It has been a long-standing tradition in the SBC that candidates for president of the SBC do not campaign for office. I don’t know the history attached to this tradition, but I suspect it comes from a place in which we believed that such campaigning was a sign that we were not being led by the Spirit. We were not like those crass politicians out in the secular world who engage in unseemly campaigns. We just gather and get on our knees until the Lord reveals his will as to who should be our next president.
Of course, reality has never met that sort of spiritual standard.
Could we dispense with something at the starting line? The Southern Baptist Convention is a political body. Our annual meeting is a political event. Hopefully, the politics are not dirty. I pray we are not involved in power politics in which people are manipulated, coerced, or played for fools. Backroom deals and underhanded alliances have no place. But none of that changes the basic truth. We are a political body engaging in politics. The dictionary defines politics as:
activities associated with governance.
That’s what we do. We engage in activities associated with the governance of the SBC. Hopefully, our politics are biblically-based, gospel-derived, Christ-honoring, and ethically-transparent. But they are still politics. We pray for the guidance and direction of the Spirit in what we do, but we still vote and debate and discuss. There are people out there who will enter St. Louis with a different agenda than mine. We will each seek to accomplish our agendas. That’s politics.
There are many lessons we can learn from the political activities of the Conservative Resurgence, but chief among them is the fact that the election of the president of the SBC is of primary importance. It matters whom we elect. There is no more important decision we face in St. Louis.
And still, we have this unwritten rule in the SBC that the candidates are not supposed to campaign. They may to present any kind of case for their candidacy. I have to decide to vote for J.D. Greear or Steve Gaines based on my knowledge of them, as limited as it might be. There is a better way. The tradition, which may have worked well for the SBC of 1874, is not effective in 2016. It is time for a new tradition.
The candidates for president should present a detailed, coherent and comprehensive case for their candidacy.
Here are my thoughts.
1. We need to move past the celebrity and personality decision toward an agenda and platform decision
Why should I choose J.D. or Steve? Because I know one or the other? Because I’m in awe of their church, their CP giving or their new building or I loved their most recent book? Guess what? NONE of that has anything to do with effectiveness as an SBC president. An SBC president
- Makes appointments to the Committee on Committees and other committees
- Runs the annual meeting
- Represents the convention
- Has certain other duties
I want to know what the candidate is going to do. Who is he going to appoint? Does he have any intent to engage in any kind of massive “task force” like the GCR, the GCB, or something else? If he does, he should let us know in advance. What is he going to do at the Annual Meeting to make it a better experience?
Why is this information not helpful?
2. This is already legal.
We need no change in bylaws or policy for this. The rule we are violating is an unwritten rule. This is a tradition formed long ago, and it probably worked well then, when the convention was a small body of Southerners gathering together in a church sanctuary. But the idea that a group of 5000 or more people from all over the country is going to be able to make a wise choice based on a 3-minute speech is foolish.
I am not suggesting anything that violates our bylaws. It’s an outdated and unhelpful tradition.
A brilliantly funny video was circulated a week or two ago, a rap video promoting the candidacy of J.D. Greear, made by the wife of one of his staff pastors. It has been viewed about a gazillion times on YouTube.
A friend told me that there was grousing in some quarters because J.D. was violating the “rules” about campaigning. Here’s my question. Where is the that rule written? Show it to me. Was this video in violation of some biblical principle? I am no fan of rap, and someone could argue as to whether a white girl should EVER rap, but I think we all have to admit that it was pretty funny. It was a joke. How was the SBC harmed by this?
3. This has always been happening. I’m just calling for bringing it into the sunshine.
But politicking has been a part of the SBC since John the Baptist founded our denomination (that’s a joke, too, folks). My dad told me of his shock when in his youth he was invited into a meeting of pastors that turned out to be a literally “smoke-filled room” in which political calculations were being made. I used to get tickled when I heard pastors talk about how suddenly the SBC was being run “from the top down” – as if that was something new. Yeah, in my early days the leaders of the convention used to phone us all regularly to ask us small church guys what we thought!
Actually, it is my theory, my assertion, that blogging and social media has given the grassroots of the SBC more of a voice than we’ve ever had before. Guys like you and me have a better chance to speak out and be heard than we’ve ever had because of the platform of social media. Why do you think the “powers that be” complain about blogging so much? We annoy them. We bring into the sunshine what used to be kept in the dark. (And, yes, sometimes we do it very badly.)
