Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (II): “Separating the Wheat and the Chaff”

In the biblical world–and still in a few undeveloped parts of the world today–the winnowing process at the conclusion of the wheat harvest is crucial to its success.  The first part of the process is the loosening the straw from the grain, either by an animal’s hoofs (e.g., Deut. 25:4) or a toothed threshing sledge (e.g., Isa. 41:15).  Next, it is tossed into the air with a winnowing fork (e.g., Jer. 15:7) and the wind blows away the straw and chaff, leaving only the grain.  Finally, it is sifted (e.g., Amos 9:9b), in order to remove any small remaining debris, so that all that’s left is the grain.

The time has come to winnow the ideas that have been tossed around for some time now as needed areas of reform in the Southern Baptist Convention.  I will begin that process today and continue for two more posts–next Monday and Wednesday. 

In my last post, I laid out five things that made for compelling presentations that I have heard over the years: 1) passion; 2) clarity; 3) logic/common sense; 4) attractiveness; and 5) practicality/doability.  Today, I am going to lay out a short list of the reform ideas that have gained traction as I have thought and prayed, as well as by interacting some with you.  In addition, I am going to, so to speak, using two of the five criteria, throw them up in the air with my verbal winnowing fork and attempt to see what is “wheat” and what is “chaff.”  The two I will bring to bear today are clarity and logic.  On Monday, I will test according to passion and attractiveness.  Finally, on Wednesday, the focus will be the all-important issue of practicality.

What are these issues that I think deserve wide consideration as needed areas of reform in the SBC?  In no particular order:

- Spiritual leadership

- Transparent accountability

- Independent leadership

- Term limits

- Godly ethics

- Necessary training

Are each of these areas “clear” and simple to explain and understand?  I think so, but let me try them out on you:

- Spiritual leadership refers to choosing leaders on the most important basis of their biblical maturity and godliness.  While this seem obvious, it certainly is not what has been emphasized most (and not really at all) at the SBC meetings I have attended.

- Transparent accountability means that everything which is not truly confidential in nature is open to the wider constituency and that those making the decisions are answerable to the constituency and take full responsibility for those decisions/actions.

- Independent leadership means that leaders are not already in somebody else’s pocket, whether a family member, co-worker or friend, when certain issues arise, but instead personally seek the Lord and His Word for the proper guidance in every case.

- Term limits means that the same people don’t keep getting elected or appointed to boards or committees, allowing more and more talented, committed SBCers–and there must be many more in a denomination of, realistically, over 6 million members!–to serve.

- Godly ethics means that the SBC will not be satisfied with meeting only the bare minimal ethical standards in areas such as fund-raising and financial disclosure, but will indeed “avoid all appearance of evil.”

- Necessary training means that, in positions which require a certain skill set to do the job well (e.g., budgeting and managing a large budget), a certain amount of training must be insisted upon… or you’re courting disaster.

Now, if (hopefully) those brief explanations are sufficiently clear, we come to the test of “logic/common sense”: 

- If the SBC claims to be a biblicist denomination, it only makes sense that we would insist upon truly spiritually mature leadership, leaders who are godly examples to the wider flock.  And, neither giftedness or success is necesarily an indicator of spiritual maturity.

- When things are done behind closed doors and there is little to no disclosure and even less answerability, the only two reactions will be: 1) much suspicion of what’s being done; or 2) even more suspicion.  Logically, the only way to calm the fears of the people of the SBC is for transparent accountability to become the way that every board and committee, as well as every administrative unit, does business all the time.

- Independent leadership makes sense because the long history of nepotism and cronyism is full of examples of special treatment and corruption.  Does it make sense to continue a practice in which, over the long haul, the vast majority of such relationships have been dramatically flawed by the thirst to retain power, even if somewhat less are out-and-out corrupt?  At best, it is a major calculated risk!

- Actually, term limits is almost a sub-set of independent leadership.  The latter is the retaining of power through others, while a lack of term limits allows the continuation of power by the power-hungry person himself or herself.  Since “power corrupts,” or so says Lord Acton’s dictum–which, to my knowledge, has never been answered–does it make sense to let that corrupting influence have full sway in the SBC?

- If we in the SBC are biblical, then we certainly should be characterized by fully godly ethics in the way we do things?  Does it, then, make sense to operate by the minimum (often secular) ethical standards in various areas?  If you are a consumer, it doesn’t any make sense to build houses or cars or television sets or computers according to minimum standards.  Why would it make sense in running the entities of the SBC?

- Clearly, necessary training makes sense if a person is really responsible in their job and not just bluffing their way through it or only serving as a figurehead.  Now, if the job is just a “payoff” for your loyalty and all you’re doing is drawing a paycheck, things may appear otherwise.  But, that not logic in play.  It’s defending your own rear end when, if you’re honest, you know you should never have been given the job in the first place.

OK, now I’ve spoken my piece.  What do you think?

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”

Coming Monday: Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (III): “Are These Issues Attractive and Will They Create Passion?”