The Biblical Recorder has an article that was just published concerning a letter by pastors James Merritt, Vance Pitman, and Bryant Wright, written to the Search Committee for the EC, expressing concerns about the perceived lack of minority involvement in the hiring process. The article is entitled Diversity in focus as Baptists await EC announcement.
The article says that many expect an announcement of the candidate for president of the EC at the February 18-19 EC meeting. The three pastors are asking whether any minorities have been interviewed.
Perspectives
1. We do not have to lower our standards to hire minority candidates for SBC entity leadership positions. Frankly, this blogger is losing his patience with the tendency of people to assume that diversity is a de facto lowering of doctrinal standards or professional qualifications. When Curtis Woods was appointed to head the Resolutions Committee, people raised questions about whether this represented an abandonment of standards.
No one asked such questions about Keith Whitfield!
Why would we question whether Curtis Woods is qualified but assume Keith is? What explanation could there be for the fact that selecting an all-white leadership team is okay, but a diverse team is blamed on quotas?
This nonsense needs to stop. There are plenty of qualified minority and female candidates for office in the SBC and those who label seeking to include minorities in the process “SJW” or see it as “quotas” need to look at their hearts and ask some hard questions.
2. I would be thrilled to be corrected on this, and will gladly correct the record and apologize if someone will give me information to the contrary, but informed and credible sources (information I have received from said sources has been unfailingly accurate) have told me that to this point, in the three entity searches that are the farthest along in the process, NOT A SINGLE MINORITY CANDIDATE has made it to the interview round! A few minority candidates have received questionnaires but all have been eliminated before being interviewed.
This would only be acceptable if there were no qualified candidates, but there are.
If this information is correct, what possible reason can we give to not even give minority candidates an interview?
3. We can understand that the Executive Committee Search Team is probably tired after a long process, but it is not too late to correct this. Better to hire slowly and rightly. Our president, JD Greear, has made including minorities a key part of his administration – and he has done a great job of it.
To hire five empty entity leadership positions and not even give a qualified minority candidate a serious interview is not acceptable. The Executive Committee has been a leader in this process and for their search committee to hire without even interviewing anyone other than white males is unacceptable.
We join Merritt, Pitman, and Wright in their concern and express our hopes that the Search Team will listen to their concerns.
Let me make something clear.
I have been deeply upset about the information I received that NO minorities have even been interviewed. I would love to be corrected on that, as I said.
And, as I protected the credible source(s) who gave me that information, I am willing to receive information from credible sources – people with direct knowledge – who would give me information to the contrary.
I am VERY confident in this information, or I would not be publishing it. I receive rumors all the time and do not publish them. This seems to be more than that. But if we receive contrary information, I will correct the record.
I don’t want to minimize your reasonable questions at all. But it’s also worth asking how many minorities declined consideration early in the process.
Maybe a highly qualified minority would’ve received serious consideration. Maybe not, and we’ll never know. But it’s a factor we should keep in mind, I’m quite certain.
Don’t know.
I know that some highly qualified minority candidates were given questionnaires but according to information I have, not given interviews.
I am sure some white candidates declined interviews as well.
Hmm…good questions. Surely there are good answers about why we talk so much about being diverse and positioning for the future…and then keep living something different.
Any hiring process is complex, and surely this one is no different. You seem to have information the general public does not, but I believe this brief post over-simplifies one aspect of the process.
You speak of qualified candidates and not qualified candidates. But in such a process, resumes are never merely culled into two piles like that. They are ranked, most qualified to least qualified, along a series of steps – first “read”, after being researched, after questionnaires are received, etc. – and then frequently interviewed in that order. Who’s to say that a qualified minority wasn’t number six in the search committee’s ranking and they chose before ranking them all to interview the top five?
And if so, would you argue that the sixth should be interviewed anyway, primarily because of his race?
I would argue that our tendency is to discount the qualifications of minority candidates to the point that we will always find a pool from the “good old boy” pile.
It is like the belief that prevailed in my youth that Blacks didn’t make good quarterbacks. It wasn’t that they couldn’t do it, but it was assumed they couldn’t and so they were not given the chance.
We do not give qualified minority candidates a fair look. All of these openings and NO INTERVIEWS?
Why would we assume there are always 5 white candidates better than the best minority?
I am not accusing you of being racist, but this is the rationale we hear every single time…the Myth of the More-Qualified White.
You are seeing what I am seeing which I articulated in my comment before reading yours which is better worded. Certainly shorter. Sorry for the echo. But glad I am not the only one to question this.
I am just now seeing this thread, as am coming back to this article after reading your most recent one.
I think your first point in your follow-up is valid. The top candidates tend to be people best known.
