped the color of a person’s skin should not be taken into consideration when judging another person. That goes for entity heads as well.
There are four staff persons within our church body. Me – the only white. Youth Pastor – Philipino – Mission Pastor – India (Telegu speaking), Secretary – India (Bengali speaking). Then of course, I live on the other side of the planet. Loving our diversity and dreading the thought of returning to the USA and finding a SBC church that looks like heaven.
Where we should have been leading the way in diversity, we have followed the look of George Wallace far too long.
Let us remember, it had been said several times, in several ways, that no unqualified person of color should be considered. This is an “all things being equal” scenario. But above that, it is first recognizing that minorities are qualified. If a white Brother and a hispanic Brother are theologically, morally, and socially equal. If they both can captivate a room and lead well, what should break the “tie?”
Tommy,
I hear what you’re saying. Truly, I do.
Think about this: if we actively encourage having “skin color break the tie” – could it be that this, unintentionally but actually, results in the same philosophy we hate and have been seeking to end – namely making hiring decisions based on external characteristics that are completely outside a persons control and are traits that in and of themselves should disqualify or qualify a person for a job.
*NOT disqualify or qualify….
I’ll try one more time. Why just men?
Rabble rouser
Bill, I presume that if we officially embark upon hiring practices based upon minority identity – I would think that women would necessarily be included in any and all entity head searches.
But, I’m not a supporter of identity hiring practices – so maybe someone who is will answer your question.
Tarheel,
I didn’t start the identity hiring practice conversation, it was the folks saying we need Men for these positions (although I hope at least some of them didn’t mean it that way). I’m not saying one of these hires should be a woman, but I object to the a priori assumption that over half the population (and probably well over half in the SBC) are not to be considered.
My preference is for the positions to be filled by licensed/ordained Southern Baptist preachers.
Walter Strickland would be fantastic at NOBTS. As an alum I hope he gets serious consideration.
Dave said he’s not reading the comments, so I’ll second Adam’s diss: BOO YANKEES!
Now, to the topic:
Is it possible, as someone suggested above, that we need to consider the broader spectrum of experiences that might come from a candidate with a minority background?
That the life of a man who worked through seminary and ministry while remaining in smaller churches and facing the struggles that plague churches on the fringe bring? Which means he may not have the stellar resume of growth that the other candidates who have worked their through megachurches and big-name conferences have.
Is he more qualified or less qualified because he’s less famous and pastored in the inner city instead of the suburbs?
Because he went to a non-SBC seminary because he came from a non-SBC background but since then has joined, perhaps led a church to join with, the SBC?
Many of our “unwritten” expectations lean toward those who have been SBC, come from churches that have been SBC for generations. As a result, we might overlook folks from a minority background without intending to.
What that means is that we should intentionally make sure that our qualifications/expectations are legitimate and not off-track. The leader of IMB should be someone capable of leading a large organization who understands the needs of a missionary on the field–if that person came from a church that became SBC after 1995, we should not hold that against the candidate.
The person who leads a seminary should be someone who can both lead/inspire students and handle quality academic work, while holding to inerrancy. He does not have to have all of his education from the Six SBC seminaries: there are quality, accredited, conservative institutions outside of our 6. He should be Southern Baptist now.
And yes, much of the above is applicable to looking at candidates that are white and in small churches as well. It’s worth considering: are we really looking for “God’s man” for any of these jobs, or are we looking for the “Southern Baptist Celebrity of the Moment?”
If we are prayerfully hoping the boards do their best, then it’s worth noting that they should be looking at all the aspects of SBC life, including those who come from ethnic backgrounds that are different from all the other entity heads we’ve ever had.
I see the “hire the best man” reasoning again. What are the chances that in the entire history of the SBC, for every single entity head hire, the best man has always been white? That if all 5 hires are white again that not one trustee board would have missed an opportunity? If race doesn’t matter, then why are the hires always white? That the vast, vast majority of trustee appointments are always white?
It seems like Race matters a lot. Otherwise, we’d have already had more diversity. Either God’s man is always white or we have a system that always chooses white guys. Which is it? It can’t be both. If God’s man is always white, is that Biblical? Why does God care about white leadership so much? How does any of this make any logical sense? If God were truly color blind and He was leading in every decision, wouldn’t He have lead us to hire an ethnic minority at least once?
