I’ve been working on this concept since long before JD Greear announced, so this has nothing to do with an analysis of his candidacy. I want to take a brief moment to set forth the rubric I’m going to use to judge the candidate or candidates for president of the SBC. It’s a tricky thing. It’s not a secret that last time around I put my support behind Dennis Kim and advocated him strongly. We fell short and Ronnie Floyd was elected. I am not sorry we promoted Dr. Kim – he is a good man and well worthy of our support – but I’ve come to be grateful that Ronnie Floyd was elected. He’s been as good an SBC president as we have had in the years I’ve been attending (and I’m an old codger, folks). That doesn’t mean that I’ve agreed with everything he’s said or done. For crying out loud, I don’t agree with everything I’ve said or done! But he’s represented us well.
Now, it’s time to pick a replacement. It’s always hard to know who the right man is for the job. But I do have some standards that I’ve developed over the years. Some I’ve worked out on my own, others I’ve come to believe in conversations with others. Here’s what I consider to be important.
1. The president must be confessionally Baptist.
That isn’t too hard. He must adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement in his life and teaching. My first SBC Annual Meeting was 1979 in Houston. Yep, that one. I am a Conservative Resurgence Baptist. I said it then and I say it now, what we did was necessary and right. The way it was done was often not as good. We made some errors in the conduct of the war that scarred the convention. But the war was fought and won and thank God! I have no desire to re-fight that war. If you don’t agree with our BF&M, God bless you. It’s not a perfect document. But it is our confession and if you don’t support it, I’m not going to vote for you to lead us. If you receive people in your church membership who aren’t immersed, bless your heart! You don’t answer to me, that is your church’s decision. But I’m not voting for you. If you deny congregational government, the priesthood of believers, inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, or any of our other doctrines or practices spelled out in our confession, you may be a wonderful Christian, but you aren’t getting my vote for president.
2. The president must be cooperative in missions.
I wish I had a number. CP. GCG. It’s more of an art than a science in determining this, but if you are going to be president of our convention you ought to be plugged in and passionate about cooperating in our convention. Again, you can be a perfectly good, God-honoring pastor and church if you do missions in another way. The CP isn’t the only way. But it is OUR way and if you want to be the president of the convention I want to see a proven track record not only of your church giving to missions but being active in denominational life. Again, I don’t have an exact number to use here.
Back in 2006, this became a big deal. Ronnie Floyd was running the first time and his church’s CP giving was “dollar high, percentage low.” It became an issue and a lesser known candidate named Frank Page, whose church was at or above the 10% CP threshold found himself elected (Praise God from whom all blessing flow!). Ronnie went back, led the GCR, and led his church to change the way they did things. They don’t have the highest percentage, but they are if not the highest, among the highest givers to missions through the CP now. Well done, Ronnie.
3. The president must be constitutional in his approach.
I just realized I have 3 words starting with c. Now I’m going to have to work to use alliteration on the rest! Drat!
The president of the SBC is not tasked with forming study groups to redesign the SBC or any of the other things recent men have often done. He is supposed to moderate the meetings, work for the messengers to help them get their business transacted, be a positive representative of the SBC, and he is to appoint certain committees. The key work that a president does is appoint his committee on committees. The other things they do are often forgotten when they leave office, but when a man makes solid appointments, he can impact the denomination for a decade. He appoints the committee on committees which then nominates the committee on nominations the next year. That committee then nominates trustees who can serve up to two 4-year terms. So, when a president has been out of office many years, the trustees who were nominated by the nominating committee nominated by the committee appointed by him is still serving! Confusing? Maybe. But the fact is that if a president simply takes his constitutional duties seriously he can do more than if he’s running around the country promoting task forces, name changes, or other such things.
4. The president must be careful and consistent in appointments.
There! I got two c-words in one!
This is difficult, because he doesn’t nominate the trustees, but only appoints a committee that nominates the nominating committee. But if he chooses carefully men and women who share his vision, who will choose a committee on nominations that share his vision, they can nominate trustees who share that vision. What is it I’d like to see?
- Greater racial and ethnic diversity in appointments. Great progress has been made here, but let’s keep it going.
- Greater emphasis on small and medium church appointments. Too many trustees have been recycled from board to board and little church get no representation.
- Careful emphasis on confessional fidelity in appointments. No one should be a trustee who does not hold to our confession.
If we learned anything in the 80s and 90s, folks, it’s that the trustee process is where it all happens!
