Report is presented in bulletin.
16% of nominations are ethnic nominees.
Brent Hobbs moves an amendment. Replace Thom Polvogt of First Baptist Church of Katy with Johnson Ellis from Prestonwood church in Dallas.
Speaks highly of Johnson Ellis, who was born on the mission field and has been a part of mission work all his life.
Joshua Crutchfield of Texas speaks on behalf of Thom Polvogt.
The amendment fails by a large margin. I’ve never seen it work to replace a committee nominee. During the time of the CR, there was a policy put in place that you were not allowed to speak against the candidate you wanted to replace, but only for the candidate you wanted to promote. That makes replacing a candidate almost impossible.
Brent tried to mention that Thom’s pastor has been very critical of David Platt and according to policy was cut off.
Here’s the problem:
Nominations are announced in the bulletin on Tuesday morning. There no time to make a public campaign if you feel someone is wrong.
You can’t speak against a nominee, only for the replacement.
The deck is stacked. That’s the way we want it, I guess – thus it has always been.
Was that Brent Hobbs? So, was the fella from Prestonwood a Calvinist, and the man from Katy, TX not a Calvinist? Is that what that was all about, Brent? Were you going after someone like you did with Tim Rogers, last year?
Where is the unity and harmony in that? I mean, it wasn’t just Brent Hobbs…apparently a few others were lining up at the mics, along with Brent. smh
Wow!
David
David – you’re assuming – I’ll let Brent speak for himself – I have no idea why he did it but you’re making since assumptions.
It would’ve been nice to actually hear an explanation during discussion but that wasn’t allowed.
It isn’t paranoia if they really are out to get you. I guess.
Michael,
What’s that supposed to mean?
David
Is it unity and harmony to accuse a brother and condemn his assumed motivation? You asked, let him answer before you unload on supposed reasons; and can we not make every fight about Calvinism?
Michael,
Because, that’s what this really appears to be.
David
When you do that to someone…from the floor of the convention….then, you’re embarrassing and humiliating the man. To move that his name be removed….smh.
David
Appears. If he said differently would you believe him?
That’s the first time I’ve EVER heard anyone call Prestonwood a Calvinist church. From everything I’m aware of, that’s wildly inaccurate.
Tim and Randy are both traditionalists, but they are also know for their online belligerence and divisiveness. That’s why I opposed the nomination today and was ready to before Tim Rogers “withdrew” last year. Nothing to do with their views on salvation or any theological issue. I’d opposed anyone associated with the pulpit and pen crowd just as much.
I know Prestonwood is not a Calvinist Church, or at least, I don’t think it is. But, what about the fellow you were wanting to replace Provgot with? Is that man a Calvinist?
Also, there’s nothing wrong with Tim Rogers serving on a Board for one year, I believe it was. Also, you act like Randy White is a radical, wild eyed man, who is not acceptable to serve on SBC committees and boards. He is the Pastor of First Baptist, Katy, TX. I guess all of those people in Katy are just wrong about what kind of man he is? Also, Tim Rogers has been a faithful, SB Pastor of smaller Churches for years….but, he’s not eligible, either? in your opinion?
Well, Brent, I’m glad that he Messengers of the SBC shot your amendment down. And, I find it more than a little ironic that the only two people that you’ve risen to embarrass and humiliate from the convention floor have been outspoken Traditionalists….
David
Don’t care if Randy White is a traditionalist or not. Very bothered by the fact that he teaches Peter’s Pentecost sermon is not applicable to the church…
http://www.randywhiteministries.org/2014/02/13/rethinking-acts-238/
Randy White is a very Old School Dispensationalist. To use the terminology of Blaising and Bock, it appears that White is closer to the “classic dispensationalism” of 100 years ago (Scofield, Chafer) than the “revised dispensationalism” of 50 years ago (Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord). It also looks like White makes dispensationalism the focus of his preaching ministry and his church’s identity.
After looking at the article linked to, Randy White may be even more extreme than Classic Dispensationalism. He may be a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist!
Though he doesn’t explicitly say it in that article, his descriptions come very close to a 2 gospel divide.
I’ve seen that with low budget tv “bible teacher” Les Feldick who some people in my church like listening to. Feldick explicitly states Paul’s “gospel of grace” is a different gospel than Jesus’, Peter’s, John’s, etc. “gospel of the kingdom”. The former being simply believe, the latter repent, believe, and be baptized.
