Yesterday afternoon through Baptist Press, SBC President J.D. Greear announced his appointments for the 2019 Committee on Committees. The demographic makeup of this committee, which is reported in accordance with a 2015 Executive Committee recommendation (adopted by vote of the entire SBC), includes the following details: 34% of the committee is female, 50% of the committee is ethnic minority, and over 50% come from churches of less than 250 in attendance. The average Cooperative Program giving of the churches represented is 7.66% and the average age of committee members is 43.
We are especially grateful to see the intentional pursuit of diversity represented in the 2019 Committee on Committees – something we’ve advocated for in the past and continue to believe is healthy and right for our convention. With our SBC Leadership Diversity Initiative, we say we want the SBC to be “a convention where ethnic minority leaders and members, as well as Southern Baptist women, know they are valued and considered an indispensable, integral part of our denominational life together.” And we believe this committee, just like the Resolutions Committee announced recently, takes good steps forward in accomplishing that goal.
The entire list of the committee is available in the BP article. We at SBC Voices are especially thrilled to see some of our friends from the 2017 SBC Pastors’ Conference: Ryan Rice of New Orleans, Michael Allen of Chicago, and past SBC 2VP José Abella of Miami appointed to serve this year. Our love and respect for these guys and all the speakers from the pastors’ conference has grown even greater in the time since the conference. And Terrence Jones of Mongomery, Alabama is another friend who’s been an SBC Voices contributor in the past.
I’m confident this committee will serve the convention well this summer in Birmingham.
This is good news! I’m glad to hear it.
Can anyone speak to whether the 7.66% CP giving is up or down compared to previous iterations of this committees?
To start, the SBC CP% average reported in the 2018 annual was 4.86%. So we’re looking at +1.5x the average.
The 2018 story included diversity data but did not include CP data – http://www.bpnews.net/50869/ethnic-breakdown-of-gaines-appointments-released
Jonathan is the go to guy on numbers. I am not constrained from editorial comments like, if the SBC Prez doesn’t appoint a bunch of people from the megachurches, the percentage almost has to go up.
Thanks for the quick response, Jonathan!
I don’t believe the average CP percentage for the C on C was given for the two that Steve Gaines’ appointed but I’d be pretty confident that Greear’s is greater. Note that the 7.66% average is far more than the SBC average, by almost 2/3.
I think JDG’s actions here set the threshold for future presidential appointments in the sense that all the data are given about CP %, race, gender, etc. It’s where we are as a convention and what interested SBCers want to see.
Glad to see this finally come to fruition
Should have happened years ago, but finally someone with a cool head thought everything through. —seemingly
Bill M
This social justice takeover is an absolute travesty. Racial and gender quotas are the antithesis of having the a Spirit-appointed committee. The fact that “we” are adopting Marxist ideals is anathema. May the Lord Jesus have mercy on our denomination and the people intent perpetrating this mess. ?
Interesting perspective. I don’t see anything about quotas in the BP article or the article here. Are you also put off by the “every nation, tribe, people, and language” diversity of heaven as seen in Revelation 7:9?
“adopting Marxist ideals”? Incredible that when minorities are represented in the committee on committee appointments in a fair, balanced and reasonable manner, someone would cry, foul. There is absolutely no basis for this false and scurrilous accusation. The diversity of these appointments reflect the diversity of the convention and the Kingdom of God. Baffled as to why a Bible believing, God loving Southern Baptist would take issue with these appointees. Disagreement with increase in female and minority appointments are at the base of your complaints. Sexism and racism on full display. May your tribe decrease.
Dwight, I would normally delete a ridiculous comment such as the one to which you responded.
Ana is an anonymouse who comments anonymously and does not honor Christ in those comments.
That account will be going on comment moderation.
Thank you Dave and Dwight for your always worth reading comment. I am grateful for this report.
I have no problem with the racial diversity on this committee. I appreciate their Cooperative Program giving, baptisms, and belief in evangelism.
It does concern me a little that no mention was made (if I missed it, please correct me) of the committee members believing in the inerrancy of the Bible and agreeing with the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. They probably do, but after fighting the Conservative Resurgence (roughly AD 1979-2000), I think we should never just assume someone believes in inerrancy. And, of course, this applies to anyone of any race.