You can’t have had a racist and then racialized system for 150 years and there not be an effect. Intentionally recognizing that the system creates a Racial result every time (only white leadership) means that you have to intentionally address why that is and fix it. I’ve been intentionally doing that since at least 2008 through writing and specifically since 2014 structurally in the SBC. So, where are we? 10 years and 4 years later, we are still in a place where people say that it is RACIST to even talk about this at all!
But, if we end up with 5 white leaders again will those people that say this is a racialized result that comes from a systemically racialized system? No. They’ll say it was “God’s man,” as though God only ever chooses white men. Note I didn’t say racist system. I said racialized. We get the output that the system is constructed to give us, not because that is what people intend or even desire, but because it is how it has been and you don’t get an entity head position unless you are in the system and you are selected by the system and the relationships have been nurtured and affirmed for a long time. If we choose 5 white guys, it just tells us who is being raised up, cultivated, and rewarded by the system. It might not be – likely isn’t – active racism. But, the racialized result is obvious. The system gives the results it is built.
I hope we hire an ethnic minority because God raises them up and it is obvious that this is God’s man. But, I’m not afraid of recognizing race and ethnicity as one of many factors in that recognition in a POSITIVE sense as it being a benefit that God is raising up people from every tribe, people, nation, and tongue – from every ethnos – to lead us, just as the Bible says. If all 5 leaders are white, it either means that’s how God wants it or that is the result our system creates? Which is more likely?
I too pray that each leader is God’s man. But, if all 5 leaders are again white in 2018, 23 years after we officially addressed past sins of racism, 50 years after 1968, does that say more about God or more about us?
One of the problems is these are 5 independent boards. We don’t know the committees, the backgrounds, who’s applied etc.
I would caution against condemning the actions if they don’t meet various expectations.
But hiring 5 white guys – again – would be fine? Should we have no expectations? What about expectations in other areas? Why are we fine with getting the exact same result every single time racially with zero variation even once, and when we say that this should change, we get warnings of not having any expectations?
I do have expectations. I expect this to change. 178 years and we get the exact same result every time. Now, we have 5 openings all at once and we’re asking, hoping, praying that one of them will go to a minority – we’re not even saying which one or whom – and there is response that WE are the ones being Racial! That’s absurd.
Yes. We should have no predetermining expectations about the race of people hired by SBC entities.
I applaud Dave for bringing this subject to light. To quote a well known expression “who knows but for a time such as this!” We as a Convention have come a long way and if the LORD Jesus delays His coming, ‘we still have a ways to go.’ We must accept the time we all are in right now but we must never allow our past to be just that “our past.” Surly we must learn from it and act accordingly. This matter is only one of many that we in our generation are faced with. How we respond will provide precedence for future behavior just as our past has done for us here now.
I for one who have been part of this Convention since 1978 believe that the first step to unity is allowing equal representation at the beginning of the discussions. That being said if there is unequal representation at the search committee level then the possibility of having a fair and equal decision is probably hindered from the start. I for one trust that Our Lord has already done His part by placing the persons on these search committees or placing on the hearts of those still choosing the search committee members, persons that will provide us with His chosen vessel to lead our agencies.
“If we hire 5 white guys”
I vote for 5 white women.
If race can never be a consideration in hiring, then it can never be celebrated either. Then there is absolutely zero significance in Luter being elected president, he’s just another guy who was president. You can’t be against considering race and be happy that a black man was elected president.
I was happy that Luter was elected president and voted for him both times… But neither of those votes, nor my excitement at his election, had anything whatsoever to do with his skin color… instead His personality, exuberance, passion for Christ and missions and the fact that he is an incredibly personable person who he actually talks to us “regular pastors” like we are important to him. I have the same excitement for the newly minted JD Greear for the same reasons.
When Dr. Kim ran “against” Floyd – I voted for Dr. Kim… And it had nothing to do with ethnicity… I just felt he’d have been a better president.
Likewise, In the political world my votes for candidates other than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton… Had absolutely nothing to do with their ethnicity or gender whatsoever. I supported Herman Cain in a primary for President – again – nothing to do with skin color. Still wish He could’ve accomplished that 9-9-9 plan!