My point is that we need to bring what has always been going on behind the scenes into the light. Let J.D. and Steve speak out. Let them state their case.
I have respect for tradition and some of our traditions have a point. But this one’s time is done. It worked when the convention was a gathering of a few hundred folks – they could get together and select a president. But now, with social media and modern technology, we have the opportunity to hear from our candidates. The tradition is more of a hindrance than a help and it is time for it to be abandoned.
Both J.D. Greear and Steve Gaines (and any other candidate who might enter the race) should feel free to state their case. They should do it positively, focused on their agenda and their political platform. They should not feel bound by a tired tradition that no longer is helpful that says that it is unseemly to campaign for president. There is nothing wrong with giving Southern Baptists a reason to vote for you, gentlemen.
I understand that there might still be other candidates jump in.
Point 4. This takes away “the power of the speech.”
It is a truism (proven over time) that the nomination speech makes a HUGE difference. Who makes it. How well it is made. If the candidates can make their case in advance, then it doesn’t put as much emphasis on the three-minute speech.
Some stmt of why they are running and what major thing they plan to do would be very helpful.
Is it possible that one of the reasons this hasn’t been done is to avoid mud slinging? I doubt it’d happen now but I could see such a thing happening at some point.
Your dad was in a “literally smoke filled room” with pastors, was he? What were they smoking? Cigars…like Spurgeon? I’ve never been in a room with pastors where anyone was smoking anything. Been in a couple where some of the guys’ hair was on fire, though.
I haven’t heard a reason other than the usual pablum from a candidate since the CR ended.
Yes. Literally
Full agreement here Dave. As a youngster in the room, the “tradition” has always seemed like a cop-out to me – an excuse to turn our brains off and let our emotions run wild following a 3-minute speech.
If there ever was a time it could happen, it is now. Reading Pressler’s account of the CR will tell you how much politics is involved. The adage about the “presidency should seek you” is fine and well, but it means that probably only those well connected, well heeled people will get nominated. I think a proper grassroots movement with the right candidate would get the election no problem.
It would be difficult
Ok maybe no problem is an overstatement. But with the right person it is doable. In my opinion at least.
Personally, I don’t really want to see the candidates campaign for the office. However, I do think that messengers should discuss the options and make a decision based on the stated goals, agenda, and dispositions of the candidates. That’s why I think the interviews we did here are important. It helps us make an informed choice. I also have no problem with messengers trying to persuade others to vote for a particular candidate based on the things you’ve mentioned in your post.
Todd, wouldn’t you say that Greer’s and Gaines’ responses to the questions posed to them by Voices is a form of Caimpaigning? If not, then what would you consider “campaigning” to be?
Nate, what I mean is that in the present climate, I generally prefer that presidential candidates do not take the initiative to publicly self-promote. I think it’s perfectly fine for them to answer questions posed to them by Baptist Press or groups such as Voices. If I didn’t, I would not have interviewed Dr. Gaines. I also have no problem with people or groups politicking for a candidate. We at Voices have done that on a number of occasions.
Thanks for the clarification Todd. For what it’s worth, I think if a small church Pastor is ever going to be elected President it will take quite of bit of “campaigning” for that to take place, but perhaps the vehicle will be Blogs and questionairres that can be transmitted.
Campaign may be a rhetorical sticking point.
I’m not talking about mud-slinging or anything that mimics secular political campaigns.
I’m talking about stating your case, defining your intentions. What do you plan to do?
It us clear from the early comments that I’m going to need to do a follow up post in what I mean by campaigning.
Hint: I’d hate negative campaigns and mudslinging. I’d disdain rallies and campaign events.
But the candidate should be free to make his case for why he’d like to be president. (And for crying out loud, we ought to stop forcing guys to pretend they were forced into accepting the nomination!)
That’s how I read it, for what it’s worth. Candidates should be able to act like they want the position, and the “aw-shucks, little ole me?” routine can be done away with.
