Serious Thinking toward an SBC Reform Agenda (III): “The Type of Candidates and Appointees Needed”
December 3, 2007
Up front, let me say two things: 1) I have learned a lot from studying the SBC Constitution and Bylaws, and you have helped me learn even more. I hope this translates into the best ideas in regard to what needs to be changed and how to do it before this series is over; and 2) What should be considered in this series continues to grow. I had not passed a single thought about assessing the SBC Business and Financial Plan. But, why not? It affects us all. The problem in doing so, however, is that I am anything but an expert on that sort of thing. Hence, if there is anyone out there who like to do a guest post with your thoughts on what needs to be reformed in the SBC Business and Financial Plan, please let me know as soon as possible. I would be deeply grateful. If no one with more background in this area steps forward in the next few days, I may or may not attempt such a post myself, almost totally depending on whether I can squeeze out the time and find the necessary research material to get myself up to speed–at least a whole lot more than I currently am.
Frankly, what I am posting today is little more than the thoughts I expressed several months ago in regard to the kind of candidates the SBC needed to put forward next Summer in Indianapolis. In the meantime, however, I have broadened the scope of my consideration, only to realize that we need the same type of person, no matter what level of leadership role in the Convention that it is, elected or appointed.
At the risk of idealism and over-simplification, here’s my thoughts on the matter. All in leadership roles in the SBC should meet the following biblical criteria:
1) Full of the Spirit and wisdom: In the passage that may preview the beginning of the office of deacon, the only qualifications that Stephen and the other six had to meet were: being of “good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:4, HCSB). To me, those stated qualfications were considered to be a summary of the basic qualities needed for leadership in the church, period.
Yes, 1 Timothy and Titus give more extensive listings of, in some cases, much more specific qualities. However, none of those qualifications is any way contradictory to Acts 6:4, just more specific in regard to the specific leadership positions being discussed.
My point here is that Acts 6:4 seems to as close to a basic description of spiritual qualfications for leadership as we find in the New Testament. Thus, I suggest it as the primary spiritual qualification for all leadership roles in the SBC.
How do we know whether a person is Spirit-filled? The immediately ensuing description of the Spirit-filled ministry of Stephen (Acts 6-7) is the obvious place to start, as well as the charactristics of the life and relationships of the Spirit-filled person in Ephesians 5:18-6:9.
You may also ask what is meant by “wisdom” in Acts 6:4. Yes, “wisdom” is generally viewed as the practical ability to use knowledge. But, in the context of Acts 6:4, the linking of wisdom to Spirit-filling almost surely requires that this is wisdom which comes from the insight of the Holy Spirit. After all, any other kind of wisdom is going to be, to one degree or another, worldly wisdom (a la what Paul argues against in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians).
In the SBC, sadly, there are quite a number of veteran figures who are very wise indeed in the realms of politics and power. But, are they also “full of the Spirit and wisdom”–of the God-given spiritual variety? That is the perhaps the most pressing question before us.
2) Humble–not proud: This quality is closely related to the above. There is no place for pride when a person is filled with the Spirit. Pride is the elevation of self. Being Spirit-filled is the submission of self to the Holy Spirit.
In fact, the two states cannot co-exist. There is no such thing as an arrogant person who is Spirit-filled. Thus, when you see the swagger, the pride oozing out of certain leaders, as they move around certain conferences, you can be quite confident that their sizeable egos are not of the Lord.
In fact, quite the opposite is true. As Peter says in no uncertain terms in 1 Peter 5:5-6: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time.”
Thus, how do think the Lord feels about the massive egos that hold high positions in the SBC or some of our churches? I’m guessing that He is anything but a happy camper–what else can “God resists the proud” mean?! As a result, I’m quite sure it is His will that the SBC stop putting arrogant people in key leadership roles.
3) Servant Leadership: Again, this quality also unpacks from being the above. Only Spirit-filled, humble people can be true servant-leaders.
And, that’s exactly what the Lord Jesus expects in regard to his people. In Matthew 20:25-27, Jesus stated ever so clearly: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles dominate them, and the men of high position exercise power of them. It must not be like that among you. On the contrary, he wants to become great among you must become your servant” (HCSB).