David R. Brumbelow
Did it concern you last year when no mention was made? http://www.bpnews.net/50661/gaines-names-sbc-committee-on-committees
It concerns me any year when no mention of this is made. Seems many have forgotten the long, hard fought battle for doctrinal integrity. Again, I’m pretty sure everyone on this committee believes in inerrancy. But we need to say more about it.
David R. Brumbelow
David R. Brumbelow,
I don’t have any problems with your questions. I remember when every person who was in consideration for any position was asked several questions similar to those you present. I was asked those questions on more than one one occasion, and on a few of those occasions by individuals who did not really understand what they were asking me. They were just carrying their orders from those who sent them.
Now, with that being stated, let me state to you and anyone else who may wonder about Dr. Curtis Woods. He is the real deal. He believes, serves, preaches, and lives by a biblical worldview. Not only does he believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture, he can actually articulate his reasons for doing so as well as anyone, and better than many who worked on the BF&M 2000. He can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with anyone who worked on the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
I know I am being redundant, but I declare once again, he is the real deal.
I saw this response to the appointment of Curtis Woods as chair of Resolutions committee.
People began to question whether his selection was evidence of doctrinal compromise. No one asked the same questions about the vice-chair, a white man.
We seem convinced that when we stray from white appointments, we must needs be straying from doctrinal fidelity. I grow weary of this meme. Cultural and racial diversity is not a marker of doctrinal heterodoxy.
Dave,
Please read what I said,
“I think we should never just assume someone believes in inerrancy. And, of course, this applies to anyone of any race.”
I feel exactly the same way about White folks, and anyone else. And, I was certainly including White people in my comment.
A few years ago, I was on the Search Committee for an Associational Director of Missions. One of the first questions I asked was if he believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. And, he happened to be White.
David R. Brumbelow
I understand and appreciate that.
I am responding more generally to your specific comment. It seems to me we are likely to ASSUME doctrinal fidelity when there is a group of white Southern Baptists and begin to have more suspicions when the group becomes diverse.
Three of those men were preachers at the PC in 2017. No questions there.
I am not saying YOU are a racist, but I am weary of that response which is so prevalent among us to begin to raise questions in diverse groups we do not raise in monolithic ones.
David,
Now that the committee finally has an equitable balance of raace & gender diversity, you want to raise questions about biblical inerrancy? Really?
If that’s nor a question you would ask if the committee was less diverse, do u recognize to ask it now would be based on their gender & racial classifications?
Before Black people were allowed to vote in many Southern states, during Jim Crow, they were often required to ask certain questions that were not asked of others. Asking about the BF&M is a fair question to ask at any time. Don’t oppose that. Not sure if it were asked of previous committee members though. I would believe most Southern Baptists would answer the inerrancy question with a resounding yes! I know I would. But, let’s face it: the inerrancy question is a highly academic question. Let’s also be honest: the “yes” answer usually means “in the original manuscripts.” Would we really now pose such a highly technical and nuanced question/discussion to lay men & women, as a litmus test?
I believe your question is sincere and driven by a desire to protect orthodoxy and doctrinal purity. But, on it’s face, it appears to be a double standard being proposed. No questions if the committee is predominantly male and Anglo & 2 qualifying questions if the committee is thoroughly racially balanced and diverse(questions regarding 1. Inerrancy & 2. BF&M 2000). You need to rethink this. BTW, belief in inerrancy or BF&M 2000 aren’t required to belong to the SBC.
Dwight,
All I would ask of a person of any race is something like:
1. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? A simple yes or no.
Or, do you believe the Bible is completely true and trustworthy?
2. Do you agree with the Baptist Faith & Message 2000? It, of course, states the Bible is true and trustworthy.
I could even live with a caveat or two like the issue of Open Communion. I would not accept, however, a caveat about the truthfulness of God’s Word.
And yes, I would also pose these questions to a layman.
You don’t have to agree with the above to be a Southern Baptist. But you should agree with the above if you want to serve on an SBC committee.
My comment below concerning Ronnie Floyd may answer some of your concern.