I think the more honest talk we hear from them then the better feel we can get for them. I think Greear is more honest that Gaines, but I have so little to go on with either them. That’s really an un-informed opinion (my specialty). But neither is in my state and I have only heard one preach via podcast. The more I can hear from them the better.
maybe I should have said genuine, rather than honest. I’ve got to make decisions on people I know little about.
These kinds of comments are unhelpful, IMO. On what basis can you say one is more honest or genuine if you have “so little to go on?” Do you have any objective evidence to make such a claim?
I stated clearly I had not interacted with either of them and had not heard either preach except on podcast. I serve in a rural church and don’t get out much, so I don’t have the interactions that others of you have had. I stated clearly that this is my uninformed opinions. As information comes in, and as people like Dean share the story he did, it helps to inform me more, which clearly is needed. I think the system could be better, more open.
I gave the first impression I had outloud. I changed the wording because it was not right. Everyone has a first impression of somebody, I shared mine with the qualifications that I didn’t have all the facts.
Luke here are your words,
“I think Greear is more honest that Gaines, but I have so little to go on with either them. That’s really an un-informed opinion…”
You changed honest to genuine later.
Why would you say such a thing about a brother in Christ you have never spoken to or met?
I don’t know Greear personally but I have no reason to believe he is not genuine.
As for Gaines, I was asked by our state convention president of or pastor conference president to give Steve a ride to the airport one morning after he preached at our state conference. I picked him up at 4:30 A.M. I am a southern boy and picked him up in my truck. He bragged on my truck and asked all about it. On the way to the airport he asked about my family, my ministry, and me. As I dropped him off he asked for a card. I gave him the card, stunned he wanted one. A few days later I got a package with 2 CD’s of praise music with a fantastic thank you note. I have served as chauffeur many times for some significant leaders of the SBC, exactly one took has taken my card and written me a thank you note. I find that genuine.
The comment stream needs a “like” button.
I’m glad you have such things to base decisions off of, but I have nothing like that for either person. I’m not
“casting aspersions” on either person. I could not have been more clear that this is personal feeling. I’m basing off of first impressions, that’s all I have to go on. I’m not sure this worth jumping all over, and it certainly hasn’t gone into the toilet. I don’t know them. Both are far from my state(OK), and to my knowledge have not spoken here. I have first impressions. Those are not worth much. We need a better system, in my opinion.
Luke,
We all have gone thru situations of running our mouths without all of the facts. I have done it, too much, myself. But, it would be good to learn from our mistakes.
Steve Gaines is a faithful Brother in Christ, who loves Jesus. If you meet him, you will find a very friendly, down to Earth, genuine, real person. He’s a country boy from a little town in TN, Dyersburg.
David
My temptation is to delete this entire thing – I regret my aside.
That is a long-standing gripe and was not meant to cast aspersions on either Greear or Gaines.
It has been a “thing” all of my life. Candidates had to present themselves as unwillingly drafted into running for president. Some, I’m sure, were actually pressed into service. But I know of instances when people who were anything but unwilling presented themselves as being pressed into service.
My point is this: There’s NOTHING WRONG with a man thinking, “I might have something to offer as president of the SBC.” Surely, a man who is too ambitious, too self-promoting, is suspect. But this myth that someone should be completely opposed to serving, fight against being nominated, and only agree to serve after a wrestling match with the people who talk him into it…well, that just isn’t the way it is all the time.
I tried hard to talk a man into running this time around. He said no. He could have genuinely said, “I was pressed into running by friends.” It would have been true. But if its not true people shouldn’t feel obliged to say it.
There is nothing wrong with saying, “I feel like I am ready to serve in this capacity, if the convention decides to elect me, so I’m ready to be nominated.”
That is what I was trying to say. I’m trying hard not to be a partisan here…not until later at least. At some point, I might write an endorsement (as if it mattered).
But one thing I hope and pray in this election – let’s not turn this into mudslinging.
I’m not going to delete this, but I do want to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to imply anything about either Greear or Gaines, who both, I believe, indicated that they were talked into being nominated. I wasn’t there for either conversation so I have no reason to question either man’s integrity.
If I did question either man’s integrity, I probably wouldn’t do it in this forum.
You know me, I’m the “company man”…right?
Interesting how the discussion went into the toilet almost immediately. Perhaps that’s an indication of why we would not want campaigning for SBC prez.
