Dave Miller recently committed to cyberspace his view of minority hiring in light of the five entity leadership roles which are or shortly will be vacant: IMB, Lifeway, Executive Committee of the SBC, Southwestern Seminary, and New Orleans Seminary. To summarize, Dave believes it would be a shameful turn of events if the SBC failed to appoint at least one minority leader to fill one of the five empty slots. Perusing the 165+ comments (yes, I read them all) leads one to believe there are four major schools of thought.
- Yes, please it is about time. Prioritize hiring of a qualified minority.
- Hey, if it happens that way, great! If not, we’ll be fine.
- No, no, we’re not returning to the days of skin color as litmus test; it was wrong then and it would be wrong now.
- GO ASTROS!
While I’ve attended Southwestern and Southeastern Seminaries, have shopped at Lifeway, and follow the ERLC’s very own rock star on Twitter (@drmoore), the only entity I know with any certainty is the IMB. Therefore, I’d like to examine the notion of preferential hiring of a qualified minority candidate at the IMB.
First, a few caveats:
- Let’s assume everyone in the discussion believes a person of color can fill Platt’s shoes. If you believe ethnic minorities inherently lack the character or qualities to be IMB president, this is not the discussion for you.
- We will use a previously-published list of basic qualifications as our fundamental requirements for this conversation. Other qualification exist, but I’m using that list just for today.
- Our focus here is on men; the question of a woman filling the role of IMB president is worth debating, but it requires a re-imagining of the several duties of the president and a review of the preaching and teaching roles that women in ministry, but outside a church, can fill. That’s too large and worthy a discussion to tag onto a race debate.
- These are my views and mine alone. Please don’t harass the good people in the IMB’s home office with complaints over what they are saying because they aren’t the ones writing here.
+++++
Race matters.
The Bible makes clear God’s love for all people. He planned from the very earliest to bless all of them (Genesis 12). To that end, Christ sent His followers into every part of the earth to call people to Him (Matthew 28). Eventually, a great gathering from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation will bookend His plans by gathering before the throne (Revelation 5).
Racial variation seems to have been the plan all along. Filling the earth, as God commanded, requires spreading humanity to the point that those at one earthly extreme would look far different from people at the opposite shore. Consider the genetic studies of Appalachia or Martha’s Vineyard if you don’t believe me. Visit Iceland, where everyone looks like everyone else simply to due having filled one small, isolated corner of the globe. It’s just science.
Thus, we live in a world designed to bring forth unavoidable variation. He expects a worshipful response from the differently-hued image bearers He created. Race and cultural uniqueness exist because He invented a world in which such developments were inevitable, and we cannot ignore the reality of those variations. Christians of various racial backgrounds look, act, feel, and value differently even as they simultaneously worship Christ.
But wait, you cry, God loves all of us equally: Greek and Jew, slave and free, men and women. He is colorblind, status-insensitive, gender-indifferent, right?
Yes, when it comes to salvation, image-bearing, and love, God is quite colorblind; that’s Paul’s point in context. He values us all equally, but that’s not a valid justification for behaving as if the racial variation that He created does not exist. We must acknowledge it regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us or how others might have twisted racial reconciliation into a bludgeon.
So, we live in a world and nation filled with races, as God apparently intended, and must function in light of the fact that fallen human nature has twisted racial differences into justification for hate. We must face this reality as we choose an IMB president since his job is to guide Southern Baptists to witness and lead this variegated world to Christ.
+++++
When the organization hired Platt, his appeal to younger generations formed part of his qualifications for the role. Trustees drew a line somewhere in the sand and said, “Everyone on this side of the line is a possible candidate” and as far as they were concerned, Platt stood in the right place. Then they added, “We need someone who speaks the language of the generation we want so desperately to reach; not as objects of ministry, but as partners and participants.”
In other words, despite the fact that God loves both old and young, trustees said, “We can’t afford to be age-blind. We must acknowledge the reality that we need young SBC members to partner with us.” No one could validly accuse IMB trustees of ageism because they declined to consider a sexagenarian; rather, they craved the connection abilities someone from a different generation was most likely to display. “Be young enough to relate to millennials” was part of his qualification because it connected to an aspect of the job description.