Dwight, I know you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. But if I were appointing you to a committee, I’d ask you anyway. Part of that is to emphasize to others what you believe. Part of that is to educate others on the importance of this issue. I’d do the same if I were appointing Adrian Rogers or Billy Graham (assuming they were still among us), and for the same reasons. No difference whatsoever between one race or another. We started asking this during the Conservative Resurgence; we need to continue to do so.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Thanks.
Generally, I don’t disagree with you on this. Thanks for the Ronnie Floyd statement below. The difference is that statement was initiated by Floyd. I don’t know if that was a prerequisite question JD asked or not. It just concerns me that the earlier allegation of these being social justice and marxism appointments, and the poll questions of inerrancy?; and BF&M2000?; seemed to me time wise, connected to JD’s appointments. Whatever the pattern has been historically related to prerequisites, we need to stick with that.
Really, Dwight, Ana and her ilk are not a significant force in the SBC – I am quite convinced of that. There are a lot of people who are suspicious of the Christian application of justice – wrongly so, I believe – but it is a small group of people with deeply twisted values who call everyone who disagrees with them Marxist and such. They are unfortunate and infuriating, but they are not a significant force in the SBC.
I believe that.
I love that social media gives a voice to everyone, but unfortunately, it tends to give us the impression that off-kilter extremists who have lost sight of Scripture, like Ana, P&P, some of the discernment ministries, are a much bigger force than they are.
Just to be sure, there are quite a few of us who have strong (and I’d argue legitimate) concerns about the social justice movement who are also vocally oppose the like of P&P, discernment ministries, etc. Let’s be sure we’re not conflating those groups with everyone who disagree with aspects of the social justice movement 🙂
Okay, carry on.
I think the questions about this particular well-balanced and thoughtfully chosen committee doesn’t have anything to do with the BFM 2000 or inerrancy. The questions and the noise is being made because an independent minded SBC president didn’t make his committee picks from the top of the resume piles of individuals who were hand picked by previous, mostly de facto, convention leadership. The feathers of individuals who have been waiting in line somewhere to become a member of the SBC prominente have been ruffled by these choices of individuals who come from churches much more committed to CP support than the limited inner circle of megachurch pastors and prominent members who usually get selected for these posts.
Bingo here for Sandy
Virtually all of the previous committee on committees nominees came from the small group of hand-picked insiders who had directly connected themselves to conservative resurgence leadership to get these kinds of appointments, so their position on inerrancy and the BFM 2000 was already known. I think a lot of the fuss about these appointments is that most of them are not the hand-picked choice of insiders. The BFM 2000 and inerrancy aren’t the issue, the fact that there’s an SBC president who is an independent thinker and who isn’t reaching for resumes that have been put at the top of the pile by the usual inner circle seems to be a problem. You’re right that those things shouldn’t be overlooked, but I don’t think that’s the root cause of the noise about these appointments.
Dave,
Thanks for your reply. I’m just saying any of us can get a little negligent on this.
For example, among the requirements SBC President Ronnie Floyd listed for him to appoint someone to a committee:
“A commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture…”
“A variety of age, gender, position, and ethnicity: men and women, church staff and laymen, and representatives from large and small churches.”
http://www.bpnews.net/45499/sbc-committee-candidates-sought-by-ronnie-floyd
I think we should continue that practice. J. D. Greear has probably done so; I’d just like to hear about it.
David R. Brumbelow
And I would agree we should NEVER be negligent about doctrinal parameters. This is not a concern of mine while JD Greear is in office.
I also have no doubts that J. D. Greear believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. Heck, I was just defending him at another site today.
Someone once said,
“The first step on the path of ecclesiological apostasy is compromise of the trustworthiness and authority of God’s Word over our lives. Those who begin to question the Word will soon begin to compromise other key doctrines.”
-Brick Walls and Picket Fences, p. 70.
David R. Brumbelow
Whoa….somebody else has read that book?
😉
It should be noted that, if you take the time to read the executive committee recommendations linked in the article, there are no numbers, percentages, or quotas recommended. In essence the charge is that the committees should look like the convention. I don’t think the social justice sky is falling just yet.
Totally agree Bill Mac
Does anyone know what the percentage of racial minorities is in the SBC vs. what it is on this committee? Is the racial diversity of this committee comparable to that of the convention?