5. The president must be a Calvinism non-combatant.
I don’t care if the president is a 5-pointer or a 1-pointer, if he’s signed the Abstract or the Traditionalist document or the Remonstrance. (Side note: was doing my family genealogy, and found that one of my wife’s ancestors was a signatory to the Remonstrance!) What I do care about is that the president is not now and has not for some time been a part of the Calvinism wars in the SBC. The SBC has always been a Calvinist and n0n-Calvinist denomination. Sometimes one stream flowed stronger. In my early years, the Calvinism stream was weak and it has definitely gained strength. If someone is in it to advance Calvinism, I’m not interested. If someone is in it to stop Calvinism, I’m not interested.
I believe that the vast majority of people just want to do ministry, missions, and don’t care that much about Calvinism unless someone is pushing it or fighting against it.
6. The president must be conciliatory.
That one I stretched for, but the president needs to be a person who emphasizes the “us,” not the “us against them.” The SBC is seriously splintered and has a tendency to divide into factions and the president must be someone who seeks to bring disparate factions together, not someone who chooses a side and seeks to help that side win. When Frank Page was elected, there was some disquiet on the Calvinist side because he had written a book against Calvinist views. But they realized pretty quickly that even though he did not agree with the doctrine, he was a friend, not an enemy. The same thing happened when Johnny Hunt was elected. There are so many factions – young vs old, contemporary style vs traditionalist style, megachurch vs smaller church, Deep South vs New Work. The list is long. It is in our human nature to magnify these divisions and to fracture. But a president must rise above this and seek to call us to our higher task.
I believe you hit all the pertinent points for me.
That shows what a man of wisdom you are. Agreeing with me is always a sign of high intellect and judgment.
Agreed. This was really well thought out.
Excellent list, Dave. You’ve nailed here the same things I would like to see in a presidential candidate.
I’d add one more option to the bottom of the list, not make-or-break, but would help in all areas of spiritual maturity amount our convention. If the candidate were a fan of a team from some conference besides the SEC, he may well be the ideal man for the job.
Well, honestly, that is a pipe dream. One day we will get non-SEC SBC presidents.
Non-ACC as well would be preferable.
Dave,
I actually like many of these. A few questions though:
1. CONFESSIONALLY BAPTIST: “If you deny…[BFM doctrines] you may be a wonderful Christian, but you aren’t getting my vote for president.” What about Communion? The BFM is CLOSE or CLOSED—not OPEN, like the majority of our SBC churches. Do you make an exception here or not?
2. CALVINISM NON-COMBATANT: “If someone is in it to advance Calvinism, I’m not interested. If someone is in it to stop Calvinism, I’m not interested.” What if someone does not wish to *stop* Calvinism, but to *proportionalize* the involvement and promotion of speakers, authors, leaders, initiatives, publications and conferences in SBC life so that our broad Calvinist-Traditionalist spectrum more accurately represents the perspectives of the people in our pews? I personally do not see this as *combatant* in the least, but rather as *working together to fairly represent, in proper measure, all of the theological perspectives found in the SBC as we work together in the convention.*
I think that issue has been dealt with in such a way as to make it clear that those positions do not exclude participation.
Rick, Dave or anyone else: I would be interested in your teasing out the exception for open communion. If one is to “adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement in his life and teaching”, why this one exception? Is it because many don’t think restricted communion is intended, or just isn’t a majority practice? (I’d say most SBC churches I know are either open communion or only loosely restricted.) In your thinking, what allows for this exception without starting to make exceptions in other areas? Thanks.
*By “loosely restricted” I mean churches that say they require baptism as a prerequisite for communion, but don’t really make any attempt to apply it when observing communion (that is, observe communion with no reference to this prerequisite).
Robert, your questions are spot-on. At the beginning of person’s first term as a trustee to one of our entities they have to sign a document supporting the 2000 BF&M. I have no idea how someone can sign such a document and not believe in closed communion and baptism after salvation by immersion. While the BF&M is written broadly as to allow more than one orthodox belief on many subjects, on these two it is written narrowly, very narrowly, if one can use such a term.
I have been told the BF&M is descriptive and not prescriptive of what we believe. When it comes to entity leadership and trustees I am sure most SB believe it is prescriptive at that point.
Robert Vaughn,
I see you caught that also. The declaration that “The BFM is CLOSE or CLOSED—not OPEN, like the majority of our SBC churches.”
It is my personal opinion that when an individual makes such a strict declaration, he or she is reveling roots of Landmark theology or even Primitive Baptist theology in their background rather than a defensible position strictly founded upon a historical Baptist identity.