But, it is like that (i.e., lording it over), in way too many cases. Sadly, many of our churches and certain entities of the SBC are run with essentially the same kind of dominating power and fleshly fear tactics as that which “strong man” non-Christian leaders have utilized throughout history.
Peter–who had been very much a strong natural leader before he was Spirit-filled–thought this to be a huge issue in regard to Christian leadership. In fact, it was so important in his thinking that he included it in his brief discussion of church leadership in 1 Peter 5-3: “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
What does this say about the spiritual perectivity of the SBC in regard to elected leadership? Among other things it might say, it certainly does shout loud and clear that there are a sizeable number of people in the SBC who are bound and determined to keep electing and appointing those whose approach to power is exactly the opposite of that of Jesus and Peter. But, since all they hear discussed is the political vantage point on the elections, why should we expect otherwise?
Brethren, this ought not to be. Tragically, it may well be that the only way to even attempt to change the current fleshly, politicized system of electing and appointing leaders in the SBC is to doggedly point out the above spiritual requirements for leadership that are the Lord’s idea, not ours.
And, yes, I know that it is nigh onto impossible to “legislate morality.” However, it can certainly be prayerfully hoped that it might turn out to be somewhat more successful to, over and over and over and over, insist on spirituality (i.e., in the lives of SBC leaders).
Having said these things, it is important to note that persons possessing these spiritual qualities may be found in larger or smaller churches, in a variety of roles. But, by focusing on these–and other similar–spiritual qualities, the focus is taken away from the things about a person that impress short-sighted humanity on the outside (e.g., the size of their ministry, the extent of their power or the length of their resume) and placed squarely on the internal and spiritual aspects that God truly values (1 Samuel 16:7).
No, we will never be able to discern those qualities in people anything close to as well as the Lord does. But, the concerted prayerful attempt to do so at least demonstrates that we are seeking as godly perspective on who He wants in leadership as possible.
What do you think? I very much look forward to your “takes.”
Coming Wednesday: Either an assessment of the SBC Business and Financial Plan or my first attempt to sort out (i.e., “wheat” vs. “chaff”)/prioritize what has been discussed so far in this series
Good post. But I note two things.
One; you are dead on, with reference to consistently repeating what’s expected of, and in, leaders. I know of know other way short of a benevolent dictatorship.
Second is legislating morality. If you look at what God says as the legislation, He doesn’t seem to have any trouble at all legislating it. Our problem is that maybe we aren’t legislating things consistent with what He mandates. And we certainly aren’t insisting on conformity to what He’s legislated.
Bob,
Very good points!
Boyd
AND THEN there’s the fact that discernment of spirituality is difficult to do in a political way … and this even happens at the local church level … so we reduce spirituality to a discernible checklist of activities, which sometimes omits true spirituality altogether.
I’ve seen that happen more times than I can count in Deacon Ordination Councils.
Bob,
You’re right! However, God chided Samuel for only looking at the outside factors in 1 Samuel 16 and I’m sure He is not happy with us when we likewise reduce things to the appearance of outer “spiritual success.”
Blessings, Boyd
Perhaps the old system of getting several good candidates and then casting lots to see who gets the job has merit–and it is Biblical. I say this somewhat but not completely in jest.
The major objective is (appropriately) to keep the leadership spread out enough to avoid the “pack the trustees and committees” approach that occurs. Term limits, family limits, employee limits, etc. all work in this direction. Each point of view needs to have enough representation that they are not “left out” and so that when the “other side” goes “over the top” that it takes a reasonable number of votes shifting to correct the situation. I remain convinced that in almost any group there are a few folks who try hard to do what is both reasonable and right. So if the “sides” are close enough for these to swing the vote then reasonable and right prevails.
These are not easy solutions to “legislate.” Sometimes I think that every candidate for anything “unelected” should list his/her position on several issues and that a computer program would be set up to divide the positions up proportionately. But that might be like the BCS system of bowls.
Best wishes,
Bennett Willis
Bennett,
I’m convinced this whole system has survived partly because it oversimplifies the complicated issues that the Lord wanted us to struggle with… and we don’t like to struggle. We like things to be clear-cut–black and white–and a lot of things in life just aren’t.