Were comments deleted – because I don’t really see where comments “went into the toilet”. Only Luke’s comment comes close? In my opinion it’s no where near the toilet…Luke gave an observation – admitted that it was poorly informed – and even joked such this was his specialty.
If we are wanting to turn the SBC presidency into a political campaign – then I think there will be more surmising, second guessing and unfair characterizations of candidates going on than there is even now.
Right now it seems most messengers essentially take the word of another brother who stands up and sings the praises of a nominee – we then choose based on What we may “know” about the nominee – or the presenter – either by reputation, or more personal – but it seems we generally and automatically assume good things about the candidates. That may change if we actually go to “campaigning”.
You can’t have your cake and eat it to here – in the political realm I have seen comments and made them myself about politicians based on little else than soundbites, articles I’ve read, speeches I’ve heard, campaign missteps or achievements, etc – others on here have done that too….
how is it wrong to say “there’s just something I don’t trust about that SBC presidential candidate even though I don’t know him, I can’t put my finger on it but there just is – I don’t like the way he campaigns.” And “there’s just something I don’t trust about that United States presidential candidate, even though I don’t know him, I can’t put my finger on it, I just don’t like the way he campaigns…”.
There is nothing wrong with saying, “I feel like I am ready to serve in this capacity, if the convention decides to elect me, so I’m ready to be nominated.”
Agreed. I guess when I think of campaigning, I think of “I’m better than that other guy so pick me.”
Besides, I wouldn’t question the integrity of a man who stood up and said “I’ll be a volunteer leader who everybody sees, everybody criticizes, and in the long run won’t really profit from. I just want to serve and strengthen our convention.”
I might question the sanity of someone who wanted the job, but just wanting the job wouldn’t make me question the integrity of him.
If we’re gonna allow campaigning, I’ll throw my hat in…
I say we rebuild the IMB, and let the methodists pay for it!
LOL! Well played.
Wow
It’s kind of been like the candidates didn’t really WANT to be president or anything, but they’d be willing to be talked into being president if enough people twisted their arms and stuff. Willing to let other guys brag about them.
Hmm. Maybe that tells us something. Maybe it is, that some guys are willing to step up and say “I want that” and tel us why and encourage folks to get on board.
How refreshing … (is refreshing even allowed in the SBC?)
I see what you did there. You asked what kind of pretension buries the truth of ambition under a smothering blanket of apparent disinterest…
This is well thought out Dave. We addressed a little bit of this over the last few weeks on the SBC This Week podcasts and even opined as to what this “campaigning” might look like.
We also tipped the hat to your written interviews here. Those have been helpful, and we have audio interviews with both candidates recorded already and releasing after Easter.
It’s likely too late to make anything happen for STL, but the discussion is worth having when we head to Dallas in 2018. Imagine how much more things will have changed by then.
Looks like JD has already got his campaign spokeswoman lined up.
Well…it’s tricky at least.
Oh, that our Nation would have such godly men from whom to choose!
While I do know who they are, I would not recognize either man if he walked in my office. But I do see at least one particular difference…
Dr. Gaines has been used of the LORD to lead very good churches to become even greater and increase their effectiveness in Kingdom work.
Dr. Greear has be used of the LORD to lead a church plant to become a great church with continually increasing effectiveness in Kingdom work.
Either man will bring honor to the Office of SBC President, but, I think that since we are not likely to ever see a “smaller church” Pastor in that Office; Dr. Greear’s election could bring a slightly different perspective to our national Leadership and would be a real encouragement to our many faithful church Planters!
Again, I thank God for both men and their ministries. We will have no way to “lose” by choosing between these men.
Dave, Why don’t you run and have as your slogan “Make the SBC Great Again.” That would at least stir up some conversation wouldn’t it.
How about “Make the SBC Good Again”?
Trump’s slogan reminds me of Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation about America in the 1830s:
“America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great.”
We need a fresh “goodness” to originate in the Church House, not the White House … a holy flame of goodness that will change a nation.
If someone will print the red hat, I’ll wear it.
I remember attending a meeting where Dan Vestal was speaking as a candidate.
He was running for the SBC Presidency and made no bones about it. He also had a running mate, Vice Presidential Candidate Carolyn Weatherford Crumpler, former WMU President.
