Are we willing to do what it takes to help our institutions thrive? If not, then the South Carolina Great Commission Resurgence will ultimately harm them – and so will the status quo. I don’t think the question is are we willing to make positive changes in our structure, but rather are we willing to make the changes in our practice. One is lip service, the other is hard work.
Many say they want the best for our institutions and want them to remain a part of our strategy to impact South Carolina and the world. But the devil is in the details. Financially, we are told we cannot support them like we have in years past. If we are to have institutions of high caliber and high value, we must help them to find ways to raise the funds necessary to do this.
We also have a problem when it comes to nominating trustees. Under our current process, the institution heads suggest folks whom they would like to see serve. But then the nominations committee has the task of selecting them, and the institutions have no way of speaking to those nominations. It is possible that someone could be elected who is a disgruntled parent or the sibling of someone who was just let go by an institution. People with personal agendas have no place on our trustee boards. That is not to say they need to be rubber stamps for the president. They need to be willing to do what is best for the institution for the long haul. The GCR plan of a dialogue between the institution heads and the nominations committee is, in my opinion, a good one.
Over the years, nominations submitted to the committee have dwindled. Lack of a clear understanding of expectations and of the work of trustees has kept many from taking on the position. The nominations committee has not done all the homework it needs to do, nor have members been diligent about submitting nominations. I think several factors are at work here, not the least of which is asking laypeople to take days off in order to attend committee meetings. There is also a rushed schedule, with the expectation that if we work hard we can knock this out in a few hours. This leads to looking at positions as slots to fill rather than placing godly men and women in places where they can use the gifts God has given them.
In order for us to help our institutions, I would recommend that the members of SCBC churches be encouraged to offer nominations and prayers for our institutions as never before. I also recommend that the Executive Board study the nominations process and its effectiveness (by looking at guidelines, meetings and communications with members) and if the move to a 60/40 split between clergy and laypeople is a help or a hindrance.
If we cannot improve the process, then we should realize that our decision not to act will ultimately lead to the institutions no longer being under the influence of the SCBC and her churches.
What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editor addressing this or another subject.