I count Feldick as a false teacher because he clearly violates Paul’s warnings in Galatians 1 about there being a singular gospel and anyone who says otherwise is accursed.
White might not be there, but that article walks very close to that line.
I definitely don’t like the idea of a layman from a church that preaches this kind of heresy serving as a trustee on one of our mission boards!
Yikes. Classical Dispensationalism greatly bothers me. Didn’t realize there were many still around. Hope thats not the case. As long as he affirms that OT believers are justified by faith then I’ll probably be good.
While I would disagree with some of Randy’s views, he is still a godly man, who faithfully serves his Church. To call him a heretic is extremely mean and hurtful, and it just shows us a lot of what’s wrong with the SBC, today.
C’mon. Heretic? Wouldn’t want him serving on an SBC board due to his Dispensational views? Good grief. I am really surprised that Dave Miller hasn’t come down on yall for hurling such insults, and for stirring up such strife and divisiveness.
I will guarantee that all of you disagree about something with everyone on the boards and committees. I would be shocked….absolutely shocked….if anyone in this blog room agreed completely with everyone voted on to the boards and committees.
smh
David
“…just shows us a lot of what’s wrong with the SBC, Today.”
😉
Vol, to me it’s not his dispensational views, it’s how close his views skirt to an extreme form of dispensationalism that is anti-gospel because it claims there’s more than one gospel depending on the dispensation you’re in.
In his own article he says in Acts 2 Peter was not sharing the gospel we do today and that repentance is not an imperative today.
I’m sorry, you can call it divisive all you want but I have a MAJOR problem with that in light of Acts 26:20, 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, Galatians 1:8, etc. A person starts talking about different gospels, then that is a dividing line for me.
Vol,
“While I would disagree with some of Randy’s views, he is still a godly man, who faithfully serves his Church. To call him a heretic is extremely mean and hurtful, and it just shows us a lot of what’s wrong with the SBC, today.”
I do not know Randy and you make a reasonable case for granting the benefit of graciousness and assumption of the best intentions toward a fellow pastor – – lets do the same for Brent. Deal?
Actually, I posted two comments here. Both disappeared. Dispensationalists aren’t heretics though classic views can seem a little weird to you young whippersnappers.
“classic views can seem a little weird to you young whippersnappers.”
Classic dispensationalism would have also seemed weird to Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, all 16 the century Anabaptists, and all Baptists in the world prior to the mid 19th century. Classic dispensationalism seems weird because it is weird. Historians will remember it as a bizarre aberration that was temporarily popular among American evangelicals in the 20th century.
Jeff is winning the internets so far today!
@ Jeff,
Yea, the fact that Dispensationalism is not even 200 years old bothers me as well. But like I said, as long as they (the Classical type) believe that Jews now are saved by faith in Christ, people in the OT are saved by faith, and are not part of the Free Grace movement, then we won’t have any problems! Those seem to be more characteristic of classical though. I think Dispensationalism has made good progress with Progressive Dispensationalism!
Randy White also teaches that Christians are not under the Sermon on the Mount and do not have to obey its teaching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AMPtClLXuE
“What we’ve got here is that Jesus is speaking to those under a different day. And here in our day we are living under grace…. We need to be careful to rightly divide the word of truth…. We’ll mess up if we make [the Sermon on the Mount] the standard of Christian conduct.”
In the Great Commission, Jesus says that we must be “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Randy White’s heretical teaching cuts the heart out of the Great Commission. I don’t want for our International Mission Board to have a trustee who denies the Great Commission.
It is strange that the “Traditionalists” are such big fans of the Anabaptists but also rally to defend somebody like Randy White. The Anabaptists taught that the Sermon on the Mount was at the heart of the Christian life. Randy White denies that the Sermon on the Mount is for the Christian life.
Jeff,
While I don’t agree with Randy White, he is still a good man, who loves the Lord. And, why would our disagreement on such a non-essential issue cause you to not want him to serve on a SBC board, or committee? Really, it wasn’t even him, it was someone from his Church????
Jeff, why would YOU make such a big deal out of this?
David
Vol, I can’t answer for Jeff, but I can comment for me, especially since I mentioned his theology first.