Blessings, Boyd
Boyd,
I have read through your recent posts with a feeling that term limits, institution limits, family limits are the way to go in almost any situation that tends to develop a controlling bureaucracy. All of our institutions must abide by any reform, yet I know that will be like pulling hens teeth. I know at least one of our Baptist colleges which were given a list of potential trustees beforehand so they could weed out (for whatever reason) those they did not want on the Board. I’m not country enough to believe that doesn’t happen every year across the Board in the SBC. For our Deacon ministry we require a 3 year rotation, with one year off. I am becoming convinced that it should be two years with at least some length of time for leadership and deacon ministry training. But it is hard to get our curmudgeons to change or think they need leadership training. That aside, I believe these reforms in some form and strength are a must. I am still looking through
ABP Press for an article concerning the recent meeting of the Kentucky convention. To the best of my recollection (according to the press release) the leadership for that Convention is manned and dominated by men from Southern Seminary. Given the current climate that can’t be good for Baptists, and may be a precedent, however unsettling, for other State Conventions. In the worst case, state conventions and the SBC would be under the dominate leadership of the same CR and CRII people. That prospect alone behooves us to be a voice in the wilderness for comprehensive reform.
Deciding spiritual qualifications for leadership is a mine field. It will take very careful engineering to mark a biblical path through the loaded questions and issues for what consitutes Spirit-filled leadership. That area requires conversations, conferences, and bold theological decisions.
Take care.
Sam Creed
Sam,
I wish you weren’t so darn right on all this… but I can’t come up with any reason why you aren’t.
Sobered by your thoughts,
Boyd
PS- I don’t recall seeing anything about the Kentucky State Convention either.
Boyd,
I admire the effort you’re going through, Boyd. But I want to offer you a mind blowing suggestion: the more Christians that participate, the more effectively the Spirit can exercise heavenly control over the Convention. The Annual Meeting works in precise counter-purpose to God’s preferred method of leadership by limiting the number who can participate and thereby collecting political power into too few hands.
How do I prove that? That’s easy: remember when the people of Israel wanted a king? Reading God’s response leaves us with the impression that God was almost wounded by the desire of the people. He warns them that insisting on centralized human leadership in the form of a visible ruler–as opposed to the system of distributed leadership during the period of the Judges when he would raise up leaders to solve specific problems–will draw them away from him.
As Les suggested, the proportions attending the Convention need to reflect reality. Just as there should be a healthy representation of pastors and laypeople from small churches to reflect the 83% of the 40,000 SBC churches that have 200 or few members, there also ought to be as many brand-spanking new Christians brought along and taught about the associations, the state conventions, and the national conventions as they are present in the demographics of the church. (Don’t worry, with the three-year rule, we avoid prematurely appointing them to leadership roles…and we can count on temperate leadership to carefully balance between the enthusiasm of younger brothers and sisters and the wisdom and experience of our older saints.)
As we add these new people, they will ask the right questions. And their questions will lead us towards God. I fully trust God to use our newest Christians not only to more effectively reach the lost (no one knows more unbelievers than a recent convert), but they also are more likely to direct initiatives aimed at speaking to the world instead of just to believers.
I have written a more extensive reply that you can visit at my blog using this link, if you’d like:
http://salt-mill.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-response-to-boyd-luter.html
Greg,
I could not agree more with almost everything you said! But, I think it needs to be a both/and approach. You are completely right that any changes made for the good in the SBC Constitution and Bylaws will be “legalistic” unless accompanied by the kind of repentant Spirit-led attitudinal transformation that is the essence of revival. However, I firmly believe that at least some of the kinds of changes that commenters and I have been laying out do need to be made, if significant overall change is to take place in the SBC election process and related areas.
For whatever it’s worth,
Boyd
Boyd,
I got to thinking about Peter, when he confronted Ananias and Saphira, and the boldness is took to do and say what he did and said.
I then thought of Moses, when he confronted Pharaoh, as well as others who confronted people in high places over grievous error. I wonder if we would recognize people like that, today, were they to confront leaders over behavior that is grievous to God.
