On Not Becoming Custodians of the Status Quo

Reactions to my last post have been predicable. Much of what follows comes from one of my comments appended to that posting, now pushed forward as a separate contribution. Last week a friend of mine "tipped" me off to a discussion about His Barking Dog and your blogger being pilloried in another forum. This surprised me, since the people on that forum have always prided themselves as a point of netiquette and ethics not to discuss people by name that are not part of their conversation. And, some of the writers on that forum have bragged in the past about not reading this blog. The controversial nature of the column, however, drew their ire as well as their evident misunderstanding. Since this issue touches on so many points of Baptist life, a wider discussion may be warranted.

First, confidentiality remains an important value. However, the people bound to observe it strictly would be those who freely give their word to do so explicitly or implicitly (e.g., members of a search committee, a clergy member hearing a penitent, counseling, etc.). In the social compact that exists between the secret teller and the secret hearer, one’s word and personal integrity do matter. Members of a search committee have every right to bind themselves to secrecy and to require it of their members. A breach of that confidentiality certainly applies to the committee member and sometimes to the one who receives an intentioned “leak” of information from that person bound by their word. It is only with great difficulty that I can see how it applies to second and third tellings of information, particularly when the recipient of the information freely informs his source of just how it will end up in a blog after receiving such information in an unsolicited telephone call.

But, secondly, and more importantly for the point of my post, the “who” of the finalists matters very little to me. That is why names were not mentioned. I fully realize how easily a third hand piece of information may stand at variance with the truth. Furthermore, it would complicate the work of the search committee to have its candidates discussed openly. My intention was not to "out" the names but to offer observations on the dangers inherent in the field.

My point was to suggest that merely selecting a “good” candidate will not be “good enough” this time for the Board of International Ministries. Obviously an appropriate choice should have a rapport with our missionary force, possess the sound management and administrative skills needed to run a several million dollar enterprise, be blessed with visionary leadership gifts, and possess an ability to communicate easily and effectively with the congregations.

At this time in American Baptist history, however, more will be required and should be expected. In order to avoid the debacle of another conservative region withdrawing from the Covenant of Relationships, the person selected MUST be able to reassure the evangelical wing of the denomination. Indeed, if the new BIM executive is to be more than a placeholder in the denominational calculations, he/she should be able to handle the political world of Valley Forge and its corporate culture.

Despite the hand wringing by some of our Baptist brethren, my purpose in the blog was to give ADVANCE WARNING to leadership that this represents a signal opportunity to do better than merely filling a post with a qualified candidate for BIM. In the words of my prior blog, failure to heed this warning may have disastrous effects. Respecting my own evaluations of the names surfacing so far:

"They will be, at best, custodians of the status quo and hapless bystanders to further denominational decline. All of them are fine Christian servants with great track records of ministry; nevertheless, I fear that none of them should be selected to lead BIM at this critical juncture."

The key words were "at this critical juncture." The crisis of the moment calls for more than a typical, average, or even better than average choice. The job entails more than leading a program board. Any of the people being considered could probably complete that task honorably. Rather, the critical responsibility will be to reassure restless evangelicals to remain in the denomination. And, judged by that exigent need, none of the names leaked so far meet the stringency of that standard.

[His Barking Dog always barks, but seldom bites, but engages in both behaviors without any connection to official persons, places, powers, or potentates. In this case, my information did NOT come from a member of the search committee directly. And, curiously, all the names except one were on my own list of likely finalists for the post.]