I would think that there are certainly well qualified minority candidates and that if there are choices between two well qualified candidates, it would be wonderful if they chose the minority one. Even if it means choosing 5 minoritiy ones.
Also I hope that if there is a ‘good old boy’ network that they break free from it and choose from a broader range of candidates.
And I know of not a single person who is on the other side of Dave’s position in the Sccial Justice Debate who would not want the SBC to be more diverse in its leadership. His comments show that he doesnt understand the position he is against.
Actually, I have been labeled a racist by several on the anti-social-ministry side of things today. They out and out called me a racist.
They would be apoplectic if I labeled them racist but they have called me racist.
Frankly I am at the point where the ire of the document folks is a sign to me that i am doing right.
Dave,
I am sorry you were called a racist.
I have never seen any evidence in your writings to back up such a charge.
In every group, there are those who run to the extreme, in one way or the other.
Blessings.
Dave Miller,
Well, that’s stupid and I’m sorry people have done that.
You’re not a racist. I disagree with some of your approach to this topic – but clearly you’re not racist.
Anyone who calls you that is acting stupidly.
Like I’ve said many times we all (most) agree, I think, on the overarching principle being discussed, we simply disagree when it comes to corrective methodology… And that’s OK.
My dad always taught me that skin color was only skin deep and not a measure of character or capability. There’s too much characterizing anyone who criticizes the idea of “necessarily” hiring minority candidates as against minorities. It is, in fact, possible for someone to take the position (as I do) that if all five boards hire minority candidates, well and good, but not agree that it is a requirement that any one of these boards must hire a minority candidate. Yet, that seems to be seen as a virtually sinful position by most who write for and comment here.
I agree with where you are coming from. Sadly, I think the church can learn from the NFL on this one -it is called the Rooney Rule. An NFL team can not hire a coach without first interviewing a minority candidate. They do not have to hire one, just interview the man. I think Dave and others are calling for something similar. Give minorities a real chance to demonstrate they are qualified.
Evidently, suggesting that we consider qualified minorities as entity heads is racist and according to Louis, both illegal and unbiblical.
Sigh.
I think Louis was saying that it was illegal and unethical to say beforehand that one was going to choose a person based on race.
But it is not illegal or unethical to encourage qualified minorities to apply and to hire one if the choice is between basically equal candidates.
Right, Mike….That’s clearly what Louis is saying.
Hey saying that the means of practicing intentional discrimination based on skin color in hiring practices, however well-intentioned the end is, is and should be, illegal.
He reacted to what I said and called it unbiblical and illegal.
I NEVER advocated eliminating candidates based on race so that must not be what he called unbiblical and illegal.
I am no longer letting you guys make up your own story. What I said is what I said.
If Louis made up a false narrative, that is on him. I am assuming he was reacting to what I said not what he made up that I said.
Sigh.
Ok, after following this discussion; that is funny Tarheel. It shouldn’t be, but it is.
I have said that racial discrimination is sinful and illegal.
I have said that racial discrimination is both sinful and illegal.
Great observations and recommendation that a person of color should be seriously considered for one or two of the five vacancies. However there are challenges with hiring a black person for any of these positions. Being a good person who is qualified to do the job is not the challenge, it’s a given. Challenge #1…They must be palatable to millions of white Southern Baptists who contribute to the SBC. Palatable is not challenging their ideology or sense of superiority. It is not pushing any agenda item that seems to favor Blacks. This challenge leads to the next challenge. Challenge #2..Standing up against pastors who align themselves in mass with a political fiigure who openly spreads hate and fear. If Black Exec says nothing they will lose creditabily with many Blacks. Challenge #3 They will inherit a mess and will be expected to clean it up with speed and finesse. I recall the election of the first Black president of the U.S. He inherited an economy on that verge of Depression. Deep in a war that divided a nation. Yet he was expected to walk on water, maintain his composure while being unfairly attacked.
Please note, I am not oppose to the selection of a Black for one if these positions. But my concern is their job will be harder considering the challenges I foresee.
