Perhaps some of our entities already have this but I think a good case could be made for not having leaders continue well into their 70s before leaving. It would force planned transitions, avoid messy situations, and help retain talented, younger leaders.
I recognize that we have a general distaste for an arbitrary age at which a pastor or leader is told that their work is done but staying too long can be a problem. State conventions and local associations are slogging along. New, fresh ideas and leadership couldn’t hurt but we have an aversion to talking openly about these things.
What do my older and younger brethren think?
I didn’t have ages of trustees in mind when I wrote this and don’t have any idea of average ages there.
Pastor and State workers are serving into their 70s…so 75 seems more reasonable to me.
I realize that but think it would be beneficial to force an earlier retirement, especially with state workers.
By federal law you can’t require this, but I guess it could be a guideline. I appreciate the spirit of your post, which I take to be that it would be good to elect more younger trustees. I would also appeal for more women and minority trustees. Our trustee boards should reflect the make up of our convention in regard to gender, age, and ethnicity. (No, I’m not proposing quotas.)
I’m a younger Pastor, and it would be very hard to work for an entity because of travel considerations. I want to go to church with my kids and wife during this season of my life. I think some of my younger brethren would feel the same way. I also value the wisdom of our older leaders. I would hate to see them pushed out because of an age. It’s an interesting thought, but I’m not in favor of it.
I agree with Mark Terry and Tony’s comment.
Mark, William isn’t talking about the age of trustees but of entity CEOs. Since I’m approaching the age of 65, I think I might have a different take on this than someone who is decades younger. It seems to me the boards must be very careful about this subject. While it is probably still legal to assign a mandatory retirement age for entity CEOs, boards should still take some things into consideration. For one thing, we should leave room for God to act. Second, the proposed mandatory retirement at age 65 might not even get a person to their full Social Security benefits. Currently, if you were born between 1943 and 1954, like me, you don’t even qualify for full benefits until you reach 66. And even that won’t likely be enough to support someone in their later years. Third, an organization can lose a lot of wisdom and institutional memory if it begins to automatically jettison people because of age. Boards need to use something less blunt than mandatory retirement ages. It seems to me that annual reviews of entity heads by a select group of trustees, which include a job performance review, a physical, and various mental acuity assessments at a certain age, are more appropriate.
Agree with the Duke. Esp in regards to leaving room for God, and also for regular performance reviews. The trouble with the reviews is avoiding the hero worship or people who won’t be objective (good or bad).
I think you’re on the right path Barrett. Performance reviews, set goals that require energy and vigor to achieve, and other such accountability measures would solve the real problem, which is more often than not an entitlement mentality, not age.
I use entitlement mentality to encompass everything from “mailing it in” because they’ve “paid their dues” and should be able to take it easy to acting as if no accountability exists because they believe they are indispensable.
I support a set time length. 7 yrs sounds about right. Set it up where 15% rotates off every year. JMO. After 10 yrs off, you can reup.
It gives more diverse viewpoints. IMO
Its time to get away from strictly pastors being trustees. It benefits nothing. The more minorities the better
Some good thoughts William. I wonder if we are still reacting to the debacle at Southwestern. A mandatory retirement age may be needed. I personally do not think that is the problem with our entities. However, I would certainly not opt for 65. I know you were referring to denominational entities, not churches. If we do not require it in churches, which of course we can’t, then we should not attempt to require it in the entities. Many, if not most pastors/staff, and perhaps some entity heads, cannot afford to retire at 65 for various reasons, primarily being that in the past many churches (my first 25 years in ministry) did not provide any retirement plan. Most pastors I know seem to serve to around 70. Any one age is an arbitrary number because every individual and situation is different. We pray both the leaders and the entities will have the wisdom and discernment to know what is best.
The more important consideration is the health of the entity or church. Trustees can be generous with leaders who haven’t planned properly for retirement but their job is to see after the welfare of the organization.
That is true enough. However, mandatory age limits is not the answer. Deal with what is best at that entity at that time. Someone may need to go at 45, 50, or 60. Some may be serving well up into their 60s and even 70. The issues with which the SBC has had to deal are not age related. The issue is impropriety of one kind or another, which we all know has no bounds or age limits.
