According to today’s BP article, one of the reasons Bob Reccord resigned was:
“I believe that honest philosophical and methodological differences have brought us to this point of separate directions,”
The chairman of NAMB’s BOT confirmed this tension when he says:
“Dr. Reccord has aptly noted that in [Southern Baptist] Convention life, entrepreneurial leadership and denominational requirements may be at odds with one another. This is no one’s fault -– it is simply a reality.”
While I understand and accept as a pastor the need for accountability, I also understand the neccesity of visionaries and leaders. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Dr. Reccord’s activities is not the issue I am considering. The issue is this: Does our denominational structure limit leadership? If so, what are the consequences?
Leadership is a premium in our culture and the way we do business means that those who are leaders will not want to be in positions of denominational leadership. That means that as a denomination, the best and brightest, the innovators, the entrepenurs will elect to do their own thing because of the restrictions that our denominational structure imposes. Hence Rick Warren, while being a Southern Baptist, is really doing his own thing. I would gather that Ed Young, Jr (and maybe even his father at Second Houston) are from the same mold. The are Southern Baptists because of our missions, but do their own thing in every other area. They do not get involved with the denomination because the denominational structure itself restricts them.
This may keep other visionary leaders from becoming part of our denomination and may be the impetus for many to leave the denomination. Our denominational structure is inherently political.
I have to confess that there would be no way I could work within a denominational entity. I hate politics and I hate having to get everything approved by 100 other people. Our structure, like many in our churches, creates a scenario where politics abound, not leadership.
Quite honestly, this is our heritage. We are a congregational people with no hierarchy, and I truly appreciate that. We are intentional about our cooperation. And for many centuries we have been successful because of it.
But the question could be asked: Is it time for another structural change and if so how would it be changed? Would it even matter? If our denomination was structured and led the way you lead your church, would they look and function similar? I know it wouldn’t in the church I pastor.
This is an interesting discussion that may need to take place. Then again, I may just be talking out of my head.
Well said.
Dr. Reccord is a great man. He helped me a lot. I don’t think I would ever want to work in Denom. life either.
Kevin,
I agree with you. I think he has done great work in leading NAMB. Unfortunately it appears that his entreprenurial instincts are not kosher with denominational life.
That poses some very relevant questions we must ask. Are our best and brightest going to not be involved in the convention or is their entreprenurial spirit going to be focused somewhere else because it is not welcomed in our structure?
If so, with the HUGE emphasis on leadership these days, leaders will bail on the convention and we will have people with limited leadership actually leading the convention.
The problem is Warren and Young don’t need the SBC, but we do!
Kevin,
You’re right about that, and that’s the point. They were leaders and entrepreneurs. They just did it. But that can’t work in a denominational structure that we have, can it?
Here’s another question…What about when they were just starting out? Fellowship church started with Baptist in the name but changed it shortly after launch. They lost members because of it. I’m not sure they even involved NAMB in the process. I honestly don’t have a clue. But at some point early on, an intentional decision was made to not promote or be involved in the SBC apart from missions. The same for being involved in the convention or in denominational leadership.
They won’t function in that way because it’s too restrictive to innovation and creativity.
When we started the Bridge, we didn’t have Baptist in our name either. But at the new member’s class we shared that we were part of the SBC. Some may call it bait and switch. When people asked before we didn’t lie.
I wish we would take of Southern. I’m sure that would help you.
Dave,
I honestly am having a hard time with this. I am either naive or just stupid. I am having such difficulty in accepting this is intentional. I know it is but I am dumbfounded.
You all are right. If creativity and entreprenuership is squashed, the SBC will loose its best and brighest – including Reccord and more.
Kevin has an intersting point. If we were as innovative as Warren or Young Jr. we would not be having this discussion. Or would we? If you could see God work in your ministry as well as- say Warren, would you still be as vocal about the SBC?
OR – is the fact that they are NOT focused on the SBC part of their ministry success?
Hmmm. . . .
MaC
Can someone please help me understand what the term “entrepreneurial” means in this context? If it’s a synonym for vision, was the difference in vision between Reccord and the Board about missions or about Reccord’s ability to lead without interference/accountability?
I guess I’m not quite ready to accept the blanket statement that there is no room for “visionary” leadership in the convention, or that the best and brightest need not apply… there’s little room for a lone ranger, but that’s not the same as stifling leadership or banning creativity, is it?
John,
I don’t know if you saw Rick Warren’s statement on Reccord’s departure. He said,
I don’t know all the details or reasons for reactions to Bob’s leadership, but, regardless, I do know this: You can’t put new wine in old wineskins. When you try to do that, the skin bursts, and somebody gets blamed. The sad symptoms we see in so many Christian organizations, churches, and denominations today are caused by a number of theological, cultural, and structural problems that are deeper than just personality issues. The causes are both systemic and endemic, and should surprise no one who has been watching the past 25 years. We will either have another genuine Reformation, or the American church will eventually go the way of Europe. Nothing less will solve the problem, so I’m praying and working as hard as I can for the first option.
Basically at the denominational level, you can come up with ideas, plans..be as visionary as you want. But most of those plans and ideas have to be approved by people that may or may not catch your vision OR worse yet, don’t want things to change within the agency you serve.
Leaders will not hang around organizations where their ability to try, make decisions, or be innovative is controlled by other people. That doesn’’ mean they are lone rangers, or reject accountability or input, but that when the organization needs to change something or do something, it is extrememly difficult for a visionary or a leader to wait two years to see that happen. In our denominational structure, ultimately someone else will determine if that vision can be carried through or not.
The best and brightest don’t run for president of the US. They work outside the system. The same with the denomination. The best and brightest, with a few exceptions like Ed Stetzer and one could argue he does this as well, will work outside the denominational structure or in areas where the structure is very loose (ie pioneer areas) where their innovation, creativity, leadership, and inniative can be better used and more appreciated.
This may also account for the increase in elder-led churches or staff-led churches. It is also why leaders tend to plant churches rather than try to go into existing churches.
I’m very late on this conversation but it’s right where I am with my new church plant.
I’m trying to understand the structure behind a staff led church (which is what we’re trying to do). What does the structure look like so that the pastor and staff can lead creatively and quickly, while at the same time be held accountable so they don’t go off the deep end and take the church with them?
Who’s in charge? How are decisions made? What does the church body vote on, if anything? Who makes the financial decisions? How do you keep the decision makers in check?