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

Last week (see that post below), I laid out the six areas that, after careful reflection, I think are the most needed general areas of reform in the Southern Baptist Convention, with explanations as to why I see it that way.  They are (in no particular order):

- Spiritual leadership

- Transparent accountability

- Independent leadership

- Term limits

- Godly ethics

- Necessary training

At that time, I also listed and explained five elements of the compelling presentations that I have repeatedly seen over the years, with the obvious logic being that it, in the current atmospehere in the SBC, it is going to take a most compelling laying out of these positions for them to get the consideration they deserve.  Those five elements (again, in no particular order) are that the presentation be: 1) passionate; 2) clear; 3) common sense; 4) attractive; and 5) do-able. 

I have already applied the tests of simplicity and logic (i.e., common sense).  Today, I will consider the attractiveness and ability to create passion criteria.  The bottom-line practicality issue (i.e., do-ability) will be the subject of the post on Wednesday.

So, are these six areas of needed reform “attractive” to the average Southern Baptist, especially those who are likely participants in Indianapolis in June?  Let’s think about it together.

- Spiritual leadership: If the rank-and-file can be helped to see that the election and appointment process in the SBC has become virtually as secular in the way its handled as either the Respublican or Democratic parties, I think this issue can find legs as a legitimate reform.  However, if the current approach to politicking is allowed to remain assumed as “normal” for a supposed spiritually-committed denomination, then there is little hope.

- Transparent accountability: The way Paige Patterson and SWBTS are attempting to dodge the scrutiny of the discovery process in the Klouda lawsuit may go a long way toward making “transparent accountability” an attractive issue.  Why?  Because you don’t seek to hide things when there is nothing to hide.  Enough said.

- Independent leadership: Frank Page makes this argument well.  Nothing terrible happened while he was president.  In fact, things were handled in a godly, caring manner by someone who did not owe anyone, or any group, favors.  On the other hand, if Al Mohler is elected in Inday, who knows how long the list of people who have to get something for being “loyal soldiers” is going to be, much less whatever other politically-motivated decisions might be made with the combined power of being the president of the largest seminary in the SBC, as well the president of the whole ball of wax?

- Term limits: Without term limits, the top leadership and trustee roles are highly inbred.  Is there any situation in which “inbreeding” has long-term attractive results?  Not that I know of.

- Godly ethics: How many scandals can you remember that have been caused by people trying to skirt–or simply ignoring–even minimal ethical standards?  Many.  How many scandals have been caused by observing high ethical standards?  None.  How many known borderline ethical problems (i.e., a notch or two below “scandal” level at this point) are we mulling over now in the SBC?  More than enough to demonstrate that the current lip-service to bare minimum ethical standards is not working well at all.  I think this area can be argued pretty effectively in much this way.

- Necessary training: Would you let a doctor operate on you who had not been to medical school and done a surgical residency?  Not in a million years.  Would you trust your life savings to someone who had no real training and meaningful experience in making advantageous investments?  Some do, but it is a very risky bet.  Those things being true, why would the SBC allow certain people to be in positions in which they are directly responsible for millions of dollars of our money, but who have nothing remotely approaching the kind of training and experience required by responsible public entities?  It takes your breath away to think about how dangerous this is.  As such, it can be a very attractive issue.

But, are these issues which can engender passion in the wider ranks of the SBC?  Please try the following thoughts on for size.

- Spiritual leadership: Do Republicans or Democrats candidates make their appeal for support simply on the basis of “I’m one of the right group”?  No.  They lay out their qualifications for the type of job that they are seeking.  Well, since all leadership roles in the SBC are spiritual leadership roles–we are, after all, still an evangelical Christian denomination, aren’t we?–should not that be first and foremost among how we look at the candidates?  It certainly makes me passionate when I recall with a nauseous stomach that the most passionate thing that Mac Brunson said in his entire speeach nominating Jim Richards for 1st VP in San Antonio was “He’s one of us!”  The potential of almost unlimited abuse with a virtual group nominee election guarantee should be obvious to all.

- Transparent accountability: Does the name Richard Nixon mean anything to you?  For anyone over 45 or 50, Nixon is the “poster boy” of those who declare “I am not a crook!” but, after investigation, are found to have done–then covered up–a huge amount of things that remain horrible embarrassments to those who voted for him.  You may say, “That sort of thing would never happen in the SBC!”  My answer: The best way to make sure it doesn’t is to require that our leaders be open and transparent in everything they do.  Remember Richard Nixon–and many pastors, not a few in the SBC, who have been caught doing what was at the time considered to be the unthinkable!

- Independent leadership: Even though it could backfire, I think it could be very effective to bring up the name of the Patterson family member who is a former SBC entity trustee and is now in jail.  No, Paige did not commit this man’s crime(s), but neither did he have the discretion not to compromise the name of the SBC by seeing that a person of this questionable moral/ethical ilk was placed in a role in which the reasonable expectation is of one who is “above reproach.”  If it is made an issue that this sort of playing fast and loose must not be tolerated in the name of nepotism (or cronyism), I believe that a lot of people would get passionate about it.

- Term limits: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”… and the longer you stay in power, the closer the degree of “power” gets to “absolute.”  In this obviously logical light, I think many people would get passionate about keeping power in check through turnover among the powerful.  And it is completely fair.  It would even allow for more among the ranks of the current power bloc to be elected to key positions now being hogged by a few names who are re-cycled over and over.

- Godly ethics: All Southern Baptists have a right to know exactly what Paige Patterson, and every other well-paid SBC entity head, makes.  At least, that’s what the documents we claim to “do business” by say.  Why then has that information not been forthcoming?  For two reasons: 1) Because, frankly, there is not enough specificity in the ethical standard to really get at things; and 2) Even if there were, there is no clear penalty for such an ethical breach–in this case a passive-aggressive ignoring of the properly requested information by Paige et al.  Now, if the shoe had been on the other foot (i.e., it was Paige doing the demanding of information), just how much passion would be enflamed?  A bunch… and I think the dramatic double standard can be pointed out with very strong effect.

- Necessary training: As argued under “attractiveness” above, it should scare the living daylights out of all SBCers to think of the danger of having untrained entity honchos overseeing, in most cases, multiplied millions of our dollars.  It would not take much at all for a major financial disaster to take place.  For those of you with knowledge of Texas, I only need point to the financial debacle in the Rio Grande Valley that recently was a good bit of what cost Charles Wade his post as the head of the BGCT.  So, these things do happen… and can happen in the SBC.  If we are not passionate enough to want to safeguard the Lord’s resources any better than we are doing now, something is terribly wrong!

This is what I’m thinking.  I’d be very interested to know how you see things.

Coming Wednesday: Nailing Down a Proposed Practical SBC Reform ‘Platform’ (IV): “Are These Issues Do-able?”