CB, I’m not sure exactly of your meaning in regard to Rick’s statement, but it seems to me that the idea of baptism as a prerequisite to communion has a long-standing history among Baptists. For examples:
Smyth’s Short Confession of 1610: “The Holy Supper, according to the institution of Christ, is to be administered to the baptized…”
1646 London Confession: “…disciples; who upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord’s Supper.”
But ultimately my question is for those who understand No. 7 of the BFM to mean restricted communion* (it seems to me that it does), what is the reasoning for making an exception on this point? Probably an exception wouldn’t be made on the first half of the ordinance statement, baptism by immersion.
“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
Thanks.
* To clarify, I am using restricted communion in reference to the BFM to mean requiring baptism and church membership (any church membership, not necessarily in the one observing the ordinance) before one is eligible to observe the Lord’s Supper.
I have an unclear antecedent in the above sentence. The “like the majority of the convention refers to the word “Open.”
The BFM is close or closed. The majority of the convention is Open. So says a Lifeway study a few years ago. Our church is Open. I think slightly more than half are open, if I recall.
Robert Vaughn,
I do not (nor do I think Rick Patrick would disagree) disagree with you and all of Baptist history that Baptism is prerequisite to participating in the Lord’s Supper.
The terms “Open” or “Close” or “Closed” is about local church membership in my understanding. The issue of participation being by baptized individuals was not in my reference.
Rick, CB, thanks for the clarifications. Rick, I took you to mean that the majority of SBC churches practice open communion, but then wasn’t sure if CB was saying you meant something else. (When I wrote most SBC churches I know are open communion, I only meant churches whose communion practices I was personally familiar with and wasn’t thinking about the Lifeway survey, which you called to mind.)
The terms “Open” or “Close” or “Closed” are quite slippery, in my opinion — that is, they mean different things to different people. Roughly I think the way they are used in this area most often are “Open” = any believers, “Close” = restricted to baptized believers, and, for some, baptized believers who are members of some church, and “Closed” = baptized believers who are members of the church observing the ordinance.
Back to the BF&M statement, to me it seems that it is “open” to two interpretations: (1) that baptism and church membership are prerequisite to communion or (2) baptism is prerequisite to both church membership and communion, but church membership is not necessarily prerequisite to communion. I think the latter is probably what was intended by the writers. But I don’t see any way that “Open” in the sense of all believers whether or not they are baptized can be understood by the wording.
As to Calvinism, well, I guess that’s going to remain in the eye of the beholder.
My point is that if someone is a Calvinism combatant, pro or con, I’m not interested in their candidacy. Anyone else is free to vote their conscience, but I really believe that there is a Calvo-weariness that has taken over many. We are willing to work side by side in cooperation with other BF&M-faithful folks and have no desire to divide everyone up into soteriological camps and seek quotas and such.
Okay…but just remember, one person’s “quota” is another person’s “fairness and balance.” We do all support ethnic balance in the SBC. Why not geographic balance (which was mentioned above in terms of College Conference locations), church size balance (for Andy Stanley’s benefit), gender balance (for trustee positions), and yes, theological stream balance? As long as we’re trying to be inclusive, can’t we just work a little bit harder at including people whose views on soteriology and ecclesiology are more like the prevailing positions at SWBTS and NOBTS than at SBTS, MBTS and SEBTS?
I think this can be done WITHOUT quotas, WITHOUT dividing everyone up, and WITHOUT disunity. But a good faith effort needs to be made here, IMO.
Other than that, this is a pretty good list.
Rick, we agree that there should be a broad spectrum of positions represented at all levels of the SBC. You just keep using the word “proportionality” in addition to that call. That’s where I would take issue. No one knows what “proportion” of SBC people are represented in the different theological streams. I know you and your group would claim to represent the majority. Others would disagree. Surveys have been taken, but even they have been dismissed by one or both sides (I am referring specifically to the Lifeway survey that used to get thrown around here occasionally but I am sure there are others)
Here’s my question for you. Would 50/50 be acceptable to you? If for every Traditionalist speaker on the docket there was a Calvinist would that be satisfactory? And the same for boards, curriculum teams, etc down the line?
If so, my follow up question to you would be, who gets to determine which team a speaker is on? Is it based on what they call themselves? What the opposite team calls them?
I am honestly asking for clarifcation.