Johnny Baugh had also hired (or funded) a political consultancy group from North Carolina to help them with the campaign. They had campaign literature and all. I still remember what it looked like.
Vestal spoke at First Baptist at a business luncheon. Very well attended. I attended and met Dr. Vestal.
The election did not go well for Vestal. Morris Chapman defeated Vestal by a wider margin than previous moderate candidates had been beaten.
I also remember well the campaign of Winfred Moore to defeat Charles Stanley at Dallas in 1985. Moore was not as visible a campaigner. But Keith Parks of the IMB and Russell Dilday at SWBTS were very active and open in their support. They traveled around and spoke etc. Dilday appeared on the McNeil News Hour during the convention, which is quite remarkable, if you think about it. An SBC agency head going on TV to advocate for one of the candidates who was running for the SBC Presidency.
I personally prefer a more direct approach.
SBC Voices should come up with a list of questions, and send the list to the candidates to fill out, and then SBC Voices can post the results online.
Here are some questions I would like to see addressed:
1. State your feelings (and history, if applicable) regarding the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. (I personally think this question should be asked of every SBC candidate until the end of time).
2. Do you believe that the BFM needs to be revised or amended? If so, explain.
3. Do you believe that other than agreement with the BFM, are there any other theological tests or spiritual emphases you would apply to your nominees to the Committee on Committees?
4. Do you believe the SBC Bylaws and Constitution should be amended? If so, explain.
5. Identify the areas where you believe the SBC is thriving, and state the reasons for your belief.
6. Identify the areas where you believe the SBC should improve, and state the reasons for your belief.
7. What is the first thing you want to address upon becoming President of the SBC.
8. Identify the areas that you believe cause unnecessary divisions in the SBC, and state what, if anything, you believe your Presidency will do to address these areas.
9. Name 3 books you enjoyed reading in the last 12 months, and state what you enjoyed about each book.
10. Who is your favorite preacher from the past, and why?
11. Whom do you like to hear preach today?
12. Identify the duties of the SBC President contained in the SBC founding and governing documents, and explain in as much detail as possible how you will fulfill those duties (with an emphasis on how your execution of those duties would be distinguished from some past or future SBC President, or other candidate for the office of the Presidency).
We sort of did that already, though our questions were different
You are always head of the curve Dave Miller!
I’m one step ahead of the curve.
#dunn2016, y’all. Vote for Seth Dunn (oh, yeah, someone nominate me)
https://gsethdunn.wordpress.com/2016/03/12/dunn-2016-sbc-presidential-candiate-qa/
Get it Dunn!
Shouldn’t it be “Git ‘er Dunn?” Or might that concern his wife/s.o.??
Yeah, I was trying to evoke Friar Larry the Cable Guy without using the direct quote…
Seth, I read your stuff. I’m voting for you!
Louis:
You said:
“1. State your feelings (and history, if applicable) regarding the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. (I personally think this question should be asked of every SBC candidate until the end of time).
Why is this such an important question for you? I think you can kind of guess the candidate will speak positively of the CR.
Because, Tom, there are still some people around who want to undo what the CR did.
Case in point…Tom Parker.
And so, we have to ask the question.
Dave:
The Tom Parker’s know you guys won. Folks like me just mourn for what once once. The SBC is for people like you and not me.
I honestly am glad it is yours and not mine. I would not waste once second trying to bring the SBC I knew and love back.
Nostalgia can cause us to create fantasies of bygone eras that did not really exist Tom.
Who would want to go back to profs denying inerrancy and the miracles in the bible? That’s what I encountered in the early 1980s. I don’t know anyone who wants that again for the largest protestant denomination.
Tom:
For me it is important to hear from a candidate what they believe about the Bible, what they believe denominational employees should believe about the Bible, and how they would address that.
It is abundantly clear that in former SBC life, there were 2 major divisions on this question.
One side really believed that the priesthood of every believer permitted each person to believe what they wanted to believe about the Bible and some essential Christian doctrines.
Cecil Sherman, a leader of the moderate cause, once famously said in an interview with Christianity Today that if a person felt God had led them not to believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ (and Cecil believed in the Virgin Birth), then that was between them and God, and he affirmed that such a person could teach in a seminary or serve in a denominational post.
So that view takes a very radical position on the sanctity of each Baptist to believe what he or she wants to believe.