Calvinism/traditionalist, that’s non-essential; same with pre/post/a-mil, private prayer language, etc.
But… Saying Peter was not preaching the gospel as we know it in Acts 2? Saying repentance is not an imperative under the gospel as revealed through Paul? Saying we’re not obligated to obey Jesus’ teachings in the sermon on the mount because it isn’t for the church?–all that is “non-essential”???
I mean, just the repentance thing alone… Seriously?
His teaching in that is disturbing.
And, no, I would not want anyone serving on any mission board or any board of the SBC who teaches that “repentance is not an imperative.”
You bring up his ethics, nobody has questioned that. But his teaching.
And no, it’s not him but a member of his church, still usually on things like this as the pastor teaches so the church believes.
As would I, Brent.
Yeah, I don’t know for certain – but might lay bets -If I were a betting man) that Jack Graham might be a little surprised to hear that his church is a “Calvinist Church”
Tarheel and Brent,
Not Prestonwood….but, is the man that Brent wanted to put on the IMB in place of Provgot? Where does that fella stand? I’d like to know? I believe his name was Ellis….right, Brent?
David, I honestly did not ask him and have no indication whatsoever that he is a Calvinist. With his background I would be surprised if he is a Calvinist. I never thought about it until you asked and don’t care how many points he claims.
no answer?
He answered you, Vol – youe not liking his answer does not mean he did not answer.
No comment from anyone about the lack of unity and harmony that Brent Hobbs was trying to stir up?
I think we best wait for Brent to elaborate – if he desires – before all that, Vol. until then you’re making assumptions.
Brent did speak before he was cut off that Polvgot’s pastor had written that the election of Platt as SBC president was a disaster … then he was cut off. So, my guess is that Brent was opposing a trustee from the church of a pastor who clearly opposed the SBC president in writing in the past. I think that is what he meant by a desire for unity.
lol…smh
Polvgot’s Pastor is Randy White, who is an outspoken Traditionalist, who believes that Calvinists are taking over the SBC.
Tim Rogers is a Traditionalist, who believes the same thing as White, about the SBC. Hobbs was ready to speak against Rogers, last year.
David
I think Alan is right.
Vol, you are not making any sense. There were lots of “Traditionalists” on that list who did not get opposed. Whether or not Brent was right to propose an amendment in this situation, you are clearly incorrect in your accusation against him.
Isnt there a Hankins on a board? (I think it is even SBTS board? Seems like I remember that from last year – not one opposed him – not even Brent.
Brent and others opposition to Tim Rogers had nothing to do with Calvinism and you know that.
Come on, Vol.
Video of the nomination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMfBfXgCtE
One correction: The Committee on Nominations report is made available by Baptist Press 6 weeks before convention. Changes could be recommended to committee chair and sub-committee could reevaluate.
Good. Thanks for the correction.
But the deck is still stacked and I don’t like it – it does not allow for as messengers to make informed decisions – I have no idea what was going on and I’m ready 99% of other messages and it’s not fair to us as voters to not allow discussion on an amendment.
* And I’m sure that 99% of other messengers did not either.
My understanding is this was a last minute change/addition and information was not available until very recently (today or possibly yesterday).
The Committee on Nominations stated that 16% of trustee nominations for this year were ethnic minority. That is good. In my figures that I acquired by going through each name one by one (because those figures have never been available before), I got 12.5%.
One thing that has happened this year for the first time is that all of this is being reported and encouraged more clearly. That was supposed to happen after 2011, but it did not. Hopefully, with the EC report this year, the message will be sent and acted on.
So, from reports, Ronnie Floyd selected 20% ethnic minorities for the Committee on Committees this year. That committee then selected 27% ethnic minority candidates for next year’s committee on nominations. This year’s committee on nominations elected 16% ethnic minority for new trustees (though I am not sure how those numbers are figured exactly as it is a 3.5% jump from what I had, but I will trust their numbers over mine. I had nothing to work with but a name, a church name, and Google as none of that has been released before).
So, we are making progress! Ronnie Floyd has also had a very diverse program as well on stage and will tonight in his time of prayer. In 2010, not a single non-Caucasian was on the platform at the SBC meeting. Things have changed and are changing. I am glad.
Yes, thanks for keeping a light on this aspect, Alan.
Me too, Alan!
We can rejoice together!