In my scenario, those details would all be worked out in a prayerful spirit as godly men from both sides meet to explore the issue, gather evidence and propose effective solutions for including all Southern Baptists, rather than leaving a good many feeling marginalized.
Do you have evidence that in the appointment of trustees, SWBTS, NOBTS, etc have been left out?
The president is only responsible for the appointment of those, not for entity search committees, of course. I’ve not analyzed the entity appointments, but are you alleging preferential treatment and bias by recent presidents, committees on committees, and committees on nominations?
I’m not alleging intent on anyone’s part, only outcomes.
But I think these autonomous entity Search Teams need more awareness. The entities themselves represent the convention, so it’s not quite, “Anthing goes.” The last four presidents of entities are Ezell, Moore, Allen and Platt. I’m just saying we need to balance this a bit.
As for evidence, every time I write an entity I either get no hard data.
So let’s try this with our right brains and not our left. The convention “feels” more Calvinistic than even five years ago, and much more than ten.
It’s not that we don’t have any Trads. It’s that they never speak on the platform, talk on the panels or sell books in the exhibit hall. It “feels” like we have been shut out.
The Pastor’s Conference plugged 4 books–three by Calvinists. The Send Conference speakers were nearly all Calvinists.
It may not be intentional but I think some Trads feel a little like those missionaries coming home. The SBC doesn’t need us anymore. The SBC doesn’t want us anymore. Let’s just move aside for the young reformed guys. It’s their convention now.
Anyway, my initial question was is this considered combative? I don’t feel like I’m fighting here. It’s more a feeling of resignation and being marginalized.
Rick Patrick,
What about integrity? Do you think that integrity among those appointed as trustees of SBC affiliated entities should be a priority qualification?
Well, of course. No one favors lack of integrity. I have called for a managerial audit of the trustee selection process: http://sbctoday.com/unity-through-transparency-agenda/.
Well, that’s good, Rick.
Let me ask you another question:
Would you rather have a Calvinist trustee who has integrity serving on a Baptist entity board or a Non-Calvinist trustee without integrity serving a Baptist entity board?
Sorry, dude. Fortunately, I think we can line up a complimentary mug for your trouble
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlqY_6Xmcw5M7GGJ9b9-iLUHRTTj7TWNGRYdzC4oW0bVZnfbE-
I will chip in
“Would you rather have a Calvinist trustee who has integrity serving on a Baptist entity board or a Non-Calvinist trustee without integrity serving a Baptist entity board?”
Such a great question CB. And Visa Versa. Seriously, you are quickly becoming my favorite commentor 🙂
CB has posed a false dilemma. In the four-option matrix that his scenario presents, we have (a) Calvinist-Integrity
(b) Traditionalist-Integrity
(c) Calvinist-NoIntegrity
(d) Traditionalist-NoIntegrity.
One might suppose my preference to be B, A, D, C. This would answer CB’s question in the affirmative.
But it is more complex than that. In no case would I prefer C or D. I only want A or B.
And sometimes, believe it or not, depending on the existing composition of the board, I would favor the Calvinist. This would occur any time a board was so dominated by Trads that there was not representative Cal participation on that board.
My goal is not simply Trads over Cals. It is Trads and Cals together in proper measure.
Adam,
I’ve got a coffee cup:
?oh=0dd14c85664c004ead9c368ef27c83e2&oe=5790C3C3
OK, Rick,
There was nothing false in the first dilemma for it was directed to a specific narrowing of options. You sought to broaden it in avoidance of an answer that might have actual history involved.
So, let’s do it this way. Would you support trustees and administrators of a Baptist entity whose integrity has been proven to be lacking in order to protect a cause that you favor? Or, would you support such in order to gain favor of individuals of power within the cause of which you desire more personal power yourself?
In terms of theoretical logic it can be termed a false dilemma; BUT, we are often faced with such dilemmas in our real life decisions.
CB,
If you are trying to talk about a specific board that accepted a resignation without disclosing a scandal, that’s probably not a
conversation we need to have on this board. You can reach me at my church email address.
And by the way, the “false dilemma” I mentioned was in the sense of “presenting only two options when there are certainly more than that.”
I broadened it, not in reference to the “history” that I now suspect you are bringing up, but rather because I thought it should be broadened. There are always better options than selecting board members without integrity—especially if you know they lack integrity at the time they are chosen.
Adam G, here’s something to put in your mug:
http://www.calvinus.ch/flash2/calvinus_site.html
Yep, the SBC ain’t what it used to be!