Also, I didn’t mean to assume that the top five candidates would be white *because* they’re white but because there are more that are white. I was just considering the percentages. Just like if you put green and purple marbles in a jar and had nine green and one purple, you’re most likely to pull out green marbles.
If you have ten qualified candidates but only one is a minority, and you must choose to rank them somehow, and you choose to ignore their skin color, it is likely percentage-wise that that minority candidate has only a 10% chance of being the first interviewed, whereas there’s a 90% chance that a white is interviewed first, then 80%/20% and so on.
Mrs. Kaufman would argue, it appears, for not ignoring their skin color, but preferring a black or Hispanic candidate over a white one. I don’t think that’s the answer.
I think you hit it more squarely in your other article and another commenter did: the system of only picking those we know needs to change. Because “the people we know” needs to change. It needs to change as we intentionally develop relationships and the makeup of the SBC changes. We would see interviews of minority candidates if the percentage of them was greater, and the percentage of them would be greater if SBC churches were more diverse, and they will only become more diverse if we pursue relationships with people who don’t look like “us” or may not vote like “us” or worship in the same style as “us” but with whom we have Jesus and foundational theological beliefs in common.
I would like to know why you are asking these questions of minority candidates Stephanie? I agree with this article and am incensed that we were once again lip service with no action. I am however, sincerely asking the question. You are not the only white person to ask this question and I notice no blacks, Mexicans, Latinos, asking this question. I think you see where I am going with this.
Should the 6th candidate be interviewed anyway due to his skin color? Yes. We have to be deliberate about this or it is not going to happen. Not all positions need a college degree(which given the diversity on our seminary campuses I can’t believe many do not have degrees. I believe they do.)
I think consciously or unconsciously the current candidates were chosen for their skin color as well as ability.
We don’t just call Dwight McKissic, Dr. McKissic for sport for example.
Can someone remind me the three entities still open?
NOBTS
SWBTS
Lifeway
EC
We had a Voices conversation on this several months ago. I prophesied that the search committees would all endorse the idea that one of them should choose a minority person, but in the end they all would choose a white male. I’m sad that the prophecy proved true, or at least seems so at this time. What does this mean? It means the search committees agree with the concept of minority hiring in theory, but they see their situation as being different.
There is a consensus among those I have spoken to that we will go 5 for 5 with white hirings.
That’s rough because I think SWBTS, in particular, could REALLY benefit from a Hispanic candidate. Just my $.02 from the Republic of Texas…
I have said that repeatedly
Living in Houston and watching the demographics change, if they intend to make inroads down here after basically closing the Havard School, it’s going to have to be something way different than what they have had…
Well yeah William. It’s hard to explain “God led us to select a white guy. “
Maybe the explanation will be God leads us to this person regardless of skin color.
Sigh…When Baptists call for people “regardless of skin color” why does it seem the result is always a white person?
We have nearly 200 years of INTENTIONALLY and SINFULLY ignoring and excluding minorities as a denomination. Maybe we should INTENTIONALLY include them to honor Christ?
I’m sorry Greg, but you don’t want to know what I think when I hear the “Let’s just ignore race thing.”
Perhaps just perhaps if 80 of SBC is Caucasian, then ending up with Caucasian isn’t nefarious or racist. Just perhaps
Since 1848 100% of our leaders have been white. I guess you want to keep that streak going?
I am not assigning motives, you seem to be assigning them to me. I only hope and pray that the person’s so entrusted by the trustees are able to do the job.
If a minority is hired, does that mean he is less able to do the job?
I haven’t seen anything in recent years that convinces me the boards of SBC entities, and the search committees they choose, are going to do anything except what they have always done in choosing candidates they prefer based on their connections and relationships and on who has the most friends on the boards or committees to help them get the position. Many of the trustees have their positions for the same reason.
Throughout the many years I participated in the SBC, state conventions and local associations there has always been a line of individuals, mostly prominent pastors who work the convention venue lobbies and exhibit halls, who are waiting to “get the call” to head one of the SBC entities (and similar lines in the state conventions). They’ve invested a lot of time and influence positioning themselves. That’s where the candidates for these executive positions will come from. I doubt that there are any minorities in those lines. The way they do church ministry in the SBC doesn’t allow them the time to spend at meetings where they can lobby for those jobs.
When I was a student at a state convention related college, the professor who was the ministerial association advisor flatly told us that if we had ambitions to serve in Baptist entities, we needed to “hitch our wagon” (he was from Oklahoma) to someone who could help us meet the people we needed to know. If things in the SBC have changed since then, I’m not seeing it. My guess is that there will not be any candidates for any executive position in the SBC who is identified as an ethnic minority.
Which is why the solution is doing what JD is doing (and people are squawking about that) – getting more and more people from minorities in the system.