Therein lies the justification: it was a part of the job description.
An IMB president must travel to churches and bring more partners to the table. He must speak to an entire nation of Southern Baptists and SBC allies. He communicates, by his words and identity; crosses lines; draws in allies new and old; fills pulpits; engages as yet untapped resources for completing the mandates of Christ. And regardless of our desire to remove race from the equation, the role of a flagship entity leader in the SBC does not exist in a racial vacuum.
“But what harm would it do to appoint a white president who loves people of all color? Not by choosing only white guys, but by allowing the cream to rise, so to speak, without regard for race; if a white guy is the best one, what’s the harm?”
None at all; but as he attempted to break molds and cross lines, he’d always have to carry both convention and personal baggage with him. He would shoulder the task of proving the IMB, SBC, and he all care for Christians of color.
Consider what would happen, though, if we were to find an African American brother to fill that office. How might his burden shift? How freely would he be able to encourage new partnerships with traditional African American churches and organizations, knowing he does not have to prove his own commitment to racial harmony and inclusion of all people?
What would happen as a president of color traveled to Africa and South America, places slowly claiming the geographical center of the evangelical world? They see the news from CNN. People around the world – black, brown, otherwise – have said to me, “You people still hate blacks in the US, right? Your cops shoot them on video. I’ve seen it.” What could an African-American or Latino president communicate to those national conventions and local entities , simply by his presence, that a white president could not? What would it say about the SBC and the missionaries who represent it? How might it alter the dynamic between a traditionally white organization and our brown-skinned internationals who lead agencies and organizations of their own?
And how might the work of the office of the president improve as a result?
+++++
Sports has this idea called WAR: Wins Above Replacement. The stat gurus examine a player’s value by asking, “How many more wins does this guy bring us over the average player?” This allows NBA teams to examine a to trade for Jimmy Butler, for example, based not on gaudy averages, but how much actual value he will add through win shares.
What would be the WAR value of an African-American president in Richmond? I’m not asking whether he would more or less of God’s man (ugh) than a white guy. Instead I’m wondering how many more partnerships would he bring. How might financial giving change once a greater cross section of American Christianity realized their place in missions? Would he draw in a broader variety of applicants with untapped skills and potential? Wouldn’t he continue the appeal to the relatively racially-unbiased millennials we crave?
We certainly wouldn’t see a drop in applications from white people simply because the president is a different color, but even if we did: so what? If you’re going to avoid the IMB because of a Latin, African American, or Asian president, then you’re not the kind of applicant I would want anyway.*
*(OK, maybe that’s a bit harsh; I apologize. Even so – this is just my opinion, you see, but refusing to apply for a job in the IMB because we hired a qualified black or brown guy is kind of a bad thing. As well, let the record reflect the fact that these are my views, and I do not speak for the IMB. Please don’t call the switchboard demanding answers. Please. )
+++++
So here we have it: No one wants to be or appear to be racist. Everyone wants all people to come to Christ. All of us want the best guy filling the office. Nobody wants a racially-based hiring philosophy.
Even so, the path of wisdom at this point calls us to consider writing the job description in such a way as to account for racial strife in this nation world and the unique position the IMB president can play in helping lead the convention towards healthier days. What we need from a president changes at times; why not acknowledge that?
Hiring a minority to fill the office in Richmond is not about skin-as-litmus-test. It’s not about reverse racism, or overlooking all possible disqualifications in our stampede towards the proper level of melanin. It’s not really about attempting to apologize for the SBC’s racist origins or slow rate of progress towards racial reconciliation. Instead, it’s about finding a qualified applicant who can take the organization into the next century’s partnerships. As Cooperative Program proponents admit, we can do more together. Let’s take the radical step of doing whatever is necessary to make believers from various cultures comfortable with the IMB for the purpose of accomplishing the task.
