I’ve been asked several times, “Do you hear any scuttlebutt about who is going to run for president of the SBC in St. Louis?”
The answer is, “No,” – and yes.
I’ve heard nothing specific, nothing firm, nothing absolute. But I have heard one rumor, since way back even before the last convention. Here is what I’ve been hearing.
There is an SBC entity head seriously considering a run for SBC President.
The people that have spoken to me have been non-specific, and have not named the name of the entity head. I have a strong guess who it probably is, if the rumor is true. (I have to tell you, the people who have shared this “rumor” with me are the kind of people who know what is going on – this isn’t wild speculation).
I want to say two things about this.
1. It is perfectly legal according to our governing documents in the SBC for an entity head to be president. The last one to run and win was Paige Patterson back in 1999-2000, while he was president of Southeastern Seminary. It has happened several times over the history of the SBC. It is my understanding that it may have been more common in the early days than in recent years. JP Boyce (1872-1879, 1888) and EY Mullins (1921-1923) were both presidents of Southern Seminary when they served. Lee Scarborough (1939-1940) was president at Southwestern. I’m not familiar with every name on the list, and possibly there are others. But, in my lifetime, I think that Dr. Patterson is the only SBC entity head to serve.
It should be noted that Boyce and Mullins served prior to the CP. Scarborough served in the earlier part of the CP era.
2. I think it is a horribly bad idea for an entity head to be president of the SBC. It’s not against our bylaws, but it ought to be! The Cooperative Program has changed a lot of things, and since the CP has become the dominant force in SBC budgeting, it is ethically wrong for an entity head to be the president of the SBC.
Permit me to make some observations. I’m glad to have the opportunity to write this before a name comes forward, because this is truly not about any individual. There are about 10 entity heads, right? (Six seminaries, NAMB, IMB, LifeWay, ERLC – am I forgetting anyone? – oh, yeah, Guidestone! Make it 11.) I could rank them 1 to 10 for you, but I won’t. But let me tell you who my “favorite” is – and I choose him because I am quite sure he is NOT the one considering a run.
I absolutely love Thom Rainer. I wish we could clone him! His blog is among the best for pastors and churches. His leadership at LifeWay has been exemplary, though not without controversy. I’ve had the privilege of getting to know him personally. He is approachable. He listens to criticism and responds, with humility.
But if Thom Rainer is nominated for the presidency of the SBC, I will oppose his nomination. If he retires and runs the next year, I’ll volunteer as his campaign manager. But if the president of LifeWay runs for the SBC presidency, I will vote against him and do everything I reasonably can to defeat him, even one I think as highly of as Thom Rainer.
There are other entity leaders I like much less – no, I’m not naming them! But if they run, I will oppose them too. It will be for the same reason.
In our current CP-based structure, having an entity head as SBC President is an unacceptable conflict of interest.
Factors in My Opposition
- Even without the CP factor, it’s a bad idea. What is the SBC President’s chief role, according to our bylaws? The bylaws give him one major role, other than moderating the meetings. He appoints a committee that nominates a committee that nominates the trustees for our entities. The boards are supposed to be holding the presidents accountable. But when the president is influencing the appointment process, it is problematic.
- With the CP, the president of the SBC presides over meetings in which the budget for his own entity is discussed and approved. I’m not sure exactly how much influence he exerts, but I think any influence by the entity head over that process is not preferable.
- There are plenty of other good men out there who could serve as president. Do not the entity leaders already have tremendous power in the SBC structure? Do they need this position as well? Wouldn’t we do better to spread the responsibility?
That will do for a start.
It seems to me that in our current SBC structure, there are plenty of good candidates for SBC president. We do not need the same men who lead our entities running our conventions.
So…
- I am unalterably opposed to the nomination of an entity leader to be SBC president. For that matter, an entity VP, or other highly placed person would also be unacceptable in my view.
- I am serving notice, just in case it happens, that I will oppose such a candidacy. It won’t be personal, it will be (convention) business. Whether I’m a fan or not of your work as an entity president, I will oppose your candidacy for the SBC presidency. I’ll probably lose, but tilting at windmills is a hobby.
- There are other good candidates out there. Let’s find someone we can support and will continue the work of our recent string of effective SBC Presidents.
- Perhaps it is time to change our governing documents to make it clear that an entity head (or employee?) should not be considered for the SBC office.