They should be considered for every position they apply or make themselves available for as a candidate. Since each entity does its own hiring/appointments, there isnt any immediate control by the SBC as a whole as to regulating these hires/appointments. My hope is that if they have equal candidates for a position they will appoint the minority candidate, if there is one.
The Boards do not have to listen to outside pressure or take into account what others desire. They do not have to read blogs like this one. They do not have to feel pressure to appoint a minority even if the other 4 haven’t. It wouldn’t necessarily be due to racism if they do not.
When appointed [and hopefully if and when] the minority president [or presidents] do not have to meet your 3 challenges. Even if millions think they do. What they have to do is to faithfully [to our Lord] carry out their duties and answer to the Board that appointed them. Period.
If millions of SBCers think otherwise that these appointees need to meet those challenges just because of their skin color, they are racists in need of repentance. For you and I and those presidents answer to God not man, except as we submit to those properly over us in the manner and manners under which we have endeavored.
Let’s throw this out there: Beth Moore for Lifeway. She’s probably the one person whose published more books on the shelves of Lifeway than Thom Rainer himself. I wouldn’t advocate her for a seminary, IMB or Executive Comm., but Lifeway would actually be right up her alley.
Dave, I agree with you on this. The SBC should do something. Actions speak louder than words. The problem, though, is the nature of our SBC system of governance. Each of these boards of trustees will make its choice independently of the other four. So, one board might say, “Dave, has a good idea. One of the boards should choose a minority person, but in our case we like ______________, who happens to be a white male.””
No! (Emphatically, no).
And that has nothing to do with her gender…
I know I’m not alone on this board in that sentiment… But I may be the only one who will say it.
I think there’s absolutely no reason a woman should not be considered to lead Lifeway, but I don’t know that Beth Moore has any qualifications to do so other than that she’s famous, and that’s not good enough for me. I do appreciate her stand on the current administration.
The idea that we are suggesting something NEW is preposterous. The SBC has long selected it’s leaders (subtly) based on skin color. One color. White.
We are saying that including many colors is better and suddenly we hear horror stories- this is racism! Reverse discrimination! I am opposed to using skin color to choose (suddenly an issue now that we are talking about more than just whites in office)!
The SBC has nearly 200 years of all-white entity leadership. Why is changing that so traumatizing.
SIgh.
Not suggesting it’s new… Stating that it was wrong then and it’s wrong now to hire/Passover someone because of their skin tone.
Suggesting that a wrong can be set by advancing the same wrong (oppositely applied) is preposterous.
Did you speak against Whites only leadership or just against this effort?
Every time we speak to promote racial reconciliation you speak against it. Not sure why because you have expressed that you oppose racism. But whenever we speak against racism you always stand in opposition.
You want reconciliation but oppose every action proposed to seek it. I do not understand.
Is there any action you DO support or do we just wait for racism to go away?
Sigh….
It’s very obvious that I disagree with your preferencial and discriminatory *approach*… So every time you repackage the same approach in different wording I’m still going to disagree with it…
I simply do not think it is either helpful to minorities or in furtherance of the goal of ending preferences and discrimination based in skin color to Engineer a more culturally and currently palatable practice of preference and discrimination.
In fact such engineering will exacerbate the problems you claim to be trying to solve.
Your preference solution makes the problem worse… Yet you condemn those who disagree with you… I just don’t get it.. understand it.
Clear enough?
I think that Charlie Dates would be a great pick for either NOBTS or SWBTS. Insofar as the rest of this conversation is concerned, I think that course corrections have to be intentional.
I love hearing Charlie Dates preach.
I don’t think Charlie Dates has ever held an academic leadership position, which seems like it should be a requirement to be president of an academic institution.
Dave said earlier in the discussion, “Praying the boards do not hire on the basis of race is basically advocating for all-white leadership.”
Not only is Dave’s conclusion a complete non sequitur, but worse, it’s arguing that nonwhites cannot get the job unless their ethnicity is considered. I’m sorry, but whether intended or not, that is soft racism, and I totally disagree with that thinking.
Yep.
No. It is recognizing that we have a 180 year history of hiring whites only and that kind of momentum has to be intentionally opposed.
You do not get to fabricate fiction about what I said Ben.
Dave Miller,
My bad. I see what you’re saying now.