I agree, and what he has done is a good start. People are going to squawk because their carefully build networks and good ole boy clubs are threatened by it. The problem is that what the younger generations have seen is that the quest for power is more important than a Biblical mission and purpose, that once some, not all by any means but enough, of these people have come into executive positions they have been self-serving, protecting their turf and wasteful with the resources. Then they get a golden parachute with which to bail. So a lot of potential leaders have either stayed focused on their local church ministry or like most of the last couple of generations of college and seminary students, they left to start non-denominational churches and ministries and they’re gone.
I am told that the concern of the men was exactly what they stated – that they had no ulterior motives, which you seem to be assigning to them.
They are concerned about the lack of minority interviews in the process.
I admit to responding to the smell of this. Don’t know motives.
A couple observations that may or may not hold water. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the situation.
1. If the EC (or whomever) selected this committee and the committee has refused, declined, or simply failed to gain applications from a “diverse” crowd, AND people expected/demanded this to take place, THEN the EC (or whomever is responsible for the selection of the committee) should be fired, replaced, and/or condemned at the next Convention by the messengers, IF this is unacceptable to the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention.
2. It seems the history of the good-ole-boy club and/or the Mega-Church crowd who has control of virtually all top-tier positions, committees, etc. in the SBC echelon is the problem, IF this continues to happen even when it would appear those on this blog and others at the “messenger” level of the Convention seems to be in favor of diversification.
As with many things within our Convention creating change at the top that will cascade downward is very difficult. It took the conservative resurgence around a decade, I think, to gain Leadership positions who then could appoint Trustees, etc. that ultimately led to hiring the right people for Seminary Presidents and other EC appointments. It would seem that the same kind of happenings need to be done again. Dave already mentioned that Greear has begun this. It would seem it may take awhile longer to complete the process.
So saddened by this topic. I fear to even comment either way because I will be labeled. I’ll just say this- to say ‘at least one’……. that will never satisfy. We are fooling ourselves by that line.
No. The goal is not to hire a token minority and be done with it. Certainly not, Shelvin.
The goal is to include minorities at EVERY level of SBC life, even at the upper levels.
Tokenism is not the goal. Inclusion and the end of racial exclusion is. How is that a bad thing?
And I would LOVE To hear some reasonable arguments against the idea of including minorities in the hiring process. So far, what I’ve heard gives me chills – the same old exclusionary stuff.
Dave this discussion needs to be had. Thank you for bringing it up.
I do want to know though, how would we know if a minority was chosen, it was not done as a token choice? The SBC seems to be messed up on this subject and when a minority is chosen I think there is still enough racism in the crowd to make the token claim (negatively). A minority chosen for any top spot probably realizes the junk he or she will have to endure. They have been dealing with it most, if not all, of their lives… because they are minority.
I hope there is someone chosen soon who can weather the idiocy of some SB’s.
I have my preferences for EC and SWBTS Presidency… both minorities, Yet, the interim at SWBTS is doing a bang up job and I could further support him – I know nothing about him but what he has done since stepping into the pile of manure left behind.
Sometimes I wonder if a Minority would even want such a position, knowing our history and some current attitudes towards such. Our meaning those vocal few in SBC life who do come to the June meetings.
I have no doubt that whenever a minority is hired they will face the kind of scrutiny and criticism you referenced.
Racism is not dead in the SBC.
The “best” candidate is someone who is spiritually gifted, called by God and has experience in Christian leadership. Given the number of fellowships and organizations of ethnic congregations in the SBC, it should not be a problem to find dozens of candidates qualified to lead the entities still looking for executives among those groups. It’s not like these positions are so complicated and difficult that only a small, elite group of insiders are capable of filling them. A “pedigree” built around denominational loyalty isn’t a necessity to serve an SBC entity and it might be refreshing to have someone in at least one of these posts who is qualified by work and life experience and who isn’t a denominational insider.
Good points, Lee.
I do think though that our entity leaders can and should be a faithful and consistent Southern Baptists – if the hire one that is not *yet* a denominational insider all the better.
Note: I used the word *yet* above because once elected/installed entity execs and leaders automatically become “insiders”….anyone who has or does hold denominational office at the “national” level (and often their families) is an insider (perhaps, unless they went out in disgrace) – they are and will be privy to and involved in conversations and information leaks that us pastors serving in obscurity will never be.
Why is it called tokenism when anyone not white is interviewed or even hired for a position in the SBC? I haven’t seen the word “token” used in the case of whites. I think the word token is actually an insult.