Bob,
That is an excellent question! Of course, Peter and Moses did it face to face. Today, “confrontation” often takes place through the media, given how seldom that confronters find themselves in close physical proximity to those who need confronting. And, even if they are in the same building, often there are “buffer” people whose role is to keep anybody away from the person who needs confronting except those he/she wants to see.
Thought-provoking,
Boyd
Boyd,
FYI.
I found the ABP article. I was incorrect in part of what I related about the Kentucky Convention. It is correct that the KY messangers for the third time in four years elected a faculty member of Southern as president. This year it was Bill Henard. Henard was nominated by faculty member and associate dean Hershel York. Henard is not only on the Southern faculty, but is also BOT Chairman for Lifeway. Seems to me I have heard Hershel York’s name in other SBC news. The article does not list the pedigree of the other officers elected. The article does say the KBC election was the first “uncontested” elections in five years. Just wondering if our Kentucky brothers just gave up.
Interesting combination. Southern Seminary faculty, Lifeway BOT chairman, and the Presidents of a State Convention.
Does anyone know if this is mirrored in other States? At any rate, this is perhaps a piece of evidence for the reform you have been tackling.
Sam
Sam,
I agree that it looks like Southern Seminary is trying to control the KY Convention. I don’t know about the other states in which seminaries are located. But, it would be an interesting, and possibly highly insightful, thing to check out.
Yes, you probably have heard Hershael York’s name. He has now gone onto the IMB BoT, and you can probably figure out for yourself where he stands on Wade. He also has his own blog and was incensed over the anonymous professor’s open letter, even though he is in a position to know full well that what was alleged about Al Mohler was true. However, as a Mohler loyalist, he attempted to argue that the five former VPs and Deans who had taken jobs elsewhere and left Mohler had been trained so well by Mohler that they were in great demand. Now, they may well have been in demand. But, when all five refused to speak a single word in support of Mohler in regard to his anger problem and the other issues alleged did York ease up (i.e., it had become clear that pursuing that line of argument was only going to open Pandora’s box in regard to Mohler yet further).
Blessings, Boyd
Boyd,
I support looking at the organizational structure. I offer that you want to have the spiritual framework in place that leads into the discussion of the organizational structure. Simple things like opening with periods of prayer and asking for signed commitments from supporters to pray for you as you’re working through producing details strengthens the case you are working on. These kinds of things are not as natural in a virtual meeting of the spirits as it is in “the real world” (so to speak.)
Similarly, if we all picked a hand full of leaders that we personally know and began praying for God to insert them into Convention leadership, perhaps God would look favorably upon those people. These can be leaders that are visible to us and they need not be “perfect”. But we need to see in them the possibility that they will fully conform to God’s leadership in their lives and that they are able to lead from the positive.
I agree it is a “both and” situation where the two–your emphasis on structure and this additional emphasis on organized spiritual support–need to visibly go hand in hand. I just worry what the impact will be if the grassroots Southern Baptist perceives the agenda for change focuses first on political and organizational structure and only after that emphasizes a spiritual platform for change.
I’m not saying you lack a spiritual platform, but I think of the preparatory efforts that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association would go through to prepare targeted geographic regions for evangelism: organizing prayer teams, training counselors, pre-notifying churches of potential incoming new believers, and post-notifying them about specific decisions. This enormous amount of behind the scenes work was almost invisible during the actual crusades, but the well thought out spiritual preparation can be argued to have led to the visible spiritual results.
And that doesn’t mean stopping what you’ve started. But I believe you need prayer support for it to achieve what you desire for it to achieve.
While I commit to praying for this effort, I am sufficiently mature in the faith to offer that you (*ahem*) would benefit from more than just me praying. You need networks of people lifting you up and sharing the thoughts. It can start with you. But there is room for much spiritual growth for many people in this discussion with all of it founded on prayer first and always.
Greg
Greg,
I recognize great wisdom in virtually everything you have said here. Thank you for being a true “iron sharpens iron” counterpart in this process. I knew from the beginning that I would have blind-spots and you have pointed several out, as well as offering very important suggestions for how to approach them.
I applaud your most valuable role in thinking all this through!
Boyd