The other view is that the SBC has a doctrinal confession, and that to serve in a denominational post, one should agree with the denomination’s confession.
The moderate approach continues in the CBF, and is evident at such schools as MacAfee (Mercer), Richmond (I think it has morphed into another school), Wake Forest, Furman, Samford (the undergraduate Religion department – not Beeson – at least for now under Dr. George), Stetson, and other places.
I want to know which direction any would be President of the SBC would like to take the SBC.
I am not interested in hero worship, and we are getting to the point where the guys who are running are going to be so young that they did not participate in the CR.
Also, candidly, there were some guys who hid under their desks in those years, or they had friends and alliances that kept them confused, but in recent years they have seen the necessity of a robust theological confession, and a commitment to that by the denomination’s employees. I would not disqualify them from serving, but I do want to know their opinions on this subject.
We have spoken together on this blog before, I believe, but I cannot remember your perspective.
Do you have an opinion about which of the 2 approaches the SBC should take? I would be interested in hearing them.
Thanks for asking.
Louis & Dave,
I agree.
We should never just assume a SBC presidential candidate or SBC denominational worker believes in the inerrancy of God’s Word.
They should be openly asked to state their beliefs.
That’s what the Conservative Resurgence was all about.
For Southern Baptists, biblical inerrancy is a non-negotiable.
David R. Brumbelow
There is very little reason not to ask those willing to be nominated to affirm the BF&M 2000 and to especially confirm their view on biblical inerrancy. We expect it of ministerial employees (and indubitably others) of the Convention and the president should hold himself to at least as high of a standard.
Or said a little differently: why cede ground that has already been gained?
Dave, knowing your dad, he would only vote at any time for the candidate that loved the Yankees and Penn State. LOL. Seriously, I think your suggestions are good ones. My issue throughout ministry was settled when this convention took a stand on Inerrancy. That, to me, was the crucial issue. Men or women that have additional “agendas” don’t impress me. God bless you.
Hello Bob Curtis. Les Prouty here. You came to Ballwin Baptist while I was still at Ellisville Baptist. A long time ago. Some of our children knew each other. Hope you and your family are doing well brother.
Doing well. Serving New Prospect B C in Olive Zbranch, MS, just 27 miles south of Downtown Memphis. Been here since December,,2007. Loving it!
I’m not convinced about the Penn State thing, but inerrancy and the Yankees – I’m for that.
But Dad did graduate from PSU and has stayed loyal.
Somewhat.
I heard he was a closet CRIMSON TIDE fan and was considering moving to T’town early in the summer.
I can tell you most emphatically that such is NOT true.
There are only 3 people with sense that are Crimson Tide fans.
And I’ve yet to meet 2 of them.
Doug Hibbard,
I have the list. I will send it to you if you will be willing to pay the rental on the freight cars it will take to ship it to you.
CB, I remember my childhood in Montgomery. I’m afraid to see some of those Bama fans again!
Although my beloved wife did include the Bear Bryant Museum as she put together the Alabama field trip guide for her work. That’s mainly because he’s from Arkansas, though.
Doug Hibbard,
You will enjoy the Museum. It is a great tribute to the Bear and BAMA football.
But be careful. Once you tour the Bear Bryant Museum, you will never be able to be a fan of any team other than the CRIMSON TIDE.
While there are certainly a multitude of ministries a local church may be involved, including para-church ministries, would not participation in these groups tell us something of the nature of the doctrine/ecclesiology/soteriology of the church, and hence the pastor? My point in asking this is that “The Summit” church pastored by JD has long been a participating member of the ACTS 29 church planting group. Along with this association comes reformed theology exclusively, elder boards vs congregationalism, moderation positions on peripheral issues like beverage alcohol consumption, etc. Unless his position has changed, he has publically stated that it is not a requirement for his church leaders to abstain from alcohol consumption.
We as Baptists can be free to disagree on any or all of these particular positions, but knowing where a candidate stands on things such as these may help an attendee cast a more informed vote if he deems these issues worthy of importance.
Kevin:
You make excellent points on all of these issues.
I am not concerned about the particulars you listed related to Acts 29, but I am concerned about the ethos of Acts 29.
