The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) just can’t get away from nonstop drama. This time, it involves fabricated credentials, a swift resignation, and an equally swift replacement appointment.
At least it’s not another sex scandal!
Situation report: The Executive Committee
The SBC contains a dizzying array of groups and sub-groups. Some are seminaries, others missionary organizations, and still others part of Lifeway, the denomination’s printing-and-research arm. Others still are mostly administrative, like one offering health and life insurance to pastors and their families.
The Executive Committee rules over all of them. It sets their annual budgets and handles the day-to-day decision-making for the SBC as a whole. It is the most powerful group within the SBC, answering only, really, to its president. In a very real sense, the Executive Committee is the visible face of the SBC.
Over the past 20 years, this committee got packed full of a stalwart, ultraconservative, ultratraditionalist faction of the SBC that I’ve come to call the Old Guard. But their control began to fray in 2019, when the denomination’s staggering “Abuse of Faith” crisis made national news. Its president at the time, Ronnie Floyd, was an Old Guard power player. But rather than cooperate with outside investigations, he simply quit the job.
The committee appointed Willie McLaurin to be its Interim President.
Since then, the Executive Committee has been trying to find an official president. They organized a search committee and held a vote to confirm the candidate they’d found. Somehowβand against expectationsβthe vote failed. So they had to dissolve the search committee, organize a whole new one, find another candidate, and hold another vote.
Another drama has hit the Executive Committee amidst this new search.
If you’re squeamish, don’t prod beach rubble
Very suddenly last Thursday, Willie McLaurin quit. It sounds like this is another classic Southern Baptist case of a big-name leader quitting before he could be fired. But this time, there’s a lot less doubt about that being the case.
His reasons remind me a lot of the 1994 movie Renaissance Man. In it, Danny DeVito teaches English literature to some new Army recruits who are about to wash out of basic training. While he’s there, he discovers that a gifted young man in his class nurses a secret family tragedy: he doesn’t know what happened to his Army-enlisted father, who apparently died or disappeared many years earlier. DeVito decides to do this young man a favor, so he looks into the situation without clearing it with him first. Unfortunately, this help creates some very unexpected problems.
In the case of the Executive Committee, McLaurin became one of the potential candidates for its official presidency. And that meant that the search committee had to do a bunch of background checking of his resume.
One idly and innocently wonders if this kind of deep fact-checking occurs with every candidate. Obviously, nobody had ever checked McLaurin’s background out very carefully during his rise through the ranks. But now suddenly there had to be a full background investigation like he was running for the United States presidency or something.
A wild resignation appears!
Regardless of the answer to that idle, innocent question, the search committee discovered that McLaurin had faked his educational credentials.
He’d lied.
He had told them that he’d earned degrees from North Carolina Central University, Duke University Divinity School, and Hood Theological Seminary. Alas, none of those schools corroborated his claims. I don’t know if he dropped out or simply never attended them at all. It seems to be a mixture of both. But he definitely didn’t earn degrees from any of them.
In fact, he’d even submitted fake diplomas to bolster his false claims.
Apparently, the other Executive Committee officers confronted McLaurin with their findings. He admitted that he’d lied, then resigned.
The Executive Committee quickly appointed a new Interim President
Moving with surprising speed, the next day the Executive Committee appointed Jonathan Howe as its new Interim President.
In September 2019, Jonathan Howe became the committee’s Vice President of Communications. He’s been there ever since. Though he’s quiet by SBC leadership standards, he’s popped up twice in my writing:
Just a few months before he landed his Executive Committee position, Howe appeared on a podcast with Thom Rainer. At the time, Rainer himself was just about to retire-before-he-got-fired. They were talking about the various ways that church congregations disappoint and frustrate their pastors. To put it very mildly, Howe revealed a lot of damning contradictions to evangelicals’ fanciful claims about their churches. But then, so did Rainer.
Then, in 2021, he shows up in one of the two emails that Russell Moore leaked as he was quitting-before-he-could-be-fired. Moore headed the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). Interestingly, Moore didn’t particularly praise Howe in that email. Moore just said that when he told Howe that he’d be talking about the sex abuse crisis at the ERLC’s Caring Well Conference in October 2019, Howe was fine with it.
It now makes sense that Moore might have told Howe that. As VP of Communications, Howe handled the various news sites related to SBC doings, like Baptist Press itself. Howe presumably would know if Moore’s plan would be a public-relations disaster.