Rick,
Actually, I am in reference to you and your written support of a scandal, but I think you are right. This is not a conversation you and I should have on this board. It should be a person to person conversation and that is what has bothered me so much about you for the last year, Rick.
Why did you not have a person to person conversation with me before you wrote the hit-piece last year carrying the water of the indefensible?
I have been able to see no other reason for your actions, and those of others we both know, other than a desire for self-promotion among the powers that you believe may advance you upward.
So yeah, let’s talk. I look forward to it, but we both know you should have made contact with me a year ago, don’t we?
Is this the same Rick Patrick that days ago touted, promoted and defended a ‘unity through transparency’ agenda for the SBC? Now transparency is in the process of being limited?
Your own calls for a quota (er, parity) system turns on TRUSTEE transparency. You also called for a trustee “audit” whatever that means. Since almost all SBC failures are at root and ultimately trustee failures, why stonewall this transparency. If they fail let those who pay the bills be informed. Maybe we could make better choices next time.
Fact is, transparency was brought to some recent colossal failures but not by trustees. It took independent, concerned voices to bring a little light.
Rick Patrick’s SBC is beginning to sound like the old SBC, just with a lot of Calvinists shoved to the sideline.
William,
Yes on all counts. Which is why his site is loaded with commenters who are bitter about the CR.
I have said for years it’s all about power. Who has it and who doesn’t.
I would add that an SBC president should be consistently evangelistic and have a love for the lost.
He should properly, ethically, biblically present God’s plan of salvation.
He doesn’t have to be number one in evangelism.
But he should be someone who is an example of an evangelistic church and pastor.
David R. Brumbelow
I don’t have a problem with that. It’s part of our confession to believe in and proclaim the gospel to the lost. You can’t be a confessional Baptist.
Now, if you are trying to sneak a Calvinism kerfuffle in the back door, then I’m not playing that game. If you are hinting at a “he has to have an invitation at the end of the sermon” or “he has to like the sinner’s prayer” – that’s more about methodology than it is theology.
So, if you will be plain, I can respond.
We ought not elect someone who does not proclaim Christ – crucified and risen – as the only hope of the world. Amen.
In other words, if you want to define “evangelistic pastor” as “he uses MY evangelistic methods” then I’m not going there.
I wonder how long it will be before someone brings up Greear’s book “Stop Asking Jesus into your heart” as a proof text against him. I liked the book, and thought he makes excellent points. But the title will prove to be too much for some people.
It was already brought up in a previous thread by someone reacting to the title who had not actually read the book. The poster indicated, after some cajoling, that he would read the book.
That’s what I am expecting to see as the offense against Greear. People using he title, rather than the substance, of the book to bash him. Which will be funny, since one of the biggest heroes of the “Traditionalist” movement actually endorses the book.
Again, I’d much rather this be impersonal and theoretical than specific and personal.
If you don’t want specific and personal then you’re on the wrong internet.
I would find myself in agreement on all of the above–though guarding against the “us vs. them” mindset is likely one of the harder ones. Automatically, someone is going to be in one “us” and not in another, and can we as Southern Baptists come around to trusting that someone who is not “us,” be it small church (not likely to ever be SBC president) or new work (probably not for another couple of cycles), will still be a good president for the all of us that are Southern Baptists.
I have hopes that the SBC will accept the BFM as a sufficient baseline for cooperation, and that our leadership will find it sufficient for who they would appoint rather than introducing additional tests of either mega-ness or pointy-ness or anything else besides a strong adherence to the Word of God.
Whatever happens, though, I’m looking forward to St. Louis. I want to be part of whatever it is we do going forward as the SBC. Let’s unite around Jesus and His Word, and make the proclamation of Him what drives us.
Barring all that, I’ll take an SBC president that advocates for donuts and bacon and
againstFORAGAINST the Designated HitterabominationIMPROVEMENTABOMINATION.(Hey Doug, it’s Dave. You evidently had some mistakes in here. I don’t normally do this, but went in and changed this comment for you.)
(Hey Dave and Doug, it’s Bart. As it turns out, I’ve got editing privileges on this site, too. Go Cardinals.)
We’ll see about all that while the convention meets in…..St. Louis, where pitchers are still treated like baseball players instead of one-trick ponies.
It is good in the sense that if you have to go to the bathroom or something, you can go when the pitcher is hitting instead of watching him strike out or ground out weakly to short stop.
Dave,
Well said. As one who has witnessed…and participated…in some of the banner carrying regarding soteriology, I am personally wearied by this continuing to be an issue. Those who affirm the BFM are in this together for the sake of the Kingdom.
