Thus, my suspicion, potential members of the group had surely been considered, if not vetted. I could be way off and way wrong. But, having been familiar with convention politics back to my days in college watching them take place in various places within the meeting location, there are few things not “done” before we all arrive – whether in person or in cyberspace (the seat from where my perch was this go round.)

Just what ran through my head when I saw the list.

Morgan

Thanks for stopping and commenting.

” Not placing an African American was a horrible move.”

I could not agree more. You do a fine job of noting other ways the committee seems to reflect a less diverse group than what is implied in the goal of the GCR document. I thought about an entire post devoted to such a move which seems to be more on par with our pre-1995 convention stance where we simply turned our head at both our history with African Americans and any post-Civil Rights inclusiveness. Thus, my reference to a “regional” convention as opposed to a national convention. The former seems more descriptive.

Despite the concerns noted in the post, I am want to watch and hope. Here is a thought. What if the Task Force recognized the lack of “representation” and self-corrected the oversight. Maybe there will be a statesperson among them who rises to suggest others serve in their space offering a place at the table for the kind of desired diversity expressed in the document. Now that would be a move that would surely garner some attention.

The skeptic in me wonders if these folks were vetted beforehand in anticipation of the approval of the GCR motion. I have no problem with that except to note it would have seems such preparation would have allowed for greater thoughtfulness with regard to a more representative committee.

Let’s watch, hope, and pray.

You can definitely add me to the list of the unimpressed. Balance does not reflect the makeup of this task force.

As a middle aged Southern Baptist conservative (who still considers himself a young leader who has been leftout), I find myself very dissatisfied with the lack of diversity on this panel. Here are my issues:

*If you highlight the states on a map of those represented, the first thing I see is what about a representation from the Northwest, Midwest and Northeast (and even some of the other southern states)
And what’s up with having 5 reps from Florida??? Most have 1-3. I don’t get it?

*17 males and 1 female—not a balance in my book. If we really wanted to get something done, there should have been more women involved. VBS…dare I say more.

*17 White people and 1 non-white person—We as southern baptists get so close to breaking the White mold. Not placing an African American was a horrible move.

*16 Over 40 years old and 2 Under 40 years old (from the pictures I’ve seen on the web, this is a pretty close guess)—So much for reaching out to the younger leadership of the SBC.

*15 career ministers and 2 laypeople—Are there no laypeople spiritual enough the evaluate the SBC effectiveness in evangelism?

*Pastors 8 Administrative 8 Laypeople 2—OK. A bit of balance. However, why do Akin and Mohler get to be the only Seminary reps? What about the other presidents? What about missions professors from the seminaries
Directors of missions are a good touch. I have great respect for these individuals who have a better idea on what’s going on in the churches across the SBC.

All in all, I expected so much more from Johnny Hunt. I have heard great things about his ministry and influence on younger pastors. I was excited when he was
elected last year. But these appointments leave a bad taste in the mouth of this Southern Baptist.

Morgan