SBC is about 85% white in membership according to Pew Research. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and-least-racially-diverse-u-s-religious-groups/ Probably a better question is what should our committees and agencies look like based on the kind of denomination we need to become in relationship to the culture of which we are a part?
Thanks for the quick respone! I wonder if the percentage of this committee are even comparable to our society at large.
I say this to raise attention to the fact that trying to have proportional representation-or even demanding at least one person of any race- is liable to make the committee not look like the SBC.
This committee doesn’t look like the SBC and that’s ok. I have no problem with minorities being over represented. I also have no problem with the majority being over represented. As long as qualified people are on the committee what’s the point of demanding certain races be on it?
I propose we not try to see races presented proportionally because we need to go by qualifications with race not bearing at all on the choice. I also propose we not worry if certain races are over represented (whether that be blacks, whites, or anyone else).
An interesting aspect of the Pew Report referenced, to me anyway, is that few evangelical denominations do a good job in reflecting the ethnic diversity present in our culture. AME, for example, is much less diverse than the SBC. But being diverse is a worthy goal because it means that we are reaching all kinds of people in our society.
“over 50% come from churches of less than 250 in attendance”
Great news! My kind of diversity. And I’m a member of a church with more than 250 in attendance.
I have no reason to doubt that every person on this committee loves God and will serve the SBC well. I sincerely mean this, but I do wonder about the approach.
If diversity is the goal, then mission accomplished.
Or maybe not. The list is certainly diverse. Is it diverse enough? Clearly there’s work that could be done to be more diverse.
Should diversity be the goal, or should fair representation be the goal? Does fairness have anything to do with the percentage of representation of identity groups in the committee compared to their representation in America or the SBC? Why should women be very much the minority on the committee when they are certainly the majority in the US population and SBC population? Is it fair for European Americans (I’m no longer comfortable with the increasingly pejorative word “white”) to be only 50% of the committee when they constitute over 70% of America and over 80% of the SBC? I mean, fairness, right?
Should fair representation be the goal, or should social justice be the goal? Why should the patriarchy be the overwhelming majority on this committee? Why should the European American percentage be equal to all of the other ethnicities pooled together? Shouldn’t the quest for social justice make European Americans the minority on the committee because they’ve had their turn?
Why do both the chair and vice-chair look European American? Yes, the vice-chair is a woman, but perhaps another aspect of intersectionality could have amplified the choice. Why wasn’t a woman made chair? Haven’t we had enough men chairing committees, especially those who seem to be European American?
Just get ready, SBC. As we move toward this approach of choosing leaders, these types of questions are only beginning.
It’s worth noting that when minorities are UNDERrepresented on committees and leadership positions, people like Ben (those who share his views) show little concern. But let them be (what he considers) OVERrepresented and we get treated to sky-is-falling/intersectionality/sarcasm like what we’ve just seen.
It’s worth noting the senseless ad hominem that Brent just utilized, basically accusing me of not caring about minorities. That’s unnecessary.
Brent, you missed my point. My point is not that any group is underrepresented or overrepresented. And I never said that the sky is falling. In fact, I said that the folks on this committee will surely serve the SBC well. These folks will REPRESENT the SBC well.
Let me state my point straightforwardly. My actual point is that the identity groups approach that we are adopting in the SBC from the larger culture has good intentions, but I’m afraid it will only cause us to see “injustices” all the more and will cause tribalism to grow in the SBC.
How has it worked out for the larger society? Has it brought people together or magnified their differences and pushed them apart?
Identity groups will increasingly jockey for position, and the questions that I raised will become typical in the leadership process. The person’s identity on earth will grow to be of equal or more importance than their identity in Christ
Surely there is another way than the identity group approach.
Okay, the other ways we’ve tried have pretty much resulted in all-white leadership, or nearly so.
What solution do you have outside of emphasizing minority inclusion?
Dave, that’s a great question. I’m not opposed to emphasizing minority inclusion. I agree that we should desire minority inclusion. I’m just leery of minority inclusion becoming the goal instead of the means of reaching the goal. It’s amazing to me how easily these secondary goals become the goal and distract from the actual mission.