One man’s opinion.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think it has been mentioned here before but the job of President of the SBC and the travel required has to have a negative impact on serving as a pastor of a church, unless it is a megachurch with huge staff to keep things going. I would think that each entity head should have their hands so full with their present job that they would not even consider adding more to it.
I agree Dave and I would suspect most people would readily support changing the bylaws to prohibit entity heads from running. If there’s one thing most people today fear it’s someone at the top having too much power. However, once someone’s “favorite” entity head decides to run, those convictions really get put to the test. Perhaps it would be prudent then to push for changing the bylaws so that the issue can at least be brought to everyone’s attention. That’s my 1.9999 cents worth, anyway.
“there are plenty of good candidates for SBC president”… I agree with your opinion here Dave, and would be in support of entities heads being off the ballot. Seems a bit too political expedient to fall into that type of posture.
I would really love to see an SBC President that pastors a really small congregation and not as well known. Think that would be an encouraging example!
Nominate someone you don’t like. It would probably kill both him and the church.
I would not want an entity head to be Pres…and serving in the STL area I would like to see John Marshall from Second Baptist in Springfield as SBC President. He delivered the Conventionsermon a couple of years ago. He is a very steady hand. And he has served in many sizes of churches. Second is big but it is not mega-church status. I believe he would be very good….Hope someone is talking to him already.
I’m a big fan of Dr. Marshall serving. I agree with you about him. He’s one of my heroes.
You should have a conversation with him. 😉
I would support Dr Marshall I having nothing but respect for him
I’d love to see us look in our minority ranks again, as well, just to make sure the Fred Luter thing was no “one and done” symbolism.
Heard Dr. Luter preach this week at the ABSC Evangelism Conference. Well, well, well-worth coming out from my hermit cave for.
Then there was 2 hours of preaching/teaching/modeling on prayer in the life of the church and pastor with Robert Smith.
Both of these things will be unnecessary in heaven, but I cannot help but think I will miss it.
Agreed. A clear case of conflict of interest.
Dave –
I am crushed. You have ruined my aspirations to be SBC president while serving at LifeWay.
Oh well. I should be fine.
And thank your for the kind words. I appreciate it more than I can articulate.
Hey, the offer stands. Whenever you retire, I’ll be your campaign chief.
“I absolutely love Thom Rainer. I wish we could clone him! His blog is among the best for pastors and churches.”
Dave Miller,
The above is a true statement. Thom Rainer is a Baptist statesman. He is a gentleman, a loving husband and a fine father to his sons.. . . and a good Grandpa.
Now, as to your “wish we could clone him.” Well, he almost is cloned. Let’s nominate one of his sons as Prez. That will work pretty well in my opinion.
They do great work as publishers!
Thom Rainer has one major fault.
It is a fault shared by CB Scott, and it comes from selecting the wrong “A” School from the SEC West.
That being said, in recent years I have come to share Dave’s opinion of Dr. Rainer.
Wrong??
How can 16 National Championships be wrong?
I agree.
Proposing a bylaw change to prohibit such a thing would be a good way to bring awareness to these concerns should an entity head be nominated.
Your concerns with a bylaw change are noted. I don’t expect such a change would ever be put forward by the EC. But a messenger proposing such a change would give said messenger a chance to speak against an entity head becoming president from the floor of the convention. The actual election provides no such opportunity.
Mike Bergman is a pastor in Missouri. And since it’s in St. Louis. There you go.
Mike Leake is a pastor in Missouri. And since it’s in St. Louis. There you go.
That might be a great idea. Maybe people would get confused and think they are voting for the pitcher who is on the Cardinals now. It might even make the news.
I need to come up with some really insignificant issue to make my platform though.
I would not vote for a pitcher on the Cardinals unless he was running against a pitcher on the Yankees.
Hear! Hear! Unless it’s Michael Wacha. He’s an Aggie. As a Ranger fan I can also forgive him for being a Card since he wasn’t there when we collapsed to them.
I don’t see any big issue with entity employees being elected SBC prez. I wouldn’t support a by-law change, either.
William, I am with you. In the end…if an entity president runs…its the messengers present and voting who will determine who the president is. I say let the “fee market” run its course. So I too would oppose a bylaw change to introduce a ban. I’m not for banning any southern baptist who wants to run for the office of President. I however may or may not vote for him but I will say that a decision to vote AGAINST him would not be *because* he is an entity head, or a mega church pastor, or a small church pastor.… Read more »
I agree with William. People think of such a bylaw amendment as something that restricts the privileges of the entity heads. Not really. It actually restricts the privileges of the messengers.