Yes! We are approaching the numbers that quotas would require and have surpassed (27% in next year’s committee on nominations) what a quota would require.
This is being done without being forced. HUGE change from just a couple of years ago. Those changes have only really been solidified today. So, this is all very good news. Would love to see more change in entity employment in the future, but that is happening.
As someone who doesn’t spend much time on Twitter, this #the15 stuff confuses me. I thought they were a Calvinist group. But Randy White is one of the “15” and apparently no Calvinist. Are they a big tent movement of folks who speak out against the SBC “establishment” from both sides?
#the15 is based on a comment by Ed Stetzer, something about how the same 15 Calvinists got upset at him all the time. Randy White was disgruntled about some of the same issues regarding SBC leadership and Lifeway and joined the group.
I was witnessing to a Buddhist, tonight, and he told me the following joke:
What do a tin roof and a preacher have in common? They both put people to sleep.
lol. Pray for him. His name is Gary. He heard the Gospel, tonight.
Retweeted Joel Southerland (@joelsoutherland):
?#?Crossover15?: Over 3,300 volunteers knocked on over 10k doors & shared the gospel over 4900 times & saw more than 345 trust Christ ?#?sbc15?
I’d like to offer my thoughts as carefully as I know how to do.
David Platt was not my choice for IMB President, nor was he Randy White’s choice. Randy disagrees sharply with Russell Moore, while I think he was a good choice and is doing an excellent job. Sometimes Randy and I have agreed. Sometimes we have seen things differently. That makes us Baptists.
Randy has been more strident than I have been in some of what he has said. It’s not hard to imagine that a member of Randy’s church wouldn’t be David Platt’s first choice as a board member. It’s also not hard to imagine why Brent, supporting Platt, would feel an impulse to want to keep off of the board people who disagree with David Platt.
I know what it is to want to defend leaders under attack from elements in the convention. However, I think the leader who is too fragile to endure a single member of his board who disagrees with him is probably just too fragile in general.
Brent, what would you see as the key difference between (a) what you’re doing, and (b) the stifling and stiff-arming of honest and passionate dissent? If every year there are nominees who fail your test, then these people must amount to a sizable and at least somewhat influential constituency of the convention. Is it in our best interests to state that because they dissent none of them may be permitted to participate?
The occasional CBF-friendly nominee has made it through our nominations process in the very recent past. Knowing this, I still never launched campaigns to substitute nominees. I would if I thought that the majority nature of a board would swing because of the nominees, but I think it is unwise to deploy that “nuclear option” just to express one’s dislike of a single nominee who is likely to wind up a minuscule minority voice on a board. By “unwise” I don’t just mean “politically damaging”; rather, I mean that some freedom for dissent must remain in place in our convention. I, for one, do not wish to be a part of a convention in which only yes-men who would never breathe a word of criticism (or even a word of harsh criticism) of our entity heads would be eligible for convention service.
Bart,
I largely agree with you – ok I agree with you almost totally – but I also think Brent had right to express his dissent as he did…by respectfully following the rules and making a sub nomination he felt appropriate.
I also stand by my previous comment that – if we’re going to allow substitute nominees to be placed before the floor for a vote – it follows as reasonable to allow the nominatior to speak to his amendment – especially since the committee (from the Dias) – gets to not only defend their nominee but is also given carte blanch to speak to their reasoning. If we are not going to allow discussion on the sub nominee amendment – then let’s not allow sub nominees.
1. Absolutely. Brent was entirely within his rights. I would never support the idea that Brent should be unable to do what he did. I would never even allege that what Brent did was wrong in a moral sense. I have questioned the wisdom of the approach.
2. On both sides of the mighty gulf that has been fixed between Abraham’s bosom on the platform and the outer darkness of microphone #5, the only thing people can do is to argue in favor of their proposed candidate. Neither side makes any argument against the other person. I’ve never heard the committee trash the replacement nominee.
Lol – good analogy!
I not calling for trashing – but sometimes elaboration is called for – it seems unfair to not allow for it.
Here’s the other side if this. There may be someone whose actions are so egregious that he must be challenged and perhaps in such a case even the committee would reconsider.
But the hope here us that Thom (last name unspellable) will bring back good reports to his church and serve as a bridge.