The definition of insanity has been “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” If that’s true, then putting Joe Knott on the EC search committee was insane. He’s been recycled over and over again on SBC boards, committees, etc. Is there only only Baptist lawyer in North Carolina? Even the state’s voters — and we know how messed up NC elections are — had more sense than that in 2004.
They need their own version of the Rooney rule, and actually follow it.
The problem isnt racism as much as it is old-boy-ism. They have power and do what they can to keep it. And JD’s efforts may not be enough to change the direction of the lumbering and collosal ship called the SBC.
To use sports jargon, I am a fan of the team because I recently moved into the area as opposed to being born into a family of fans. I see the SBC as doing many great things, especially, but not limited to, missions.
But like all man made organizations, there is a shelf life. Because it is huge it is hard to re-direct it in a better trajectory, though it has been done. And may be done again. But it is hard to fight against what is not seen even though the results are visible.
What is the problem?
Who is causing it?
How can it be changed?
Where is the power source?
Who steers the ship?
We dont like the results, again.
But just talking about it, like we have before, doesn’t change the WHY of the results.The SBC is too big, its power is either too concentrated or too spread out, depending on how you look at it. And many of its constituents, the individual churches, probably have no problem with the status quo.
OK. I have a feeling I know why my last comment was deleted, so I’ll try again. Although, as any good internet commentor would do, I 100% stand by my earlier remarks. LOL.
The net effect of SBC old-boy-ism, as you call it, is the exclusion of racial minorities. This point is undeniable. Critics call this sort thing institutional racism. Even if the participants aren’t racists, if the way the system operates excludes people of color, then it is. The only way to deal with this is head on, like JD Greear and the group of pastors behind the letter are doing and call these search committees to think outside their traditional circles.
You are getting caught in our spam filter. No idea why.
We hear it is operated by NFL refs.
We’ll call it providence. My last comment may have been construed as a personal attack on the EC chair anyway. It was uncharitable,
I have to admit to a momentary reaction of nerves when I saw your name, Scott. There is a Scott Shaver on our blocked list – one of the worst offenders on many fronts we have ever had. I deleted your comment and then realized you were Scott Shaffer not Scott Shaver.
Your comment is reasonable and well stated, therefore I will assume you aren’t Scott Shaver trying to find another way in (he has used a lot of false names in the past).
The one thing he hasn’t done is leave reasonable and thoughtful comments, which you did. So, sorry for the confusion.
No problem.
I understand the “hire the best candidate” sentiment; however, it is a bit of a red herring. The goal should be to hire qualified candidates AND promote diversity. The lack of past minority hires shows the problem won’t fix itself.
All I know is, I’m glad I’m not on any of those search committees. They haven’t even scratched the surface and the pressure for them is already unreal. Whoever they choose, I’m sure there will be outrage no matter what. Let’s pray for wisdom for them above all else.
You are right there. They do receive a lot of pressure behind the scenes from power-brokers.
I’m thinking the same thing, Tyler.
Lots of pressure coming from numerous quarters!
Prayer is a good call.
What would you have us do? Remain silent?
Things are happening that are disturbing. We are a political body and it is our privilege and responsibility to speak out on those things. That is not exclusive to prayer. One can pray about things AND also speak out against that which is perceived as wrong.
Too often we’ve been silent. I do not think silence is the answer.
For myself, I’m not suggesting silence.
I guess I’m trying to acknowledge that the trustees on the search teams are presumably godly men and women who are certainly more knowledgeable and more in tune with the needs/skill set/ personality/ etc. needed/desired as well as those of the applicants they’re considering than I am being on the outside looking in. Searches like this are by nature, necessity and even legally secret.
Therefore, for me, I’m content, for now, engaging in prayer and trusting the trustees as well as our system.
I do realize and respect that other brothers and sisters who aren’t in the same frame of thinking are also seeking to live Godly in Christ Jesus.
Not trying to be contrary or controversial but LifeWay of all positions … why does it have to be male? Most shoppers of LifeWay are female I would surmise – based on the “Jesus Junk” and Beth Moore paraphernalia available. LOL
If the female candidate was a PhD theological, conservative, what would be more minority than such a candidate?
I would not have an issue with a female president of LifeWay. Do not think it will happen this go round.
It probably isn’t a good idea, because the LifeWay president needs to be able to speak in churches and represent the SBC in a way that would be complicated.
As far as the actual work of LifeWay president, no problem, but the PR and representational work could create issues. And it would create a stick with the anti-Social justice crowd who tends to mak a federal case about everything anyway.
We say that there are many qualified minority candidates for all these positions, but we never give any names. Personally I’d like to know who people think are some candidates that these entities need to intervieiw and zero in on. I’d like to see Kevin Smith at the EC, Juan Sanchez at SWBTS, and Walter Strickland at NOBTS. Lifeway is an enigma to me because you need someone in the CEO role who has both the white-collar business acumen and theological chops to lead that organization. I don’t know anyone who fits that role as well as Thom Rainer did.
