Credential Creep, Credentialism, and False Credentials

Top Southern Baptist Convention news this past week probably is the resignation of Willie McLaurin from interim president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee. I first read about it at Baptist News Global, a liberal news and opinion site that gleefully reports any foibles of the convention and skewers them for it.

McLaurin, interim president and considered most likely to be hired for the permanent post, resigned August 17th. He resigned because of the finding that he had falsified information on his resumé. His resumé included earned degrees from North Carolina Central University, Duke University Divinity School, and Hood Theological Seminary – all of which were false (as well as a claim of military service).

Previously, McLaurin had served 15 years on the staff of the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board, as well as a pastor at Greater Missionary Baptist Church in Clarksville, Tennessee, and pastor Greater Hope Baptist Church in Union City, Tennessee. He was elected to serve on the SBC Executive Committee staff in 2020. In 2022, after the departure of EC president Ronnie Floyd, he became the interim president of the Executive Committee.

All this lengthy introduction to make a few related points.

From what I have read about Willie McLaurin, he is a hard-working, personable man – a really nice guy that people like. Many Southern Baptists thought he was doing a great job as EC interim president, and were rooting for him to be elected to the permanent post. Nevertheless, he chose a false way to rise to the top. He lied. He falsified records. “Moreover, it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.”

I think we all can agree that falsifying a resumé is wrong. (Even most who have done so inherently know it is wrong.) Most folks want their resumés to look their best, but to create information out of thin air cannot be justified. I have not noticed anyone mention or report what credentials/education Willie McLaurin actually has. Regardless, he apparently believed his actual education would either disqualify him or not be good enough qualifications. So, he lied. This raises a question to me, “Why would pastors, preachers, and Christian workers falsify a resumé?” What pressure do they feel that makes it seem necessary or beneficial? 

I believe the answer is “Credentialism” – or as one respondent at SBC Voices called it, “credential creep.” That writer, Nathan Petty, pointed out how that historically Baptists had grown in the United States mostly without the benefit of seminary trained preachers. Then they progressed in formal education. As this progress moved forward in the 20th and 21st centuries, the amount of degrees offered and education expected grew exponentially. According to Petty, the counsel of many would be for a man to get seven years of formal education (DMin) in order to be “really” be qualified to serve a local SBC congregation.[i]

This is not only an SBC issue. Many Baptists feel this pressure for credentials – or perhaps simply lust for the glory of the title. Our Baptist congregation is not affiliated with the SBC, neither any organized association, convention, or fellowship. Because of that, apparently, we received a lot of unsolicited “independent fundamental” correspondence. I have noticed in these circles a tendency for every Tom, Dick, and Harry – no matter how ignorant or uneducated – to be “Dr. So and So.” Whether they have legitimate degrees or bought one from the pawn shop, they tout their status. Every speaker at a conference is a “Dr.” What’s the deal? No doubt some of it is base human pride. I believe the other factor is “Credentialism.” We have unfortunately created communities of Christians who cannot “search the Scriptures” whether things are so, but need to be told it is so by “Dr. So and So.” If Paul’s Apostleship was not good enough for the Bereans, your “Doctorate” is not good enough for me!!

When we turn to the Bible discussions of qualifications (1 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9), a clear case can be made for honesty and integrity. Level of formal education is nowhere to be found. Yes, apt to teach. No Doctor of Ministry. I have no fondness for ignorance. Nevertheless, the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. Throw away those practical qualifications your church or ministry has created. Go back to the Bible. The qualifications there are inspired by God.

My intent is not to beat up on Willie McLaurin. We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However, may this incident be a teaching moment.

• Let us look to the Bible for the qualifying credentials of the ministry.
• Let us see the church founded by Jesus Christ is the primary biblical educational institution.
• Let us commit to telling the truth, regardless of the consequences.[iii] 

---

[i] For example, the Duke Divinity School Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) program is normally completed in three years. They require a prior Master of Divinity (M.Div.) or comparable master’s degree before enrolling in the program. Therefore, in this case, the DMin takes about six or seven years. (Duke also requires at least five years in full-time ministry before entering the program.)
[ii] While working on this, at the top of the Word Doc I had something else on which I was working — the hymn/poem “The Church’s Desolation.” The second verse (and others) seemed to have some correlation. “Her pastors love to live at ease, They covet wealth and honor; And while they seek such things as these, They bring reproach upon her. Such worthless objects they pursue, Warmly and undiverted; The church they lead and ruin, too— Her glory is departed.”
[iii] Mark Terry writes, “If we cannot depend on pastors and church workers to tell the truth, then we’re in bad shape.”