Whither now, Executive Committee?
Jonathan Howe is apparently a Ronnie Floyd appointee. In fact, Floyd himself recommended Howe for the role, held a conference call with the other committee officers, and confirmed his appointment then and there. Given what a deeply polarized and tribalistic bunch the Old Guard are, it’s hard to imagine Floyd going to that kind of trouble for anyone in the Old Guard’s enemy faction, which I call the Pretend Progressives.
Moore was a Pretend Progressive. The last few SBC Presidents have been as well: J.D. Greear, Ed Litton, and now Bart Barber. They are slowly making steps toward reforming the denomination and resolving that sex abuse crisis, and they’re nowhere near as rigidly regressive or misogynistic as the Old Guard.
That said, don’t make the mistake of thinking they’re really progressive. They aren’t. They keep making the mistake of thinking they can maintain rigid gender roles, their culture wars against human rights, and dysfunctional authoritarian social structures throughout the denomination, while still keeping out all the scandals and hypocrisy that keep popping up in their ranks.
The vote that the Executive Committee held this past May involved a candidate who should have appealed to both factions, Jared Wellman. Even the nastiest Old Guard leaders had nothing bad to say about him. In fact, he’d really seemed like a shoo-in. But at the last second, the vote to confirm him failed.
McLaurin himself seems to lean Pretend Progressive as well. He certainly seemed to approve of various courses of action that the Old Guard condemned, like publicly releasing a formerly-top-secret database of accused and confirmed sex abusers in SBC churches. That move seemed to set the Old Guard off like rockets!
So to me, it looks like the Old Guard is not prepared yet to give up the most powerful role in the denomination. Presidents? Oh, they come and go. Every year there’s a vote for the SBC presidency. It’s dizzying to watch them go through the revolving door!
But Executive Committee Presidents are a different duck entirely. They seem to wield the real power behind the throne. The resolution of the entire sex abuse crisis might hinge on whoever gets the role, and there are lots of other faction squabbles that the person in this role will inevitably shape. If I found out that the Old Guard had anything to do with McLaurin’s resignation, like slipping a rumor to the background checkers, then I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
If Jonathan Howe is careful, he might just end up in Ronnie Floyd’s old office one day soon.
12 Comments
ericc · 08/22/2023 at 12:36 PM
π»π βππ π‘πππ π‘βππ π‘βππ‘ βπβπ ππππππ πππππππ ππππ ππππ‘β πΆπππππππ πΆπππ‘πππ ππππ£πππ ππ‘π¦, π·π’ππ ππππ£πππ ππ‘π¦ π·ππ£ππππ‘π¦ ππβπππ, πππ π»πππ πβπππππππππ ππππππππ¦. π΄πππ , ππππ ππ π‘βππ π π πβππππ ππππππππππ‘ππ βππ ππππππ .
So I gotta wonder if the SBC didn’t screw up waaaay earlier. When these folks are given committee membership (long before they rise to any committee leadership), does the staff not collect resumes? Do they not check them? My workplace vets even the junior employees and new hires. Basically, anyone not an intern. If you’re only finding out your guy lied on his resume when he moves up the ladder to CEO-equivalent, then the problem probably wasn’t with the CEO-search committee. The problem was way far down the line from them.
πβπ πππ πππ’π‘πππ ππ π‘βπ πππ‘πππ π ππ₯ πππ’π π ππππ ππ πππβπ‘ βππππ ππ π€βπππ£ππ πππ‘π π‘βπ ππππ
How it plays out will hinge on who gets the role. But I suspect leadership by the OG will produce more victims, lawsuits, and negative press for themselves, and not any actual resolution at all since the abuse will just continue.
Captain Cassidy · 08/22/2023 at 1:17 PM
Whoever ends up in power, they won’t want to change things too much. It works exactly the way it was designed to work, just like computer programs do. Just like with programs, there’s no “do what I mean, not what I programmed” button.
ericc · 08/22/2023 at 1:25 PM
Do you think leadership by the PPs would result in fewer future abuses (presumably after some deterrence- or rules-related changes in behavior)? Or is this a case of the crime rate staying the same regardless, the only difference being one group admits some crime is happening while the other does not?
Kevin R. Cross · 08/24/2023 at 12:01 AM
Since they don’t appear to have put any reporting, investigation or victim-protection methodologies in place, I can’t see how the situation has in any way changed as far as future crimes go.