I have preferred, as much as possible, to make this a theoretical discussion. I think there are several qualified minority candidates. Kevin Smith has been named often, as has Walter Strickland. But I would rather simply ask the committees to give minorities a chance than to tell them WHICH minorities to hire.
But you are right that there are good candidates.
Rainer was the first exec at Lifeway to come from a business background, though his secular job experience prior to going into vocational ministry would not have been enough to qualify him for an executive position at a company as large as Lifeway in the secular business world. It was the combination of that plus his ministry involvement that got him the position. His two immediate predecessors there came from the pastorate.
If you look at these leadership positions, they don’t require “rocket science” expertise. Each entity executive has a staff that is hired because of their expertise in the field. The exec or president’s job is to lead that staff to do their job as effectively as possible and to be the individual who moves the institution or entity forward according to the wishes of the convention. It’s leadership ability and spiritual calling more than expertise in any particular field, though having some background in a similar field is always helpful. The only thing that complicates the process for Southern Baptist entities is the individuals who have invested their time and energy into lobbying by going to meetings and building useful friendships and alliances so that their resume gets pushed into the pile at the top. I’d say there are dozens of individuals of differing ethnic and racial backgrounds who are qualified and capable to lead (not to “run”) any of these organizations.
I have not followed this closely and know of no “inside” information about who was sent a questionnaire and who was extended an interview.
What I am about to say is based on the belief that these hiring processes were to be kept confidential. If that is the case, the ethical problem here is far greater than who gets the job.
I believe it is a severe ethical lapse for anyone involved in confidential hiring process (again, assuming it’s confidential) to leak information as to who has been sent a questionnaire or who has been interviewed.
I don’t know the process, who has been sent a questionnaire, or who has been interviewed. In the case of the EC, the committee doing this work is diverse. I suppose the decisions are being made by the committee, not one person.
Greear had the luxury of making his appointments by fiat. He makes the pick. No consensus is needed.
In committee work, there is often a ranking, and an agreement has to be reached on the next steps. We don’t know who voted, how, or even what they voted on. We don’t know why one person may have ranked one candidate over another, or why other committee members may have decided differently.
I am sure hoping that these 3 pastors, all of whom I respect, did not write letters based on privately leaked information.
Please. Tell me that’s not the case.
I don’t know who leaks the information, but it is pretty commonly known in SBC circles who the finalists are at entities. The committees tend to act as if their information is highly classified, but the identity of those who are being considered is widely known.
We never publish the name of the candidate until it is announced by the entity, out of respect for the process. However, there is a problem here and I am not sure that “confidentiality” is a higher order of issue than the insult we will give to our minority brothers and sisters or the damage we will do to the convention.
It has always been this way in the convention. People know what is going on. It is as it always has been. I am not sure that our biggest problem here is that people know what is happening, but WHAT IS HAPPENING.
Dave,
You are merely reporting. These 3 pastors wrote a letter based on information that was provided to them.
If the SBC entities have agreed to release the information, no problem. They could decide to publish a list of everyone to whom they sent a questionnaire and everyone they interview. It would be odd to proceed that way, but they could do it.
But the way this article was framed, it was leaked.
I do consider ethics to be important. I expect Christians to be ethical people.
They have information that many of us have. They did not procure classified information.
They simply wrote to request that minorities be included in the process. Actually, they ASKED if minorities have been included in the process. They made a legitimate request to a search team.
They did nothing unethical.
I think we should be more concerned about our problems than about casting aspersions on these three fine men.
People in hiring committees should be ethical, and no one in SBC life should consider themselves as being so important as to being above ethics. I remember someone on the platform saying that to Judge Paul Pressler a few years ago at the SBC meeting.
Based on what you have said, these 3 men are calling committees to see how they’re operating and what they’re doing.
I want to be fair to you, but is that what you say is going on?
How bout you and I get on a conference call tomorrow and let’s call these committee chairmen and ask to whom they’ve sent questionnaires and whom they have interviewed.
Do you think a committee member or chair should share that information with us? And if not with us, why them?
I realize you’re wanting to move on (nothing to see here) to talk about the ultimate selection.
But I think we are being short sighted to ignore the ethical elephant in the room.
More people than we realize get upset about the way religious organizations make decisions.
You are mischaracterizing what they are doing and smearing good men.
I am not discussing this anymore with you, since you seem determined to assume evil in good men.
Dave,
You know I am not doing that, but I note your need to characterize it that way.
You are accusing them of unethical behavior.
I am just trying to figure why- what is your angle?