The “Qualifications” of a Bishop

Having been reliably informed that the requirements for the office of bishop set forth in I Timothy 3 “are the requirements for a perfect preacher,” I embarked on an in-depth Bible study to find out to which qualifications the churches could refer for the less-than-perfect preachers who are currently available. I thought I might have found it in Titus 1, but then realized it sets forth the same requirements as I Timothy 3, obviously for the perfect preachers. So, I dug deeper. After a diligent search, I finally found the requirements in Judas’s seldom-read epistle to the Laodiceans. For your benefit, I share it here.

Laodiceans 3:1-8

1. Having failed in my efforts to collect the funds to come to you (the bag being empty): these things I write unto you, that you mayest know how you oughtest to behave yourselves in the church of Laodicea.

2. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a well-paying position with the bestowal of great honour.

3.  A bishop then must be shameless, the man of one wife, more than one, or none; possessing a good education and appropriate credentials; willing to move quickly when hostility rises; apt to leech;

4. Not given to dry and lengthy speech, but eloquent, concise, and funny; deserving of a valuable salary package; well-dressed, not threatened by deacons;

5. One that driveth a fine chariot, is schooled in kissing babies, and apt to fool old women;

6. Even so must their wives be mothers of several children, while looking as if they never had any; apt to flatter, play the piano, organize the women’s auxiliary; full of zeal and zest;

7. Moreover let the bishop be photogenic, having an impressive resume, not a novice (for there are small insignificant churches for others), recommended by seminary leaders. Moreover he must have a good report of wealthy businessmen; all these qualifications, lest he be an embarrassment to the rich and prospering church in the thriving metropolis of Laodicea.

8. Finally, my brethern and sistern, though I write in the tongue of men and angels who use gendered pronouns, let nothing be construed as meaning any persons cannot serve in the office of bishop in the church. Progress be with you. Fare ye well.

No more shall there be a problem finding someone to meet the necessary requirements. We need not look for Paul’s perfect preacher. Judas’s recommendations will work just fine!

* Note: Count bard Ehrmandorf stumbled across the fragment containing the third chapter of the epistle to the Laodiceans, handwritten in Greek on a tanned skunk hide, while browsing a garage sale at the St. Baden-Gooden monastery on Mount Tübingen.

The Husband of One Wife

“the husband of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6

I recently read an online essay about divorce, remarriage, and the qualifications for the ministry, focusing on the phrase “the husband of one wife.” I choose not to link to it, since the author displays a certain amount of hubris in his viewpoint that it unnecessary and off-putting. Nevertheless, this turns my thoughts to this post – not a lengthy tome, but something just to point out another option seldom discussed.

This writer and numerous others would point out three main ways to view the phrase “husband of one wife.”[i]

1. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of polygamy
2. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of divorce and remarriage[ii]
3. “The husband of one wife” means the kind of husband a man is to his wife

The first two are clear enough. I think there is little or no misunderstanding of them. The third is a newer model and may require some explanation. This third view says that phrase (μιας γυναικος ανδρα/ανηρ) literally means “one woman man” or “one wife husband.”[iii] This is usually explained as referring to the kind of husband a man is to his wife – one devoted to his wife.[iv]

As normally presented, most of the writers indicate the three ways are mutually exclusive – either not a polygamist, or not divorced & remarried, or not undevoted to his wife. It seems few consider that Paul struck on a phrase (under inspiration, of course) that can encompass all the positives and exclude all the negatives.

The historical research I have done indicates there was very little polygamy and much divorce practiced in the Roman Empire.[v] However, if a case of polygamy came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When the rampant divorce problem came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When a situation of a bad (undevoted) husband who has managed to avoid divorce came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop.

Therefore, this brief contribution is to assert that Paul uses the phrase “the husband of one wife” to umbrella several issues, rather than present an either/or distinction that must be chosen to the exclusion of the others.

---

[i] A fourth way “the husband of one wife” is viewed, is that it is a requirement that a bishop/elder/minister must be married.
[ii] This might be divided into three camps: The husband of one wife is a man (1) only who has never been divorced and remarried; (2) only who has not been divorced and remarried since salvation; (3) only who, if he is divorced and remarried, is covered under “the exception clause” of Matthew 5:32 & 19:9.
[iii] A helpful comparison, often missed, is 1 Timothy 5:9, where the similar phrase is used of the widow (but with, obviously, the gender roles reversed: ενος ανδρος γυνη “one man woman” or “one husband wife”).
[iv] This view (usually) allows for divorce and remarriage in the ministry, though I am at somewhat of a loss to understand how one who divorces his wife to marry another is a “one-woman man.”
[v] For example, see The Environment of Early Christianity, by Samuel Angus (New York, NY: Scribner & Sons, 1915): “Divorce was frightfully common…Men could put away their wives for the slightest cause, and women could as easily divorce their husbands…Marriage lost its sanctity: it was lightly entered upon because easily annulled.” (pp. 15, 46)