I like your WAR analogy. It is a, somewhat subjective stat which fits the bill here. The truth is something like that probably takes place as any non-profit board hires a leader. I hope our entities’ boards chose to re-calibrate their metrics to include ethnic heritage when considering the benefits of a candidates ability to broaden the support base.
Do you know of any African Americans have served several terms with the IMB and have the administrative and leadership in the organization to merit consideration as President? Does anyone know? If not, are you suggesting that African American pastors or laypersons be considered for the position?
Therein lies the rub.
I’m a proponent of hiring an experienced international missionary who has lived out there. And yet, the relatively low participation rate of African Americans in the IMB means we’ve got a small pool of potential applicants. Of course, we are not limited to only missionaries from the IMB; like-minded mission sending agencies exist, ones that would welcome a Southern Baptist.
But we can look beyond African Americans for our qualified minority applicant. Asian and Latin workers exist in the IMB, and we could add them to the list.
I suspect the lack of a deep bench of minority IMBM’s narrows down the potential credentialed minority candidates to a very small pool making the possibility of a minority somewhat remote at this time. That said, it only takes one outstanding candidate. I am confident that with the increase of minority membership and churches their increased participation in going through the IMB that the time will come when there will be high achievers and leaders from among them who will be called to lead the IMB.
I guess most of us are aware of the 2/3’s world in the Global South. White SBC’ers are a minuscule part of the worldwide mission effort. Having a new president who is more representative of the global mission effort would not only be amazing but could potentially help inform and guide mission strategy that would be viable for the decades to come.
How many terms did David Platt serve? Why make the qualifications more stringent for minorities? Could that be considered a form of discrimination.
Ethan, you do a good job here of explaining why it would be a benefit to the IMB to have a person of color as IMB President. The same type of analysis can be applied to the other entities searching for a president.
Adam,
Why don’t you flesh that out?
Thanks.
Mr. White, you’ve been (if I recall correctly) an advocate for the colorblind “may the best man win” perspective. By that I do not imply a racist perspective, but instead one that prefers we make this as racially neutral as possible. In the interest of knowing whether I’ve answered your concerns, I ask: Is there a flaw in my logic here? Or are we on opposites of a divide due not to flawed logic but diverse foundational assumptions?
Ethan,
I cant know the answer to your last question.
Thats probably something you will have to answer for yourself.
But I would like to point out something for you to consider.
First and foundational to my response is this from you:
“We certainly wouldn’t see a drop in applications from white people simply because the president is a different color, but even if we did: so what? If you’re going to avoid the IMB because of a Latin, African American, or Asian president, then you’re not the kind of applicant I would want anyway.*”
And i agree with you here. Now we agree that we wouldn’t want that kind of applicant and I know why I wouldn’t, but I am not sure why you wouldn’t. So forgive me if my asumption is wrong, I assume that you wouldn’t for the SAME reason I wouldn’t, namely that to judge a man for his skin color or an organization because of their leader’s skin color is racist and wrong.
If that is not why you wouldn’t than maybe the rest of this answer is out of bounds.
But assuming it is, lets look at a couple of other things you said.
“Let’s take the radical step of doing whatever is necessary to make believers from various cultures comfortable with the IMB for the purpose of accomplishing the task.”
That is just wrong. Do you see it? You aree assuming that believers in other countries and cultures would not be comfortable with a white IMB president. That they would not be at ease with him because of the color of his skin.
We dont want missionaries who are ill at ese with the oresidents skin, but we dont mind if other believers are.
And there is more.
You said, speaking of a minority president:
“How freely would he be able to encourage new partnerships with traditional African American churches and organizations, knowing he does not have to prove his own commitment to racial harmony and inclusion of all people?”
Is that because African American churches would judge the white skinned president by the color of his skin?
Again you:
“Instead I’m wondering how many more partnerships would he bring. How might financial giving change once a greater cross section of American Christianity realized their place in missions? Would he draw in a broader variety of applicants with untapped skills and potential? Wouldn’t he continue the appeal to the relatively racially-unbiased millennials we crave?”
Why would he bring in more partnerships id=f those people were not judging by the color of his skin?
Why do you care if possible missionaries balk at skin color but not if financial donors do?