BensNewLogIn · 08/24/2023 at 11:05 AM
Why would they check his rΓ©sumΓ©? Christians don’t lie or bear false witness or manipulate people to get ahead. Just look at Donald Trump.
WCB · 08/24/2023 at 3:38 AM
Off topic.
The latest nonsense from the Calvinistsphere.
…..
The Sin Of Empathy. How Satan Corrupts Through Compassion
By Joe Regney
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-enticing-sin-of-empathy
…..
Apparently this bad theological doctrine is making the rounds among Calvanists and is causing controversy.
Meanwhile over at Ed Feser’s blog, being woke is labelled as being envious, a sin. Yes, if one dislikes racism or misogyny, or anti-semitism, you are woke and thus merely envious. And sinful. Feser is a Catholic “philosopher”. I post there as WCB.
This sort of Orwellian sophistry is something all good religious skeptics need to be aware is being peddled to religious believers.
BensNewLogIn · 08/24/2023 at 11:04 AM
Next you will be saying that the God of love isn’t a God of love, the religion of love isn’t a religion of love, and that Islam isn’t the religion of peace.
WCB · 08/24/2023 at 2:33 PM
This how cretinous theologians turn, empathy, mercy, compassion, justice and in sin and peddle that to as many people as possible.
Feser has written a book, “All One in Christ: A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory”, a work of polemics peddling disinformation about CRT. One of many such books. Mischaracterizing what CRT is and motives of people opposing racism, misogyny, et al.
And these books are collectively effective, feeding conservative culture outrage that politicians like DeSantis use to craft bad laws. We will be fighting these evil theological ideas for decades to come.
ericc · 08/25/2023 at 12:57 PM
He’s only talking about good vs.bad ways to *signal* compassion or empathy. Anything beyond signaling is ignored. It’s like the author completely forgot that compassion and empathy often include trying to help someone out.
Houndentenor · 08/25/2023 at 4:17 PM
The right is all about projection. Notice how they are claiming that liberals are just “virtue signaling” when we do something like recycle or donate to charity, etc.? They can’t imagine that anyone is genuine in their words or deeds because none of them are. They think we are all as hypocritical as they are.
ericc · 08/25/2023 at 12:48 PM
Meh to the first. A poor CS Lewis copy, turgid in it’s moralizing and without his cleverness. In an essay on good and bad ways to show compassion for those in need, they never bother to discuss any actual way to act. It does not seem to occur to the author to even bother to address the question of how to *help*, he limits himself only to good and bad ways to *commisserate.*
On Feser: dare I ask, is it because a woke person *desires* person A get the treatment of person B? I.e. is envious of B’s treatment? (If this is Feser’s road, then how does he account for third party wokeism? I.e. C may want A to be treated by B, but neither desire nor be evnious of B’s treatment for themselves.)
Houndentenor · 08/25/2023 at 4:13 PM
I was raised SBC and still have family in Southern Baptist churches. They run background checks on anyone who teaches or supervises children and have strict guidelines on how adults interact with children. That is good and more than many churches do, but there are flaws in that system. 1) Everyone is on the honor system. It is up to other church members to report what appear to be violations of these rules. 2) If previous abuse complaints were handled internally and not reported to the police, there is no record for a background check to find. The second part is the biggest flaw in what appears to be a system that would prevent abuse. That is why these situations in which previous churches where a member or staff member previously attended or worked covered up abuse, they have endangered every child that person will come into contact with going forward. The current church where the abuse occurred may well not have known or even suspected there would be a problem. but the church that let a staff member leave and go to another church knew full well what might happen and allowed it to. I don’t know how anyone calling themself a Christian doesn’t think that putting others in danger like that is anything but a sin. It’s certainly an ethical violation, may well be a crime and is certainly actionable.
I will repeat what I have been saying for years. The fact that these “christians” are obviously more afraid of a little bad publicity more than they are concerned for the safety of the children in their care and the judgment of the god in whom they claim to believe says a great deal about who they are as people and as believers. Do they believe any of what they claim to believe? Is it all an act? It’s hard to believe that a sincere believer wouldn’t prioritize the safety of children over anything else, and almost daily we see an arrest of a minister or staff member at a church. A zero tolerance policy might not stop all abuse but it would stop most of it. Why hasn’t that happened? I think we already know. For all their talk about children, they don’t really care what happens to them. Those children are just props in their bigoted political agenda.