That’s what I get for not reading the entire post before commenting… I was agreeing with his non-Sequitur statement… I do not agree with his statement implying you are racist – please forgive me for acting in haste to respond to the first part of his comment and thereby leaving you with an inaccurate impression. I’m sorry.
Further, I’m not a fan of delineating between a soft and hard racist… That’s like delineating between a soft and hard bank robber… If you rob banks you’re a bank robber… If you are racist you’re racist.
Dave, then what did you mean by equating praying the board not hire on the basis of race to advocating for all-white leadership? Why would taking race out of the process produce only white leadership?
I believe that your can only mean one of two things: You either mean that racism is too ingrained in the SBC leadership either consciously or subconsciously that they would never choose a nonwhite for entity head unless they showed partiality to a nonwhite, or you mean that unless a nonwhite is shown partiality, they would never be able to earn an entity headship.
Which is it?
I have said repeatedly that our 180 year track record would indicate that intentionality is necessary. We must promote minorities and encourage trustees to consider them. If, with 5 openings we hire 5 white guys it will send a massage to minority communities .
You guys can keep calling me a racist for saying that but I am going to keep saying it.
I remain flummoxed that when we only hire whites for 180 years it’s no problem but when we recommend changing that suddenly WE are racist?
Don’t let yourself get all flummoxed – that sounds like it may be painful….
😉
You can continue to push your “race” based partiality all you want, but it was wrong in all the years between 1845 and 2018, and it’s still wrong in 2018. Do not return evil for evil.
Social justice claims that we should hire a nonwhite entity head simply because he’s a nonwhite.
Biblical justice says we should hire a nonwhite entity head because he’s the best man for the job. It would thrill my heart for a nonwhite to fill one of the vacancies.
You can call me a racist if you like and if your conscience allows but you have not told the truth about what I said. That I have had enough if.
Until you speak truth our conversation is ended.
“It would thrill my heart for a nonwhite to fill one of the vacancies.”
Why?
Please Dispense with the “you guys” mess when I’m in the conversation.
I’ve made it clear numerous times that I don’t think nor do I call you a racist.
Thank you kindly.
That was to Ben who called me a racist.
Guilty conscience Dave C?
Not at all….not at all. Zero. Zilch.
Actually, I doubt that the reason was simply an intentionality of hiring whites as opposed to hiring non-whites. Although I think many of those who chose were probably racists, I dont think it was racism that prompted them to choose whites.
Rather it was they chose men they knew, and they only knew white men. They probably didnt choose from the pool of all white men but from the select pool of those they knew and trusted.
Otherwise that is known as the ‘good ole boys ‘ network. Whether there was only white men in the network because they were racists or because people tend to gather around similar people, or some of both, who knows.
Now the reality is this:
Each board is independent both from each other and from the SBC as a whole, at least in the short run, or at least long enough to choose their new presidents. They dont have to listen to each other or blogs or anyone but the other individuals on that specific board.
So there is no reason for any of us to get too upset or bothered by the opinions expressed. Our opinions here dont mean squat, unless the individual board member choos es to ‘listen’ and to take into account what we are saying. Maybe they are and maybe they aren’t.
No one i have read, Dave Miller, is not opposing that180 year old mentality.
We all oppose that mentality.
We don’t want the boards to hire a white guy because thats what they have always done.
We want them to hire a qualified person and we all seem to believe that qualified candidtes come in all skin colors.
But two wrongs dont make a right.
And what we want actually means very little.
So here then is my take on the social justice movement, Dave Miller, that you seem to stand within: You want reverse discrimination due to past discrimination even while you claim past discrimination was wrong and sinful.
And of course past discrimination iwas wrong and sinful.
And so is present and future discrimination.
But you are willing to promote that sin to atone for past sinning.
That is what your words and your arguments seem to be saying.
That is not saying you are racist. Not at all. You are not.
It is saying that your thinking in this manner has left the narrow road.
Blessings.
Many has the same thinking and only have kept one same group race in SBC since 1845. Generational sin that is not considered as sin by the supporters of this view! It only griefs God in heaven as the hypocrisy persists. Lord forgive us.
[…] Miller recently committed to cyberspace his view of minority hiring in light of the five entity leadership roles which are or shortly will be […]