by Sandy » Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:59 pm
I agree that the trustee system is a "weak link" in the SBC, as is the whole leadership structure. I've said on many occasions that it gives the appearance of being very provincial and backward, and whether it was before 1979, or afterward, it was a set-up to protect institutional leadership from interference by the people in the pews, or even from the floor of the convention. The list of individuals who served in trustee or committee posts in the SBC for more than a decade prior to the 1979 conservative resurgence was small, with many individuals having served on five or six boards and several committees. The names changed after 1979, but the practice of allowing institutional heads to hand-pick friends and even family members to serve on their boards didn't change.
The private, Christian school where I serve has an admissions policy that is not unlike that of an SBC seminary, in that we require the parents of our students to be active members of a local church and have a general understanding of the school's philosophy of Christian education, along with being in agrreement with the basic student outcome. As Administrator, I'm the "gatekeeper" so to speak, and I have a lot of latitude when it comes to interpreting the admissions requirements. But the governance policy is clear, and in the course of the interview which is aimed at determining the family's qualification, I would not be able to alter the policy in such a way that an individual with a clear, non-Christian religious perspective could be admitted. The way we're set up, the board doesn't directly govern the school, but approves the policy which does, and I function under executive limitations of that policy. Therefore, my job performance is evaluated by my adherence to the governance policy in bringing about the desired performance level of the school. It makes the trustee board look like they are "making it up as they go along" instead of adhering to strong governance policy and making sure administrators do to.