I also see how these things work out in the general culture. It’s not usually good in my opinion because the “haves” get pitted against the “have-nots,” however that gets defined, and it becomes a battle for power. And I also see how voracious the “injustice” mindset becomes in that it is never satisfied. As one “injustice” gets righted, another “injustice” is found because the lens folks are looking through actually invents injustice and creates conflict. I know how easily the flesh comes to bear when we start focusing on flesh.
Someone will surely say that I’m employing the slippery slope fallacy, but we only have to pivot to the general culture around us to see where this could end up. But, maybe the SBC is spiritually mature enough to not fall into the pit. Do you think it is?
As to your actual question, I think it would be really good to look at how businesses are approaching this since they deal with this every day, of course keeping Scripture as our sole authority for faith and practice. Quotas and Affirmative Action seem to be out of favor and even illegal in some instances, and let me be clear that I’m not claiming that’s what the SBC is employing. Businesses seem to be in favor of softer approaches to inclusion and diversity such as goal-setting for diversity but not requiring diversity, ensuring that minorities have equal opportunity at all levels instead of equal outcome, and creating a culture that values minorities. Those would be my suggestions.
I’m curious from your comment, what actual strategies have tried but failed in the SBC? I’m not sure of what’s been tried.
Pretty much everything we’ve done to include racial minorities has been opposed.
*We apologized for past racism and people complained.
*We sought to put minorities in positions of responsibility and leadership, and people complained.
I can’t think of a racial endeavor that’s been undertaken that wasn’t soundly opposed.
So, I’ve asked this before and got rebuked for it. But everything we’ve suggested has been criticized. I was called a racist for suggesting we consider minorities at our entities.
I would like to hear what those who criticize the diversity endeavors suggest.
I’ve been trying to promote racial reconciliation, inclusion, whatever you called it, since 2010 and a conversation I had with Dwight McKissic. There is not a single suggestion I’ve made or article I’ve written that has not been criticized. Every suggestion we’ve ever made has been attacked.
So yeah, I’m a little cynical about it, about the motives of those who attack this. If we come across short or whatever, it’s nearly 10 years of having every effort attacked as ungodly, even racist. If people are going to oppose EVERY racial effort that is put forth, what is an alternate plan? I want to hear a workable plan that doesn’t include getting more minorities in positions of service and leadership.
The “we are all one race and shouldn’t focus on color” thing doesn’t seem to work. When we don’t “focus on color” we seem to end up with one color – various shades of white.
I do not think this is “diversity for diversity’s sake.”
*It is diversity because heaven is diverse and we should be as well.
*It is diversity because the future of America is diverse and if we stay a white man’s club, we die.
*It is diversity because the wisdom and insight of people from different cultures may actually help us see things with new eyes and get some new perspectives. Maybe the path to reverse our decline to leave monolithic cultural uniformity behind.
*It is diversity because the heart of God and the gospel is to make the 2 into 1 and break down the dividing wall of hostility.
So, until someone comes up with a plan other than criticizing efforts at diversity or telling us to ignore race, we will keep following the gospel and the heart of God to break down racial walls and look forward to the moment when people of every tribe and language join as one to worship Him.
Wow. This may be the first time I have read a white person complaining about being underrepresented in the SBC.
Brother Dwight, would you start the doxology?
Not complaining. Only making a point that “fairness” must be consistent.
And please, Dave, I prefer “European American.”
Dave,
I am highly interested in hearing your response to Ben’s argument. I think the questions are reasonable and require a reasonable answer, not dismissive fallacies. Thanks
I have written extensively on this. I’d encourage you to read what I’ve written.
There’s a search function. Not trying to be difficult, but I spend a lot of time putting the posts together, so it seems fair that you read what I’ve already written before asking me to write it again in answer to you.
Does that work for you?
Thanks for the response, Bro. Dave! I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that I check your blog multiple times a day and have read every single article posted on this issue.
With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely) I don’t think I’ve heard a well reasoned argument that doesn’t include at least some fallacious argumentation. Even in this brief interaction we’ve see ad hominem, dismissiveness, and avoidance.
I simply say this because it seems as though your assertions have been answered by those on the opposing side (as Ben did) and I am interested in hearing how you would respond.
I like friendly argumentation among brothers and I would like to see how you respond to his arguments here rather than dismissing them. Thanks!