Requesting information isn’t unethical. Advocating a position isn’t unethical. But you seem determined to paint their honorable actions as unethical.
Trying to figure out why?
Go back and read my comments.
It’s that simple.
People who leak private information about hiring processes, unless they have permission to share that information, are acting unethically.
I would hope Christians can agree on that.
I still can’t figure out who asked for the info, exactly what was provided, and by whom. But from your reporting, it all seems to have been leaked.
This is unethical.
You are right not to defend the leak because I suspect you too know that it’s unethical.
But instead you are wanting to change the subject to the 3 pastors who asked for the information.
If you can’t see why this is wrong ethically, I can’t help you. I don’t think any argument would get you to seriously address the ethics here.
You ask why we should address the ethics? Again, if you can’t see that, there is nothing I can tell you that will make you see it.
An ethical exchange from these committees would involve verified, official statement from each.
Louis: In cases like this, where there is still time to oppose the process, I do not think the leaking of information is unethical. The hiring process is unethical. If there is information such as this being leaked, I think those leaking did the right thing.
Debbie,
Though I disagree, I appreciate your sharing your opinion.
I would think if I were on a committee that was conducting itself in an unethical manner, that the thing do do would be to resign and be forthright with the world.
I am not sure that leaking some information would really fix an unethical process.
These three didn’t leak anything.
I believe you Dave, mine was for the sake of argument posting.
Louis,
You said;
“People who leak private information about hiring processes, unless they have permission to share that information, are acting unethically.”
Why is that true? as in ALWAYS true?
And let us say that the hiring process is unethical and will remain unethical if nothing is leaked.
My point is that your blanket statement may not always be true.
And since you dont know the details, you cant make a judgment.
The question asked by the three pastors was who had been interviewed. If they knew the answer to that question based on information, leaked or otherwise, it would have been a nonsensical question. More likely,as Dave has said, many people know who the new EC chair will be The letter is inquiring whether or not there were minority candidates interviewed. The most direct explanation, without the cynical presupposition of bad faith associated with leaked confidential information is the best one. There is nothing about the letter that was written that would imply to a reasonable person that any of the three authors was in possession of information they should not be.
John:
I have left open from the beginning of this discussion that the persons who shared this information had permission to do that. And if that is the case, I’d like to hear it.
The fact that no one has confirmed that is not surprising.
That’s why you and I, or Dave, can’t just call these committees and get all sorts of information from the committees about what they’ve done.
That makes me concerned, as a believer.
And it makes me wonder if any of this is accurate and can be relied upon.
Christians should do business in a business-like and honorable way.
One of the loudest complaints about churches and denominational organizations is that they are not honest and straightforward in business matters.
I don’t know if you are a pastor, but I have found for many in the religious world that the longer they are in it, the more desensitized they become to business ethics. Some things just don’t register to them at all as being wrong.
John, I agree. The letter the three pastors wrote asks legit questions. I assume they aren’t asking questions they already know the answers to via leaked info….
Others though, have made public and defenitive statements based on sources regarding who was and was not interviewed. I don’t know how that information is possibly known unless it has been leaked from the committee… Or someone otherwise knowledgeable of the specifics innerworkings of the search committee.
I’m saying asking the questions Merritt and the others ask are above board and appropriate. However note, it’s totally up to the committee to answer them or not. If they choose to answer – I expect there are ways he can be done ethically…and I hope it’s done that way. I assume it will be.
This has been an exercise in deflection and distraction.
The issue is that no minority candidates have been interviewed.
The fact that information like this HAS ALWAYS circulated in SBC circles may be a discussion to have at a later date.
This is not a government job with security clearance. It is an SBC entity position. The fact is that the candidate is widely known long before he is announced. Thus it is. Thus it has been.
Someone as connected as you are HAS to know that this information has always been circulated. I don’t know who leaks it but it gets out. You know that. I would wager my spleen if I still had it that YOU have had some of this inside info from time to time.
Trying to make THAT the issue instead if the failure of 3 entities to interview a single minority is strange. Unfortunately, both information sharing and racial exclusion are norms in the SBC.
That you are upset about the SOP of information dissemination but not racial exclusion is troubling to me. One seems a minor matter and the other a huge deal.
You have switched the price tags.
No.
Now it appears that you are saying that leaking information is ethical.
Your argument is that bad ethics are the norm in the SBC. Hence bad ethics are acceptable.
I am sorry but I can’t go there. I won’t go there.
Are you sure you want to go on record saying something like this?
Are you going to go on record as saying that not interviewing minorities is okay?
I am saying ONE thing.
You are making a big deal about a lesser issue and I am beginning to wonder if it is to distract us from the bigger issue.