Bart, apologize for not seeing this and responding sooner. I understand your questioning of the wisdom of my substitute nomination. I also feel like if you knew the whole story you might fell differently.
I’m planning a follow up post on the entire situation to answer some of the questions in this comment stream and make sure people realize why I felt it was important to oppose this particular nomination, and not only because of the church he comes from.
This is an area where the nominations process needs some adjustment. These last-minute substitute nominations (like the ones this year and last year) need to stop. The fact that they happen to result in more caustic branches of the traditionalist side receiving appointments leads me to believe there’s much more political motivation going on behind the scenes than most people realize.
I plan on working this year & doing whatever I can (in a positive, constructive fashion) to ensure there are no more Tuesday morning surprises. More to come…
Bart,
You could nominate me for the IMB board next year, and surely I would be the counterbalance to the gentleman from Randy White’s church. I love David Platt. I watched his utube sermon in tongues/ppl; and I am totally amazed that his view on the subject-identical to mine-was either unknown by the Board who hired him, or it didn’t matter to them. At either rate, I thrilled that he overturned the indefensible policies at the IMB. I would welcome an opportunity to serve on the IMB or EC board given all the positive things happening in the SBC. But, I doubt if anyone would nominate me. I’d sure love to be the Texas representative besides the other Texas IMB representative serving the IMB. If they can accept Platt’s views on tongues, surely they can accept mine.
In case anyone would like to know what Platt believes about tongues, this video should answer your questions.
http://www.radical.net/secretchurch/blog/2014/07/16/does-the-gift-of-tongues-exist-for-believers-today/
Clear, concise, convincing.
Dwight,
Since I’m not on the Committee on Nominations, Dwight, I don’t face that choice! So, instead I can simply promise you that I would not be leading any effort from the floor to derail any nomination you received.
Bart,
Thanks. I am so thrilled with recent developments in SBC life. Ronnie Floyd’s 20% minority nominations to the committee on nominations was simply much more than I would have ever expected.If ever nominated ,, I believe I’d be willing to serve. I haven’t felt this way in quite sometime.
Has anyone noticed that some bloggers use the word “heresy” way too often and way too loosely?
Who are those premillennial “heretics?”
Men like:
Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, W. A. Criswell, Robert G. Lee, Jimmy Draper, H. A. Ironside, John R. Rice, R. L. Sumner, Warren Wiersbe, J. Vernon McGee, Jerry Falwell, Robert Jeffress, John Walvoord, John Phillips, Charles Ryrie, C. I. Scofield, John MacArthur, Billy Graham, Charles Spurgeon, Adrian Rogers…
David R. Brumbelow
I am very opinionated as everyone here knows – but you’re right – use of the H word is used way too often.
To be fair though, I’m not sure that anyone has called the eschatology of the men you named heresy. There’s been comments about some extreme versions of dispensationalism though that promotes another gospel – not sure any of those men mentioned in the post I’m referring to fall into that category.
Additionally – i am not sure one to be dispensational to hold to premillennialism.
Agreed. In no way is Premillennialism heresy, and no one on this site has said so, but I’m assuming you saw this elsewhere. However, I would not fellowship with someone who was a part of the Free Grace movement or believed that Jews are not saved by faith in Christ which seems to characterize early classical Dispys along with some extreme ones today. But ultimately I think you are right. To call Premillennials heretics, or to refer to Postmillennialism as a form of humanism (as Randy White has said) seems way to strong. I think we need to be careful about our rhetoric.
“3:12 p.m. — The Committee on Nominations report was adopted after a proposed amendment was rejected by messengers.
Messenger Brent Hobbs of Virginia proposed an amendment to the report, asking to replace IMB trustee nominee Tom Polvogt of First Baptist Church in Katy, Texas, with Johnson Ellis of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas. The Committee on Nominations responded that Polvogt embodies Floyd’s vision of equipping ordinary Christians to carry out the work of the Great Commission and that his church gives 10 percent of undesignated receipts through CP. The amendment failed.”
http://bpnews.net/44941/2015-sbc-blog–updated-regularly
David R. Brumbelow
All True – but that synopsis omits Brent’s nomination speech which highlighted how Mr. Ellis’ missionary credentials also qualified him and that he’d further Dr. Floyds vision as well.
Prestonwood percentage contribution was not reported.