I feel the same about Sovereign Grace, and it their case, it is abundantly clear to me that their churches are not autonomous, as is required by the SBC constitution and bylaws.
I would not mind a President who pastors a church that has elders and does not mandate an abstinence position on alcohol, but I would mind a President that affiliates with weird groups – no matter how hip they are.
Thanks, Louis…Everyone has their ideas about what particulars are important. I would say that planting churches that are not Baptist in name or practice or affiliation would be matters that are important to some. Since participation in this ACTS 29 group would produce such churches, that might be information that some might find useful before electing a President of the Southern “BAPTIST” Convention.
This is probably not a great occasion to delve into A29 stuff but those concerned about the network can be sure that there are anti-A29 watchdogs at work in the SBC. No doubt they will weigh in on JDG.
That said, it isn’t a lead pipe cinch that A29=non-Baptist, regardless of what is offered as definitive and final. Almost never does one who makes such a statement ever offer evidence or data.
The more relevant question is this: Is Summit Church an acceptable SBC church. I know of no one who would not say it is an outstanding SBC church.
All Acts 29 churches are baptist. In fact, some Acts 29 church’s that I have been a part of have held to more historical baptist positions with more pride than a lot of the SBC churches I’ve been a part of. Especially the Acts 29 churches that are also SBC
Tyler,
With all due respect, it is not true that all Acts 29 churches are Baptist. Christ the King Presbyterian Church in NC is an Acts 29 church.
I just found at least four more Presbyterian churches that belong to the Acts 29 network.
In fact, one of the founders of Acts 29 was a Presbyterian Pastor.
Yeah John I don’t think Acts 29 has ever been exclusively Baptist. Nothing in the doctrinal distinctive and the Lausanne Covenant dictates a certain polity if view on the ordinances.
* All Acts 29 churches I’ve been a part of (Sorry about that confusion)
Yep, Acts 29 did not even begin Baptist. Mars Hill was not baptist. It pretty quickly absorbed a lot of baptist planters under it’s umbrella, likely because there were lots of calvinist young men coming out of SBTS & SEBTS who wanted to plant churches.
Acts 29 is simply a partnership that some planters turned to, many of these planters likely had even more than 2 partnerships: NAMB, Acts 29, and maybe a home church (whether baptist or not), perhaps others.
William,
I believe that a better question than “Is the Summit Church an acceptable SBC Church?” would be what kind of churches are reproduced by the Summit Church? There is a place for all types of non-denom, evangelical, Christian church starts, but I would think it would be of interest by the voting block of Baptists to know if their future President believes/supports/finances anything other than Baptist church plants. It is very easy to go to the Acts 29 site and see that new church plants are nowhere near all Baptists.
Then you do the work and share the results. So far, you’ve only semi-poisoned the waters. Facts are our friends. Let’s see some.
Our (SBC) church supports an oversees missionary with CRU (Campus crusade, formerly). They do a lot of work with the Jesus film, but also hope to start churches. These may or may not be baptistic…should our church cease this support, since it may result in non-baptist churches being started?
Or does this make our pastor automatically disqualified from serving in an SBC function?
Some of you might be interested in,
Acts 29, Alcohol, and the Southern Baptist Convention
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/06/acts-29-alcohol-and-southern-baptist.html
David R. Brumbelow
I live in the St Louis area where the Journey churches (mentioned in your post about alcohol) are scattered about. What a wonderful group of churches under the Journey name. They are reaching thousands of younger people (with a few older folks scattered in among them) with the gospel and solid bible study. I have one of my sons attending the main campus where Darin Patrick was until recently the lead pastor. One of our daughters and her husband and their children also attend there.
Thank God for The Journey churches!
Imagine that.
The video was NOT a joke.
This video is not about a “rule.” It is about a biblical admonition to anyone who desires to be an overseer.
“6 He must not be a new convert, or he might become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the Devil. 7 Furthermore, he must have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he does not fall into disgrace and the Devil’s trap.” 1 Timothy 3:1-7
Self promotion is conceit. Especially when done by a dancing rapper who IS also displaying conceit by her actions, her lyrics and her prologue ant epilogue. Much more disturbing is this woman is the wife of one of Greer’s staff pastors. If Greer endorsed this or even gave it a wink and a nod, that is sad.
