Trust the Trustees.
It is not just a suggestion for Southern Baptists, it is a way of life. You can gripe and moan and rage and resolve and move, but in the end, the direction of the entities of the Southern Baptist Convention is set by the Trustees. Even our actions at the SBC Annual Meeting have far less control over these entities than we think. We approve the budget and we elect the trustees, but the trustees are entrusted with the oversight of the entities. People have railed about the injustice of entities that don’t bend and bow to SBC resolutions. They don’t have to because entities are not ruled by SBC resolutions, but by their trustees. The esteemed Dr. Bart Barber could jump on and give a better explanation of this, or if the Rev. Dr. Augie Boto is out there he can chime in. But our duty is to elect trustees and then they run the show. Whether we trust them or not, we have entrusted our entities and our denomination’s future to their wisdom.
That is why the most important task of an SBC president does is not appointing task forces or coming up with SBC mottos or themes. It is not giving speeches or even chairing meetings. His most crucial task is appointing people who will nominate people who will nominate trustees. Long after his tenure is gone the effect of his work remains, for good or ill. Some presidents have not understood that and they did not pour their all into the trustee selection process.
If the SBC is to run well, we must have boards of trustees who understand their positions and execute them faithfully.
My father was chair of one of the two main committees on a key entity back in the late 80s when the effects of the Conservative Resurgence were being felt. About a year after he left, the president of the entity was gone and a new leader was brought in. Everyone assumed that the source of the struggle was conservative/moderate politics – and that was certainly the narrative. But I remember Dad coming to visit us after a board meeting one time and venting to me a little. He said the problem wasn’t denominational politics but the fact that the entity president (whom Dad was friendly with, even though they were on opposite sides of the denominational divide) didn’t understand how the trustee system worked. “He thinks that the trustees work for him. He believes we should take our marching orders from him and do what he says. That’s what the previous boards have done. Now, we are holding him accountable and setting standards, and he absolutely refuses to submit in any way.”
Obviously, there were deep waters swirling all around that controversy, but there was an issue at stake. The trustees must know what their job is and how they are to carry it out or much trouble can result.
I had the opportunity recently to have a long conversation with the chairman of one of our boards of trustees over a potentially incendiary situation. I asked some friends just before that phone call to pray for me because I had a bad attitude about the whole thing. After a 36 minute discussion, I hung up confident that this situation would be handled well because the chairman of the board knew what his role was and was doing it faithfully. I hope every one of our entities has a man that competent in the lead chair! I came away comforted that a difficult situation was in the hands of the right man! (Don’t bother asking me, I’m not going to tell you.) Having a great trustee chair at the helm makes all the difference.
I have also seen times when I was not as confident about the work of trustees as they led their entities. This is not meant to be exhaustive, but I’d give the following suggestions. I’d love to serve as a trustee, but I won’t get to since Iowa doesn’t get board representation until we grow significantly. But I’ve been involved in many similar (though smaller scale) roles here in Iowa. I’d give the following thoughts.
1. The trustees’ primary role is to represent us by seeking the best interests of the institution they serve. They are there on our behalf to make our entities work.
2. The trustee ought to support and promote the institution which he or she serves. Any criticism of that entity ought to be private, except in the most extreme of circumstances. No person who holds malice toward an institution should be elected as a trustee.
3. The trustee is not there to serve the president and staff of the entity, but to hold them accountable and to encourage them toward success – all for the best interests of the entity. The idea that trustees must rubber stamp the ideas and plans of the president is dangerous and detrimental to our system. They ought to listen and be supportive of the ideas of the president, but they are well within their rights to push back, feed back, or just plain say no.
4. Trustees ought not to try to micromanage their entity. The president and staff are there to run the entity. The trustees are there to set guidelines, develop policies, oversee budgets (which staff produce). Trustees can err by being too passive and not holding their entity accountable and they can err by being too active and controlling, attempting to micromanage the work of the staff.
There is often tremendous pressure in our convention’s life to go along, not to speak out or go against the flow. When a person is elected as a trustee he or she is responsible to speak out, to ask questions, to raise doubts, to give contrary opinions. That is essential to Baptist life.
I heard a story recently about a mega-mega-mega church (not in our fold) had new leadership and they replaced everyone who had been part of the previous administration with people who were loyal to the new leaders. The reflex to avoid negative opinions, to treat questions as criticism, to demand conformity and quiescence – that is not godly, not Baptist, and ultimately destructive.