You are certainly more moral and ethical than all of us, Louis, but I think you are making mountains out of molehills and molehills out of mountains.
Dave,
I would sincerely appreciate your contacting the chair of these committees and asking them to get permission from the committees to provide you with an update as to any information they would be willing to provide.
If you can obtain the information with permission from these committees which would provide the information necessary, I’ll be glad to discuss whatever they release.
But I am not going to ignore serious ethical practices. And then conduct substantive discussions on unethically leaked information.
I am sure there is no shortage of people who see nothing wrong in these leaks.
But I hope to be proven wrong.
I am just not one of them.
Well, we are done then.
You can continue in condemnatory condescension and I will continue to think you are missing the point and fiddling while Rome burns.
We can part there.
I agree.
We’re on different topics here.
It’s significant in both directions, but it’s ok that we don’t agree.
Can I possibly Play peacemaker here Dave, and Louis?
I think y’all are both (likely most others too) in agreement on the two principles that you are discussing…
Let’s split the baby.
It has been stated in this opening article that there is concern that perhaps – minorities have been excluded from consideration in hiring…
1. To be clear, Excluding minorities from hiring consideration is unethical and wrong.
It has been stated that It is known by some who was given questionnaires and who of them have moved to the interview stage. While most of us rank-and-file Pastors who pastor in obscurity are not privy to this information… It’s clear from this article that some people must be.
2. To be clear, The Leaking of confidential information like Who the committee considered and rejected is unethical and wrong.
When I’ve been involved in being questioned and interviewed for ministry positions I was appreciative when those churches did not release publicly… “we considered him and went another direction because….”. Now, If i wanted to tell people I was considered by a church and not hired that’s my business… But I would be pretty upset if the church took it upon themselves to announce that they have interviewed me and not hired me… And there are a multitude of reasons why that would bother me not the least of which possibly that negatively impacting my current and future employment.
(I’m not talking about word getting around who they search team has totally settled on – as by that point you’re probably talking about hundreds of people having been officially notified …And perhaps even the candidates current employment been officially notified so that number could be in the thousands – can’t keep a lid on that)
Another point I’d like to make… Is do we really think that we would be advancing the desire for diversity if we announce publicly “well we gave questionnaires to and or interviewed _______# minorities and _______# white dudes and we hired a white dude.”
I have long said that these issues are not as simple as they may seem at first glance.
Tarheel: I disagree that it is not that simple. It’s pretty simple.
OK.
May I make an uncomfortable observation?
It may very well be the crux of the problem is that most of us whites do not really have ethnics in our circle of close friends. We know of outstanding ethnic people in ministry. But we do not hang out, play golf, sit together in conference or see each other socially. Our system is more a ‘good old boy’ system than anything else. We are all more willing to make a passionate plea for a qualified friend we trust than a good resume. The NFL helped minority head coach candidates by REQUIRING a minority candidate to be interviewed. They got a lot of push back implementing that rule. But it did seem to solve the problem.
Perhaps we are beginning to recognize the growing diversity in our convention. Here are a few fairly accurate percentages gleaned from SBC’s fast facts page and Pew Research on Religion. I’m not particularly good at stats, but I think the figures are in the ballpark. SBC demographics show that of 47,544 cooperating churches 82% are Anglo churches, 6% African American, 4% Hispanic, 2% Asian and many other ethnic churches. Adding all ethnic churches together (African American, Hispanic, all Asian, Haitian and so on) and as a percentage of the whole, we find that about 17% of SBC churches are non-Anglo churches. Not huge, but significant. Then consider this – when counting individuals, 51% of Southern Baptists are women and represented in each of the ethnic groupings. Again, if my math isn’t exact then consider it an estimation. The point of it is to better represent all churches, issues, and needs of our churches.
Suzanne, this is good information. I believe I speak for the Voices writers when I say that we’re calling for membership on SBC committees and trustee boards, as well as institutional/agency leaders, to reflect the statistics that you shared. In other words, the leadership of our SBC should reflect the SBC churches.
Mark,
Please do not read this as an attack on you or your position. I am simply nudging you a little to consider what might be unintended consequences of the approach you seem to be advocating.
Is reflecting our churches the goal of our hires and appointments? Wouldn’t that tactic require the use of quotas (percentage based hiring and appointment)?
If we go at this by ensuring quota’s that reflect our churches – what happens if the percentages change? Are we then constantly chasing quotas?
Think about it with these questions. If we went this approach and one day the percentages changed to 90% Caucasian – would we then start intentionally *reducing” minority hires/appointments to keep the percentage and representation in balance? Since the Asian minority,for example, currently reflects less than 2% of our membership – would it, under this “reflection system”, mean that no more (ever) than one person (rounding up!) of Asian heritage can be on a 30 member board? Would it mean that Caucasians must have 24 on that same board – 82% must be represented by Caucasians? Must the different minority groups always be strictly divided up according to their proportion – If the goal is reflecting our churches – the answers to all the questions must be YES, until the percentages change, then it is back to the drawing board. No?