I don’t see myself voting in favor of an entity head right now, but neither do I see myself voting in favor of prohibiting the messengers from having their choice of leadership.
As far as a conflict of interest…wouldn’t the messengers be affirmatively “waiving” any such alleged conflict by their vote for the entity head that is running for president?
Why ban? Let him run. If you want to vote for him. Do so. If you do not. Don not. If you wish to campaign, endorse, criticize, blog about the nominee….do that. But, IMO, do not ban.
Oh, I forgot one…a big one too…or you could run against them.
Tarheel,
Brother you seem to have way more confidence in Democracy than I do.
You are a smart man Tarheel,…. I kind of think about the SBC Politic as the business side of money distribution for the messengers and those they represent (or principals). In that context it is the judiciary responsibility of the ones in power to make well informed decisions on their political (legal) behavior relative to the existing policy. In business the definition is…”A fiduciary duty is a legal duty to act solely in another party’s interests. Parties owing this duty are called fiduciaries. The individuals to whom they owe a duty are called principals. Fiduciaries may not profit from their… Read more »
spell check got me… should read, “In that context it is the fiduciary responsibility”
There’s no real conflict of interest IMO.
The president of an entity who gets elected Prez of convention – has little real power and would. It be appointing his own trustees or anything like that.
*not be appointing….
I hear you…. yet there has historically been tension at this point, or we would not have the question being posed in this comment string. Dave brings up the nuanced issue of “conflict”. It is always better to avoid the appearance of conflict in order to build trust.
I’m not for writing any new policies, amendments, etc. But, it would be nice to have the leaders understand how trust is built at those levels of leadership. Great leaders understand the nuances and understand the appearance of power and influence to the greater whole.
Agreed, but that’s a different question – one for each candidate to consider before allowing his name to be forwarded.
But creating rules against it seems a bit heavy handed to me.
Let the candidates decide if they wanna be considered – let the messengers consider them and vote.
The SBC has always suffered from the good ole boy syndrome. I would support a by law change, because it would at least stem the tide in this one area. An entity head would have an unfair advantage against most opponents if for nothing more than name recognition. Not to mention the obvious conflict of interest that is present.
Oh, I agree about the good ole boy syndrome. That is undeniable.
But on the other hand a real good shalackin’ of an entity head might send a much needed message to that good ole boy club (of which they are all members) – if we short circuit that with a ban – the message never really gets sent…ya know?
Great point, Tarheel. I guess we do circumvent a lot of important lessons by banning things. One thing I would point out is that if an entity head wins, the good ole boy syndrome gets worse.
I seriously doubt that an entity head would get shellacked.
Well then – if that were to happen or not happen – it would either mean that the messengers at the convention are or are not as concerned about these issues as you are.
Tarheel,
The concern might be a generational thing. Older SBC guys might not be as bothered by the election of an entity head as would be younger guys.
Of course, that is a generalization on my part, kinda painting with a wide brush. However, Dave Miller is no longer a younger guy, but the fact he is a Hawkeye-Yankee fan might be a factor in his decision.
Yeah, maybe so.
Sort of like the USGA.
I would like to see a man like William Dwight McKissic get nominated for SBC president. He is a wonderful man of God who has the courage to challenge the status quo.
I’m with Louis Cook on this one as well, just wondering: I would assume that a pastor would seek counsel from inside the church about whether or not he should stand for election (or a layperson examine their workload, perhaps wait until retirement); at what point should someone employed by an SBC entity consider his/her employer’s view? And does someone who has time to do all of the SBC President stuff really justify their job? On the other hand, if the messengers approve an SBC entity employee for SBC President, isn’t that person getting the approval to take whatever time?… Read more »
6 possible selections that could run and all would be great: Michael Catt, Vance Pittman, Eric Mason, Mel Blackaby, J.D. Greear, Matt Carter. And, the already mentioned John Marshall would also be great. All are well known and pastor largish churches and most are probably not interested in the job I suspect, but if one or more run, it would be a win for the SBC.