Brent,
Given your replacement challenge strategy over the past two years, regarding Tim Rogers and a member of Randy White’s church, I’d like to seek your pre-approval. either for myself or for a nominee from my church.
We give 9% through CP, about $25,000 for Lottie and $15,000 for Annie. We use almost exclusively LifeWay resources. We support our local association with 2% undesignated receipts. Since my arrival at the church, we have adopted the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as our confessional statement.
Someone approached me this year and brought up the possibility of a trustee board nomination. I did not feel led to pursue that course and allow my name to go forward. But if it SHOULD happen, how about it, Brent?
Would you go to the microphone and substitute someone for me? Personally, I would rather know in advance that a brother was planning to attempt to derail my nomination by publicly endorsing someone in my place, while not substituting a candidate for any of the other places. That pretty well would single me out, right?
What I’m really asking is: “Do I pass the Brent Hobbs test?”
Rick, honest answer: I ignore most of what you write so I’d have to do some research. If you were on the published slate 6 weeks ahead of time rather than a last-minute sub, I’d be more inclined to give my “approval”, for whatever that’s worth. I would also consider what board you would be appointed to. If its an entity you’ve been especially publicly critical of, that would increase the chances I’d oppose it.
If you’ve said David Platt was a disaster at the IMB or Ezell at NAMB, good chance I’d oppose your election to either of those boards. If you’ve accused Lifeway of “peddling heresy” (I don’t think you have, just using an example here), I would oppose you as a Lifeway trustee.
My initial reaction is that I wouldn’t oppose your nomination, but that could change depending on circumstances.
Just to be clear…it’s okay to be critical of an organization, right? I mean, since you mention it, both Platt and Ezell had concerns with Annie Armstrong and with the CP when they were Pastors. They were placed in leadership positions, and they are now very supportive of these goals.
When someone runs for office, and they are not an incumbent, I don’t think it’s wrong for them to articulate the areas they think need work…to announce their agenda. Actually, I prefer that they do so.
I guess what I’m saying is that it should not be an automatic disqualifier if a person has made negative comments about the direction of an organization. Maybe the board needs to listen to some of their concerns and be more responsive. Nicely worded criticism can be helpful.
Perhaps we should consider that the Committee on Nominations may have prayerfully acknowledged that a certain board could use someone unafraid to say, “Wait a minute, guys, I don’t feel comfortable with this because….” If all the trustees stay silent pretty much all the time, where is the accountability in that?
Not speaking for Brent here, but there is a difference in “criticizing” an entity or its head or a “nicely worded criticism” and caustic attacks like calling the appointment a “disaster”, and/or accusing them of being part of some conspiratorial takeover and vowing to stop them , perhaps even going as far propagating outright lies (even if they are phrased as questions) about policy changes so as to to further an agenda against an entity head.
Let me be clear…I am not saying that you are doing those things – I am simply highlighting that sometimes ones “criticism” is certainly a lot different the constructive kind….
Thanks Tarheel. Nothing more need be added.
Rick, you would have my full support bro. By the way, I am with Bart in that I supported Moore, and still do. But I did not support Platt. But Platt is our IMB prez and I do pray for God’s leadership and wisdom in his life. I am intrigued with his idea of differing levels of participation among IMB missionaries. I am evaluating.
Concerning Brent, last year he swore to me and David that while he opposed Rogers, he would never openly criticize him from the floor as he understood that the rules were to speak exclusively for the candidate, not against the one nominated. Since he never got the chance to do so, I took him at his word. This year, as Dr. Floyd reiterated to Brent that he was to speak for his candidate, Brent decides to speak derisively against Randy White from the floor. I am thankful for Dr. Floyd from cutting Brent off. This type of mudslinging may belong on the blogosphere or social media, but it does not belong not he floor of the Convention. Seeing that Brent attempted to smear a fellow SBC pastor on the floor of the convention after being reminded to speak for his candidate and fully knowing the rules of proper decorum, I am only to conclude that either this was a lapse of judgment by a good man, or that his word to me and David the previous year was not totally solid. Either way, it is things like this as to why I stopped blogging and ceased being involved in the conversation of the SBC.
Mr. Foster,
One might say that the innuendo and implication of being a liar you just directed towards Brent’s character just might be a smear of a fellow pastor….
just saying….
Mr. Tar Heel
I don’t make innuendos. I, using facts, stated two possibilities and in doing so, I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt.