Conversely, and this should be welcomed and rejoiced over, what happen if the *current* minorities continued to grow within our denomination? Even, to the point that they are no longer minorities – do we then shift course and start quotas and preference for whichever *new groups* are in the minority – even if it is Caucasians?
If we are 90% Caucasian we need to evaluate why that is. If we keep have 100% white entities, that may be exactly what will happen. We will be 90% white as rightfully so, people will be leaving.
Tarheel Dave, no offense perceived on my part. I assumed someone would raise the issue of quotas. I’m not advocating quotas. As you pointed out, the details of doing quotas would be awkward and unwieldy. What I’m advocating is that the committees who nominate folks show some awareness and sensitivity to gender and ethnicity. I don’t believe it is a radical idea to suggest that our boards, committees, and leadership should reflect the demographics of the SBC. I assume the make-up of the SBC will become more diverse in the future because that is the way our society is trending, with Caucasians comprising a lower percentage year by year.
cool, Mark. We are in agreement, then.
Thanks, Dr. Terry. Yes, that is my meaning – look at trends, the context, the way the kingdom is growing. Look to the future. If we don’t, we will continue to lose our ability to participate effectively in God’s mission in the near time and into the next decade
Thanks for your comments, and for your efforts toward relevant representation – because when we get the ‘who’ of leadership more in line with our world today we stand a better chance of understanding and responding to the actual make-up of our society. That’s what it’s about anyway – positioning ourselves to work in concert with God to reach all people.
Allow me to quote a few comments here and ask a few questions:
(caveat: I don’t have a strong feeling about the Lewis/Dave debate in these comments. I tend to suspect, with Dave, that even if regulations forbid Trustees leaking information about hiring–and I don’t really know anything about that either—that its entirely possible that other people somehow found things out and told people. Maybe they should’t have…but I’m assuming that Dave’s information about no minority interviews is correct. However one comment from Dave in that exchange got me thinking)…
QUOTES:
Dave (Comment): “I am not discussing this anymore with you, since you seem determined to assume evil in good men.”
Dave (article): “If this information is correct, what possible reason can we give to not even give minority candidates an interview?”
Debbie (Comment): “The hiring process is unethical.”
1. DAVE, would you agree with Debbie that the hiring process, as reported to you and addressed in the letter, is “unethical.” If so, would you sat that the Trustees involved have acted unethically? If not, and if you consider these trustees to be “good men,” (as you consider these 3 pastors to be), do you think perhaps you are assuming some “evil” (even if you would not say they are intentionally acting in a racist way) in good men? Is that at least a danger in this conversation, that we assume too much?
2. Concerning my quote from your article…I’m curious as to what YOU think the answer is to this question you posed: “What possible reason can we give…?” Do you suspect, or attribute, a reason that you think is behind their hiring process?
Thanks for reading,
-Andy
I’ve moved on from this, but I think the key reason is the good old boy network – we hire those we are familiar with. There is also a more ominous reason. I’ve seen it over and over again, when a minority candidate or the idea of minority candidacy is promoted. “We need to just hire the best person.” In the SBC, the “best person” always seems to work out to be a white person – strange, isn’t it?
I mentioned it up there somewhere, that we are prone to treat Black and other minority leaders as NFL coaches did Black quarterbacks. In my younger days there was a sense that Blacks just couldn’t handle the QB role – it was too much for them. We have gone past that now, I hope.But Black men still have trouble getting considered for head coaching roles in the NFL.
I think we have a tendency to believe that the tried and true “old-guard” leaders of the SBC are just more qualified, capable and trustworthy than minority leaders. The key issue that is often raised is doctrinal fidelity – as if doctrinal fidelity is less likely to happen with (especially) Black candidates.
This stems, I posit, from our ties to GOP politics. We see loyalty to the GOP as a part of Christian orthodoxy. Many minority Baptists do not see politics as we do. For instance, while they are opposed to abortion, they see racism as a moral issue of EQUAL importance to abortion. We whites want abortion to be the ONE issue that matters above all else and Black people will want racism to matter on par with that – saying both are dehumanizing and demeaning to society.
So, we tend to question the doctrinal bona fides of Black candidates because they may consider a vote for a Democrat or may not get in line with our social policy or our general veneration of Trump and his plans to “Make America Great Again.”
Maybe I will turn that into a post.
[…] made the assertion in a previous post, based on solid information that has been given to me, that there have been no minority interviews […]