I’m not as concerned that the leading candidate for President might be the head of an entity as I am concerned that “the chosen one” each year seems to emerge from an alleged mysterious gathering of the megachurch pastors somewhere. At least, I understand that used to be the case.
If this is still going on, then it would seem we have an unelected Central Committee, which of course begs for other leaders to organize in order to promote a candidate who will represent churches of every size and persuasion.
That’s kinda what I said above. I would love for the small churches to be represented by a President from a small congregation who has served faithfully.
That was true during the CR, when conservatives gathered, I’m told to discuss these matters. But I’ve not heard of such gatherings in the modern SBC.
It’s more informal. Just people talking. If there is any kind of “central committee” that makes such decisions, I’m unaware of it. Obviously, today it could be a private online forum. But I’m not aware of it.
Maybe the mega pastors can send up white smoke after they have made their decision, they know best.
That is such a ludicrous and ridiculous statement.
When did the kind of class envy we see so often in politics become okay in the church?
Me think the man do th protest too much it was a little bad humor but perhaps a grain of truth did not know we had classes how do you define class?
I agree Dave. Envy and resentment is still a sin in the bible I read.
Again it was just a light hearted comment, but now I would like to know what are the different classes? Do we judge by size, education, published and who sets the class criteria. I guess size does matter.
So what are the classes we are divided into? How can there be class envy if we are all equal? Are we in 18th century England or India. I did not know we had a caste system but perhaps I am from a lower class and do not understand the upper class. From Mr. Millers comments and Mr. Tarheel they must have an opinion that we have different classes to envy or to look up to. I am clueless and classless
No sir,
The notion of “class” is found in the comments of the ones who wish to separate into groups (megas and non megas in this case) – not with those who reject the notion like Dave Miller and I did.
Tarheel,
The concept of dividing people into a specific “class” is also revealed in one’s comments that an individual is “honest” or has “integrity” in accord with those who “deal at his level.”
Such a division is what we might define as the “Acceptable Moral Standards of the Classes.”
Just look at the dictionary definition of class. I think most people when know what is meant by class envy, the “lower” class wants what the “upper” class has. I just thought it was a poor choice of words, in most organizations the larger entities have more influence, is that not true? In economics, secular life and social structure class ranking, lower, middle, upper, etc are used which is fine but in a church body governing setting I just do not think it is a correct lablel. Again what class would be envious of the mega churches?
“Again what class would be envious of the mega churches?”
Maybe those who are insecure in their own skin? Some pastors envy other pastors because of unscriptual preconceptions of success.
CB, nails it.
Would love to see K. Marshall Williams become SBC president. He’s such a godly man and pastor. His ideas and his vision would do wonders for the SBC at large. If you have the chance to talk with him for even 30 minutes you should do so. This is a short comment, but if I was at my computer I could write a 3 page essay on why he should be nominated by someone with clout.
I agree completely with Dave’s two points: apparent conflict of interest and the “Don’t we have other people?” issue. I see the point others have made with just allowing the messengers to make the decision and allow a “free market” to win out. My concern is the SBC entities would have too much of a built in advantage over local church pastors. In their position they are almost like a political incumbent is during an election. They would be in the SBC “news” just for doing their job, they already have name recognition, and have deep relationships through their role… Read more »
Maybe a megachurch pastor could nominate a smaller church guy and offer to bankroll his travel expenses. Or a group of smaller churches could put forth a smaller church pastor and share the load.
Second idea much better than first – first would always be seen as “a leash” if you know what I mean.
Personally, I’d like to see Leo Endel nominated again.
I would like to see a bylaw to prohibit entity heads from serving as SBC president. I do think it is a conflict of interest to name the committee on committee that names the committee on nominations that selects the trustees that will evaluate your service. I would also like to see a prohibition to former employees serving on the trustee board of the entity they left until a few years has passed. A few years ago in response to a particular disturbing trustee election a motion was made to prohibit someone from ever serving on a trustee board of… Read more »
I would not be for banning on the basis of employment (or recent employment) – but I would be for requiring more ADVANCE information about trustee nominees (name, possibly a brief bio) to be disseminated before the annual meeting. I would think that this could be done on the convention website – maybe set up a committee on nominations page for this data – and not cost too much to take that much time. The Convention Presidential and Vice Presidential data could be there too. I would also be for amending the bylaws to prohibit the adding of new nominees… Read more »
I would support someone like Dr. Rick Patrick or Dr. Eric Hankins.