“””it is things like this as to why I stopped blogging and ceased being involved in the conversation of the SBC.”””
Isn’t this a blog? By your own criteria would we have to suspect your word is “not solid?”
I don’t know what was in Brent’s heart, nor anybody else for that matter. It seems the door of decorum swings both ways.
Brent promises that a blog post on his action is forthcoming. I’ll be interested to hear what he has to say about all of this.
Robin, you’re mistaken as to what I said. Last year I told you that I did not intend to read Tim’s notorious tweet from the floor because of the rule. That’s a far cry from the characterization you’ve laid out in your comment.
Brent, last year, according to you as you spoke to David Worley and me, you were told you were not to defame or speak against another person from the floor of the convention. You told both David and I because of that you were not going to speak against Tim. But regardless of that, using your account from the year before, you still spoke against another pastor mentioning his tweet! The very thing, according to your testimony, you said you would not do the year before because of the rule. You were even reminded by Bro. Ronnie to speak “for your candidate.” Yet you still defamed another pastor who was not there to defend himself to get at another person who was nominated for the position. Not trying to create a war here, but brother things don’t seem to quite add up.
Brent,
From what I remember, you were going to speak out about Tim Rogers from the convention floor, until you were told that those things were not going to be allowed. You were told that defaming another Messenger from the floor would not be allowed. That Fred Luter would stop you, if you tried to go thru with it. Robin is telling the truth.
And yet, it did appear that you were ready to say some things about Randy White and 1st Katy. In fact, you were already starting your speech against them, until Ronnie Floyd stopped you.
Brent, I really can’t understand you being willing to do these things to 2 Brothers in Christ, who have faithfully served in SB Churches for years. I know you don’t agree with them on some non-essential matters. And, you might not like some of the things that they’ve said, in the past. But, I really think you’re wrong…very wrong…to be doing these things, every year. Who will it be, next year, Brent? What Non-Calvinist will you try to replace, next year?
C’mon, Brent. End this. This is the kind of stuff that stirs up so much thoughts and feelings that the Calvinists are trying to take over the SBC, and they will not really include any Non-Calvinists when they’ve got the power and control. This is the very thing that makes many of us so upset about aggressive, militant Calvinists.
David
Guys, I get the narrative… Mean ole’ Brent Hobbs is out to embarrass us all because we’re not Calvinists. It’s just not true.
Randy’s tweet was pertinent to the nomination. Tim’s merely showed that he was unfit to serve in ANY leadership role whatever.
I didn’t say anything bad about Randy, I just let people know his opinion of Platt. Which is pretty relevant information in this situation.
You guys have been involved/known about this underhanded tactic of naming nominees AFTER the public report is released weeks earlier. It’s wrong and you’re not going to paint me into the corner of being some angry Calvinist when it’s really your backroom dealing that’s made both of these situations come up in the first place.
Brent, I hope your post is coming soon. It sounds like you have information that is not being presented here. I look forward to hearing it.
Underhanded, back room dealing? C’mon, Brent.
Maybe you don’t know how the committee works. After the people are all picked at earlier meetings, and then the report is released to the public, then some people, who were picked, move to another state, or get too sick to serve, or die. Then, the committee meets right at the time for the SBC to fill in these spots. So, there’s no way to report the new people, until time for the SBC.
Brent, no one was trying to “sneak” these men through. No one was trying to “fool” the SBC. No one was trying to slide these men in, under the radar. These people were picked later, because people from their states had to decline to serve for one reason, or another.
So, I think you’re seeing the boogeyman, here, when there aint one.
David
PS. I don’t want to go to war over this. I don’t want to hash this over and over. And really, I don’t even want to talk about it, anymore. But, please stop going after Traditionalists, every year. It really makes it look like you are targeting Traditionalists….with you being a Calvinist.
Mr. Foster,
“I don’t make innuendos. I, using facts, stated two possibilities.”
Might it also be said that Brent did the same thing – He using facts – stated the reality of a certain bias.
Yet, you have stated that “he is not being consistent to what you claim he said to you (Brent offered another perspective, BTW), which in most conversations is tantamount to calling someone a liar – same with phrases like “things don’t add up” regarding Brent….and you have tried to paint him into a corner….he is a fellow pastor – yet you seem OK in smearing his character.