I am thankful for good trustees. We have entrusted the life of the SBC to them. We have little choice but to “trust the trustees.” In point of fact, there are few roles in the SBC more important.
I wonder what Wade Burleson thinks of this?
Not something i think much about. If he reads this he is welcome to weigh in.
Wade would most likely agree with most every word as to how the system works. The SBC sinks or swims according to the Baptist Statesmanship of its entity trustees.
Our problem in Southern Baptist life as far as our entities go has been, and in some cases is, we have had far too many poorly educated trustees serving as our representatives to our boards, institutions, and agencies.
The only flaw I caught in this post was the inclusion of unearned and undeserved titles preceding my name! But otherwise, I concur completely with all the sentiments expressed.
I did not know this post was coming at all, but I was thrilled to receive it this afternoon smack dab in the middle of participating with my colleagues under Dr. Page’s leadership in orienting our new EC trustees. When my phone chirped (because I had forgotten to silence it) I quickly scanned the title and then commended it to them, and was able to also express later to attendees that it underscored several of the very things we had just voiced in their training.
Finally, as an example of how spot on Dave is, compare what he says in his point #1 as well as the anecdote about his father with the final sentence of SBC Bylaw 18E9, or SBC Bylaw 15E.
I love God’s timing, and praise Him, Dave, for your contribution here.
The titles were honorary.
Should have said “in his points #1 and #3”.
Dave Miller, what are your thoughts on the taxation without representation situation smaller state conventions experience? Any proposals you’d like to see considered?
Since CP giving is voluntary and is designed to advance the Great Commission not buy representation, i don’t consider “taxation without representation” an accurate description.
Of course. As a larger state pastor, I was mainly curious whether you felt it was an issue that ought to be addressed.
On the other hand, i believe there is a plan to give some small representation to us in the small states.
Yes. All areas covered by the SBC are now represented on the EC. Today (right now) we are orienting new EC members, 4 of whom are from formerly unrepresented areas. (Territories in the Atlantic have representation through the Florida convention, and those in the Pacific do through the convention in Hawaii.)
A double-helping of amen about which duties of an SBC President are the most important ones.
Yeah, cause I got that from you sitting around Chef Gaspard’s brother’s house in Nyassia.
I don’t disagree with your overall point, but there is another side to this issue. What happens when the trustees violate that trust? I was a pastor in Missouri when the trustees at five MBC agencies voted to change their charters and remove themselves from MBC control. This was in clear violation of MBC bylaws, but they did it anyway. I have great respect for trustees who conduct themselves with integrity, but I also have great contempt for ones who do not.
Ken,
Don’t remember all the details of that, but there a remedies for unfaithful trustees in many cases. In others, not.
I was there, and it wasn’t pretty. The MBC wanted to settle the issue through binding Christian arbitration, but the trustees refused, so the MBC finally took them to court. The trustees really raised a howl then, and accused the MBC of violating Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth. I really have contempt for people who disregard Scripture when it’s convenient, and then try to hide behind Scripture to avoid accountability.
One thing gives me comfort: God still has the final word. I pity those trustees when they stand before Him.
In a world of sinful and omperfect people, the trustees are never going to be perfect.
I worked two summers at Windermere during my HS years and still have an account with the Credit Union, so I am not unaware of that ugliness. Thankfully, it’s the ugliest ugliness we’ve had, I believe. The IMB financial mess wasn’t pretty, but I attribute that to folly based on noble motives – the world us too lost and needy for us to cut back, even if we are headed toward a cliff.
But the sad fact is, demonstrated by your scenario, there us little we can do uf the trustees shirk their duties ir act badly except blogging about it – or replacing the Trustees.
I was a pastor in Missouri for 11 years and I served two years on the MBC Executive Board, and I witnessed much of that ugliness firsthand. With Windermere, changing the charter was only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I believe in the trustee system, but accountability to the denomination must be maintained. When trustees remove themselves from that accountability, all kinds of wrongdoing takes place.
There is one thing we can do: avoid Windermere like the proverbial plague. How can anyone worship God on stolen property?
Dave,
This is a good article.
To be an effective trustee, one has to take a real interest in the organization. Not just its public stands or hot button issues. But matters such as really understanding the health and security of revenue streams, the budget, the administrative organization, the overall health of the organization, and whether all of the activity is helping to fulfill the organization’s mission.
The administrative leadership needs knowledgeable and supportive trustees. Not blow hards.