If we want a church that does not judge a person by the color of their skin than why are we seeking to make skin color a deciding factor? We dont want missionaries that balk at a black man’s skin, but we dont mind if people balk at a white man’s skin. One is as sinful as the other. They are both racist reactions.
Not sure where everyone serves and ministers (obviously some communities are more diverse than others). But if we would like minorities to play an integral role in our network of churches, we must include them in leadership. We must have them on the stage, we must have them on our elder boards, deacon boards, they should have real leadership positions… I am not quite sure why there is such a strong reaction to this…
I do think that if your church does not represent your neighborhood ethnically, there is a problem.
I believe one of the biggest reasons we don’t see more minority representation at the entity level is because of a lack of relationships. Relationships drive these entity head hires. We must do a better job of forming real friendships with people from other ethnicities.
If we want to be monochromatic we will just keep going the way we have been. If we want to be inclusive, we must be intentional and genuine.
Mike,
Two things.
One, a congregation can’t make people come to their services. Many people are not comfortable worshipping in this church or that and for various reasons.
Two. You are spot on. Relationships drive a lot of the kind of hiring in question. We all need to develop diverse relationships. But should relationships drive the hiring of entity heads?
Mr. White, these are worthy questions, and they force us to consider carefully our biases and the counter-biases we use to over-correct earlier mistakes. Let me remove all suspense and give my conclusion here: I believe the crux of the matter lies in how we judge people, organizations, and skin color, and possibly the attitude behind those judgments.
Would I want the IMB judged by the color of its president? No, and I’m sensitive to the fact that I’ve erroneously communicated that I’d live with some judgments and not others. However – I AM comfortable with people watching the IMB’s behavior (who they appoint) and drawing correct conclusions. I DO accept that in light of the SBC’s poor racial history, appointing a non-white president would communicate something valuable. It is this message, evidenced by who appoint, that I don’t mind being judged.
As for the views of other nations, I did not aim at discomfort with white presidents, but instead for a greater sense of openness when – in light of the prevalence of sensational videos and tragic violence involving people of color – the SBC stands up and shows something different than the surrounding culture. It’s not the skin color, but the act behind it that ultimately communicates.
In African American or Hispanic churches, a non-white president would – yes, by his skin color – signal someone who has likely experienced marginalization and yet the IMB/SBC chose not to follow in the footsteps of racist elements in our society.
So I’m not saying “Judge the man by the color of his skin” but “Judge an organization by its actions, and look at the person of the president, including his skin color, as you consider whether he can speak to the things that you value most.”
When a minority fills the office of IMB president, he will be able to stand in front of audiences with whom he shares experiences, and say, “Yes, I’ve seen what you have seen. And yes, in spite of continued racism in this world the SBC and the IMB value people of color; I’m proof of that.”
Ethan,
I know you are a smart guy. And I appreciate the service you have done and are doing and will do for the Kingdom. May God continually bless you brother.
Maybe you are really busy and/or in a hurry or distracted. Whatever, I do appreciate the time you are taking to reply. many dont. So let me point out what I see is a problem with your latest reply. Starting with this:
“Would I want the IMB judged by the color of its president? No, and I’m sensitive to the fact that I’ve erroneously communicated that I’d live with some judgments and not others. However – I AM comfortable with people watching the IMB’s behavior (who they appoint) and drawing correct conclusions. I DO accept that in light of the SBC’s poor racial history, appointing a non-white president would communicate something valuable. It is this message, evidenced by who appoint, that I don’t mind being judged.”
I imagine that you dont normally talk out of both sides of your mouth, and that is why I mentioned your possible busyness, and/or possible distractions. Maybe, you missed a word or two in your reply and it didn’t come across the way you intended. I have missed a “not” before and led my reader to get the exact opposite idea of what I meant. It happens.
See, first you say that you dont want the IMB judged by the color of the presidents skin, and even admit to erroneously communicating that very thing. Actually I was thinking that you didn’t but just missed the connection between the two things you were saying. But then you contradict yourself immediately.