Frankly, you are not even lining yourself up with your expectations of Brent. Again, just sayin’
I, like Todd, look forward to Brent’s upcoming post.
Vol,
” But, please stop going after Traditionalists, every year. It really makes it look like you are targeting Traditionalists….with you being a Calvinist.”
So do you feel the same when “traditionalists” go after Cals every chance they get – which is at the heart pf this matter actually…as Rev. White has done that and viciously so….How about when Trads write on other blogs incessantly about Cal takeover and the like…are they in your mind disqualified form expressing concern because it might “look like they are after Cals”?
Have you spoken out against Trads who speak out against Cals?
Where is your concern there?
“You guys have been involved/known about this underhanded tactic of naming nominees AFTER the public report is released weeks earlier.”
And Brent, I am sure you have evidence of me being involved in underhanded tactics. Maybe 6 years ago, but since then I repented of any backroom tactics. I am a nobody in the convention. I wasn’t even at this years convention! I did watch it via live streaming, but no influence from me. If there is any backhanded tactics, I believe that Tim Rogers can speak as a victim of that last year.
To me you are not a mean ol’ calvinist. To me you seemed like a pretty nice fella when we ate dinner last year with Miller and McKissic. I am hoping and praying that you mentioning Bro. Randy’s tweet was a lapse in judgment and that in the future if you object to anyone being nominated that you will not break decorum and the rules by defaming someone from the floor of the convention. You have every right to nominate someone in the place of someone else. But I, along with Dr. Floyd and proper protocol, do not believe anyone has the right to get on the convention floor and seemingly impugn anyone’s name. That’s all. I wish you the Lord’s blessings in your ministry.
Plus, Brent says Cal/Trad has nothing to do with this….for you and Mr. Foster to continue to call him a liar after he has so stated – could be considered a smear against a fellow pastor.
Tarheel,
Did any Traditionalist try to replace a Calvinist from a board or committee?
I don’t remember that happening.
David
Mr. Tarheel
You miss the point all together. If I was on the floor of the convention and saw Brent’s name as a trustee candidate, I would not impugn his name from the floor since that is against proper protocol. Frankly, under current conditions, I would’t even think about finding someone to replace him. Let him serve. But you deflect off the issue and try to claim that I am not following my own rules. Instead of defending Brent, you attack me setting parameters that I never claimed one should follow in the comment section of a post. Even after Worley came and substantiated my account of things, your focus is on some mystery rules you claim I have set. I stated facts, period. You seem to ignore them and go after the messenger. That seems to break the rules of logic, rhetoric and truth. Believe what you want and use me as a straw man to defend Brent if you will so that you won’t have to deal with the facts, but in the end as I have said before, God is the ultimate judge. With that I rest.
Vol,
Rev. White being part of “the 15” and such a public opponent of Dr. Platt is disturbing to me. Sure we do not want a bunch of yes men – but geez we do not need antagonists either.
Tim Rogers, well – I do not think we need to rehash that one.
Also, in order for your argument to hold water (that Brent is simply opposing non cals) the nominees that replaced Tim and that guy from TX with the hard to spell last name were Cals…do you know that to be case? It would seem to me that if the suggestions Brent offered were not Cals – your argument falls apart.
Mr. Foster,
“If I was on the floor of the convention and saw Brent’s name as a trustee candidate, I would not impugn his name from the floor since that is against proper protocol”
Please share how Brent impugned the name of anyone by simply stating what was written by an individual? If stating what is written, so long as it is not out of context, is impugning….it would seem that the individual who wrote it impugned themselves and Bret merely brought it to light.
Also, you stated that impugning a brother and fellow pastor is wrong….yet you Vol and are doing that repeatedly with Brent.
“””not want him to serve on a SBC board, or committee?”””
How long has he been a Southern Baptist?
Shouldn’t that at least have some consideration?
“How long has he been a Southern Baptist? Shouldn’t that at least have some consideration?”
The liberals in the SBC used to say the same thing.
I was actually thinking about someone else.
But, I do think that “some amount” of time would seem appropriate in order to establish a track record. I suggesting that should be a “part of the equation,” not necessarily the whole of it.
Jack
I agree. Being an old timer I lived the CR and was in full support of it. A track record is not a “liberal” or CR issue. It seems to me to simply be good idea.