That’s why its important that the SBC elects trustees who are not only faithful, but who also have experience in business or leading other organizations well. We cannot elect people who are unskilled or people who see their service as a place to advance their own careers or grind some ax.
They also should be free from conflicts in their own business, and in the religious world. Trustees in SBC life should not, in my opinion, have dual affiliations with other religious bodies that might present a conflict. Otherwise, when they act, they may be acting in the best interest of the other body, and not the SBC.
At any rate, I could go on.
Great article.
Great article. I recently read Grady Cothens book about the CR, and it shed some light on the trustee situation before and during it. He said he was a trustee of some SBC entity for 30 straight years, and then started working for them himself.
The balance between micromanaging and rubber stamping, your points 3 & 4, is the crux of the matter. I’m thankful for those who walk that line faithfully.
I like number three. I really like number three. Did I mention how much I like number three?
Dave is spot on here. A major issue (although not the biggest issue) we had at Louisiana College while I was on the board was Dave’s #3 above. A healthy view of entity governance is needed by all parties. Thanks for this, Dave.
Dave- thank you. This article was brilliantly written and heartfelt. I agree with you on this issue and I appreciate your willingness to share your personal experiences both recently and of years past.
You’ve phrased these pretty carefully Dave; I appreciate the thought you’ve put into this post.
When some people lay out #1, they’ll save a bit of time and say something like “it’s your job to serve the best interests of the entity.” But, as Bylaw 15E says, you’re there to represent the Convention’s interests in a successful entity. The conflict between those two is thankfully rare, but if anyone tells you those interests are diverging, it’s important to remember you are there on behalf of other Baptists.
I would guess that in 98.234% of the time, the interest of the convention and the entity are pretty much the same – assuming that the entity prospering is good for the convention. I am sure there are anomalous situations.
They have been very, very rare at the SBC level, thankfully.
“Should our college allow the convention to elect our trustees?” though, has been perennial in the states. And I can see a return of hard questions in the future. “Would we rather have a smaller, Baptist ministry or a big charity with ‘a historical Baptist connection?'”
As we give Trustees the rules of thumb, it’s important to remind them that they’re obliged to represent the Convention, too. I thought your phrasing does a pretty good job of that.
Dave, you have written an excellent article on how the trustee system in the SBC should work. In the past at times it has been the greatest source of strength and at other times the greatest source of trouble in our denomination.
I am familiar with the entity for which your father served. We all perceive situations differently but I would have said the entity head understood how the trustee system was designed to work but did not feel that the trustees were operating according the steps you listed below. I think it is the responsibility of the entity head to speak out when trustees slander and attack the entity they are serving and are weakening its effectiveness. Any president who kept quiet during the reign of Bill Hancock, Ron Wilson, and John Jackson at the IMB would have been neglecting his duty. It is a shame more trustees did not speak out against their leadership.
You were correct in pointing out the struggle at the IMB wasn’t conservative/moderate politics. Both sides were conservative. I have said that for years. You would probably say it was over trustee authority. I would say it was over conservative resurgence power and control.
I would like to comment on your 4 excellent points.
1. If all trustees operated on this principle, there would never have been the battle we experienced in the SBC in the 80s and 90s.
2. “The trustee ought to support and promote the institution which he or she serves.” Too many trustees were there to support the political organization that appointed them.
“Any criticism of that entity ought to be private, except in the most extreme of circumstances.” Wade Burleson faced that circumstance and was justified in going public with his criticism of trustee actions. Transparency should be promoted not opposed.
“No person who holds malice toward an institution should be elected as a trustee.” At the IMB, in the early years of the CR, I was told there were a surprising number of trustees who had been turned down for appointment to the IMB. Others were chosen who had a chip on their shoulder against the IMB for various reasons. The trustees from my state, Arkansas, were men we would never have chosen to represent our state. They were men with no history of support for missions or missionaries but were outspoken supporters of the CR.
3. “The trustee is not there to serve the president and staff of the entity, but to hold them accountable and to encourage them toward success.” There seems to be a lack of accountability if the entity head is a CR hero. Why was no one at SEBTS held accountable for the car give away when CB and his friend were fired? In the SBC, we went from nitpicking complaints in the early days of the CR to no accountability in many entities today.
4. “Trustees ought not to try to micromanage their entity.” True. At the IMB trustees acted more like administrators than trustees for many years. Certain trustees roamed the halls at the IMB challenging and criticizing staff when there for board meetings.