See, Ethan, brother, drawing conclusions [correct or not] is judging. In fact you end up admitting the synonymous nature by ending the paragraph stating the exact opposite of what you began it with: “that I don’t mind being judged.”
The rest of your response continues with that same dichotomy.
To the nations: Judge as good or worthy because of our actions, with the ‘actions’ being we hired a non-white.
And that isnt the same as having “the IMB judged by the color of its president”?
No need to go over each point.
From another POV, we could see this: Some peope do judge based on skin color. So it is possible that there are overseas dirctors that would appreciate and work with the IMB where they otherwise woudn’t with a white skinned president.
Likewise, there might be some churches and organiztions in the states that also judge by skin color who might donate or even donate more if the president wasn’t white.
Or there might be churches or organizations that would donate less or nothing if the president wasnt white.
If so, they would rightly be called racist.
But it cuts both ways.
Ethan,
The church I am a member at judges the IMB.
We consider that the job they are doing, bringing the Gospel to the world, is worthy of our money.
Every year we seek to give more to Lottie than the year before.
We dont care what the color of the skin is of the president or any of the staff.
I am sure most of the people there do not know who David Platt is or what skin color he wears.
And most of them wont know or care what skin color his replacement has.
We judge the IMB by what it does, and by that, I mean its stated purpose and how well we think it is achieving that end.
Thank you for your kind words, and for interacting. I appreciate it. I suppose we’ll continue to disagree, and will meet someday on the other side.
Ethan,
I will pray for you brother.
Not only for the work you do for the Lord, but that in the area where you are blind, that you might see.
A little leaven ends up leavening the whole lump.
His blessings to you.
The problem that the SBC will have in filling any of its entity head positions with minorities is that the system which generates candidates for those positions doesn’t have very many, if any, minority candidates in it. The SBC operates like a monarchy. Oh, it looks like there’s equal opportunity for any qualified candidate to have a good shot at convincing a committee to hire them, but before a candidate ever gets to a committee, their name will have filtered through the group of individuals who have the connections and influence in the denomination in personnel decisions like this. I’m sure there are already letters (and now of course other electronic communications) circulating that promote certain individuals and there are those whose ambitions have moved them to start the process with those trustees they know, or friends of certain trustees they know to get their name in front of a committee. The committees will be made up mostly of the same people who always seem to be on committees, from the same churches from which committee members always seem to come because there’s always someone who knows someone who knows someone.
We will see where this goes. David Platt and Russ Moore may have changed the odds on age just a bit, but the chances are that the next SBC entity heads will look like the ones always chosen, male, past 50, white, associated with one of the SBC megachurches, and from one of the 11 states of the old Confederacy.
Platt’s term at the IMB has changed the posture of that organization. What once was considered by my generation as the most desirable executive position in the denomination has been diminished somewhat by his far shorter than average term of service and by his own ministry stature. Being a megachurch pastor, well known author and speaker, he was larger than the IMB presidency.
Few, if any, minorities play the influence game, or are connected to the churches or individuals who have the power to determine who gets hired and who doesn’t. If a minority candidate is going to be hired, that decision will have been made within the inner circle of influence where all of these decisions get made. That’s the way the SBC operates and has since before I was a ministerial student in college.
Lee,
The good old boy system.
You hire those you know and trust or those known by those you trust.
And in our fast-food order-it-online-and-get-it tomorrow,society, we want certain changes now. As one poster said, it may the last chance for a long time.
My hope is that one of the boards will surprise.
Isn’t the Lifeway job more of a secular business job than the others?
Maybe that will be the one. Maybe theymight be more prone to find a person out side of the network.
I dont know.
Neither do I know that if no minority candidate is hired it is because of racism.
It could be and it could not be.
The nature of Lifeway and its business should warrant hiring from within, from the core of executives who are already at the top of the company because their work has provided them with a high level of experience in what is a rather unique kind of business, not because they are a megachurch pastor waiting in the wings somewhere with friends on the trustee board. But I don’t expect that to happen. And in all honesty, I don’t expect those on the committees and boards who make these decisions to change their M.O.