This is HARSH on my part. Over the top too. However, Galatians 5:22-23 (HCSB) “22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith,[a] 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
I believed Greer was a good choice. Now, I have doubts.
-Aside from the Greer self-promotion, you make good points:
We need to move past the celebrity and personality decision toward an agenda and platform decision.
-bringing it into the sunshine.
Maybe I should delete the whole reply.
…a sense of humor works pretty well in SBC life I’ve found.
Shhhhhh… Don’t say that too loud, William–a board of deacons might hear you… O.o
J.D. Greear
Steve Gaimes
And now a third candidate for SBC president.
http://bpnews.net/46550/david-crosby-to-be-sbc-president-nominee
David R. Brumbelow
Steve Gaines, that is.
Sorry for the misspelling.
David R. Brumbelow
Related article about campaigning for SBC president.
http://baptistmessage.com/imbs-platt-denies-endorsing-greear-for-sbc-president/
David R. Brumbelow
Bit of a hit piece, stuff we’ve come to expect from the BM editor.
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2016/04/preview-of-one-component-of-2016-sbc.html
William Thornton,
You are right. It is nothing more than a “hit piece.” However, I think the hit is more toward David Platt than JD. It seems that many of my brothers are still upset with David Platt for revealing the truth about the IMB and CP money.
As to the three candidates, I think any one of those guys would be excellent in the position of SBC president. They are all proven followers of Christ, proven leaders, and proven Southern Baptists.
It is sad that some of the brothers among us have developed such an animosity toward anything Calvinistic, evenly remotely Calvinistic, or anything not in diametric opposition to Calvinism. They seem to see any thing “Calvin” as a threat to the SBC. It has become so bad that many of them would be willing to cover up or ignore blatant sin among our own ranks, but yet, become somewhat “unglued” over a rap video which in no way expresses any poor content or shameful behavior. I guess we are just living in a “tricky” time in the SBC.
We’ve grown into that time CS Lewis warned about, where we see everything the “other” side does as evil. There are people on both sides of the divide in SBC life that, it seems, would deride the other for giving cold water to those in the desert or providing shelter to widows and orphans in their distress.
There’s a cycle of this, and I’d love for the quiet mass of us to put a stop to it. Just kill it where it stands, even if that means the “other” guy gets the jobs, the prestige, the fame. We’re not fighting truth vs. error. It’s Batman v. Superman when they’re both good guys.
And Lex Luther is just laughing at us all. Both Lex the Lutheran and the real enemy.
I attempted to raise the issue of accuracy in labeling JD a “leading member” of Acts 29. I was immediately set upon by Rick Patrick. When I responded to him Norm- whoever that is- decided I was guilty of not addressing Will and therefore somehow “guilty” of the same offense I was accusing Norm of.
Here’s my final thought from the exchange. I’m never posting there again. They are a one note, one trick pony, and are completely blinded by their own agenda and desire for power.
What a fun bunch.
Plodder your article was spot on.
Man, we’ve really reached a place of extreme pettiness when we are getting upset about stuff like that. Really small.
The article made me think more of David Platt.
David R. Brumbelow
Here is why I like David Platt more now than before he became President of the IMB.
He stood up before the SBC and told the truth about finances. Many have known this for years, but David Platt had the grit and steel to state the truth and then make an effort to right the wrongs and in doing so, he did not point out when, how, or by whom the mismanagement started or grew. He just put his hand to the plow and addressed the problem. That’s leadership in my opinion. Glad he’s where he is. I support him.
And as is the case with those who do the right thing, many would punish him for it.
CB:
You are 110% correct about Dr. Platt stepping up to the plate to correct the reckless mismanagement of the IMB. The problem was a decade in the making and no one else was taking any responsible action.
I believe this whole thing is a case study in how the trustees don’t do much to step in to provide guidance and direction to keep the ship on course.
“I believe this whole thing is a case study in how the trustees don’t do much to step in to provide guidance and direction to keep the ship on course.”
Roger Simpson,
You are right as the rain. Far too often they do nothing to keep the ship on course. Some do nothing with full knowledge the ship is off course.
And sadly, some take the helm and stir the ship of course, having a private agenda or to protect a person or a cause to which they are attached. . . and in some cases, they let the ship drift off course because they are afraid it might cost them a position or influence.