I don’t think I support the idea of essentially telling entity heads that they are too old and should go away simply for that reason – I think we need godly “gray heads”.
We need young people with the zeal and fire to bring new and need perspectives – and we need older people to keep them from burning the place down.
I recently heard someone say something relating to how young people favor “movements” and older people favor “tradition”. He said something to the effect of “healthy new movements are good and necessary but without anchoring it to healthy tradition – movements often lack staying power.”
Old or Young is a false choice.
It’s not an either/or it’s a both/and.
( of course if someone’s advanced age is bringing health issues and cognitive issues into play…The trustees can and should act accordingly.)
You would have to bring up cognitive issues, Dave – that counts me out. 🙂
Lol.
I do not think a mandatory retirement age is a preferred option for entity leadership for all of the reasons already identified. However, I am sympathetic to the ambition of seeking to integrate new leadership. As a pastor who believes in (and has practiced) long tenured service, I am well aware of the battle between staying in the saddle and allowing younger men to lead and serve. Younger leaders are clearly capable–Al Mohler is Exhibit A–and want very much to take responsibility. Older leaders are not all washed up and resent being marginalized when they still think they have something to offer. In the end, it is and always will be a mixed bag. A mitigating factor involves the limited number of entity jobs that younger men might qualify for or be interested in. Kevin Ezell, Jason Allen, and Russell Moore are examples of entity leaders who have mobilized younger leaders in significant roles. The dynamics of state convention leadership are altogether different, in my opinion.
Please explain your last sentence.
I think the best option is having term limits on top positions. 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. Sometimes like at SWBTS, the entity head becomes a “too big to fail” personality and it creates a crisis to even honestly give them a job evaluation, much less remove them. If there are term limits, there would be a high premium placed on mentoring and passing the baton to the next person in line.
One more thing about SBC entities, there needs to be more financial transparent as an organization. I work for a large Christian non profit and we are an open book for our donors and the general public. We submit our IRS 990 reports to Guidestar and we publicly list our audit on our website following Charity Navigator’s financial transparency guidelines. SBC entities should do the same and have no secrets. It would create more trust and accountability IMO.
Publicize their salaries would be a good starting point.
Barrett is correct. I did misunderstand your meaning, William. As a long-time seminary professor, I can state categorically that an institution cannot institute a mandatory retirement age. That is against federal law. Some years ago one of our SBC seminary presidents asked his trustee board to institute a mandatory retirement age for professors. His idea was to replace high earning veteran professors with young ones who would receive a much lower salary. An attorney on the board squelched the idea, stating that idea would violate federal labor laws. So, this idea cannot fly in regard to salaried employees; however, in regard to unpaid trustees it might be possible. Perhaps an attorney read will chime in here. I still cling to my hope (dream) that our trustee boards will reflect the make up of our beloved SBC.
I’d argue for a term limit, with a definite eye toward smooth transitions. It could be long–figure 2 years for adapting to the job, 7 years on the job, 2 years of making the transition out of the job. Especially at the top of entities.
Let’s be honest: a seminary president is often a scholar early on, but the requirements of the job can keep someone from keeping up as well in research and such as he’d like. So let him get out and resurface in that world. It’s not an end-of-the-world thing to step into something else. Shoot, most pastors never really retire, they just slide into different spaces. Same thing with a seminary or entity head would be feasible. Any one of our entity heads could go on to serve a local church or serve as professors for the rest of their days instead of administrative heads.
This is a difficult question. The decision shouls, perhaps, be based on the actual results of service of an older individual. Often there is deep wisdom in older godly people who have humbly served the Lord for decades. However, the key words there are “godly” and “humbly”. Serving in a high political position of entity leadership for the SBC has not always proven to be a good indicator of humility or godliness. Sadly, If this topic, among others, had been broached sooner, then much pain, shame, and sorrow could have been avoided. Perhaps a closer watch-and more frequent accountability meetings, should be done to prevent the unChristian behavior of any entity leaders. Worldly values of power -hunger, lust for money, etc. could be nipped in the bud.
This brings up this question again: has Paige Patterson been moves off the campus of Southwestern Seminary yet?