I have basically the same perspective on evaluating all nominees as we seek to select the next president of our convention.
Looking forward to having y’all come to MO this June!!
I find myself strangely excited to go to this one. Last time I was at the SBC was Orlando, and until Baltimore didn’t really want to go again.
I had no desire to be in Columbus last year, though that’s more about Ohio than anything else.
The thing is, I don’t expect we’ll see a candidate for SBC president that doesn’t fit with all of the above ideas (Dave’s, not mine), and that’s healthy for us as a group. There’s not going to be the big ugly fight about Bible-believing or not-Bible-believing. At worst, it’ll be a discussion of amounts of CP giving and such. That we shouldn’t see a candidate crop up who has no character or no faith is good. Some church groups actually have that at their meetings—should we elect this person who doesn’t believe in Scripture or that one who does?
I heard Trump is mounting a campaign to make the SBC great again if he doesn’t win the GOP nomination for president.
J.D. has done Trump on better by vowing to “Make Potlucks Great Again.”
Yep. You are right as the rain, Scott Gordon when you state:
“Those who affirm the BFM are in this together for the sake of the Kingdom.”
I believe the BF&M to be an adequate guide for cooperation for Southern Baptist. It is not a creed, nor is it a document of ultimate authority for doctrinal discernment. That position is held by the Bible and nothing else.
Well, don’t forget that Mohler has already ordained the next President. And, he even used the Calvinistic code word (Gospel _____) to let all the Calvinists know who to vote for. 🙂
I hope we’ll have a President, who is truly evangelistic and mission minded.
I hope we’ll have a President, who not only says that he holds to the BFM2K, but that he really does believe in Believer’s baptism by immersion, only. And, that he would not let people join his church, who were just sprinkled on the head, or baptized as an infant. And, that his Church is truly congregational.
I hope that we’ll elect a President, who really believes that the SBC should accurately reflect the 2 streams, which formed the SBC.
I hope that we’ll elect a President, who will emphasize our need for revival in our churches.
I hope we’ll elect a President, who believes that preaching should be full of substance….glorifies God; lifts up the name of Jesus; and teaches the rich truths of God’s Word.
I hope we’ll elect a President, who really believes that prayer is important and powerful.
David
PS. We sure don’t need to elect any President, who would wear skinny jeans. Silly Pastors, skinny jeans are for women.
To maintain the alliteration, I would suggest that the candidate be either a Carolinian or a Californian.
I would like to state my admiration and respect for CB Scott and his handling of a very delicate and ugly issue with tact and charity.
In doing so, he able to shine light into some pretty dark places. I hope the proposed conversation goes well and results in some needed perspective and “transparency” for those who seem to thrill in calling for it, but don’t enjoy it.
Well done CB.
Thank you for your kind words, Ryan Abernathy.
BTW, my email for Rick Patrick or anyone else is:
cbscott5512@gmail.com
Thanks, CB. Just sent an email with my cell. I look forward to working through whatever issues we have between us.
Rick
When the time comes, I really hope to have the same integrity that CB Scott has. Thanks for your example.
Tyler,
I am humbled to read your comment because I have failed so many times and I do not feel worthy of being an example. It would be my wife and sons who are people of integrity. My wife has true grit honor and integrity and all my sons are far better men than I will ever be.
In all truth I am nothing more than a once upon a time outlaw of whom God bestowed grace, a lot of grace.
Nonetheless, thank you for your kindness toward me in your comments.
Ryan,
I agree with your kind words regarding CB Scott. In an article I wrote about another article, in which CB was very involved in a situation, I called him “bold, honest and forthright.” I meant it as a compliment, and still do.
We need a man whose words and actions speak to his integrity.
Too many people speak one thing and do another.
Those whose actions don’t match up to their speech, should be not considered, or respected as a leader.
I know who I will be voting for, in St. Louis!
http://www.bpnews.net/46461/steve-gaines-to-be-sbc-president-nominee
Well Vol,
That is refreshing. Now, unlike voting for POTUS, we Baptists are blessed with at least two good candidates from which to choose as our SBC president. Maybe there will be another hat in the ring announced later which would give us three. Who knows?
CB, you are correct in that we are blessed with two viable choices for president. Years ago Jim Henry defeated Fred Wolfe for SBC pres. Dr. Wolfe was the candidate of the CR. I was devastated that our guy didn’t win until a CR veteran shared with me that Jim Henry was a fine conservative pastor and we would have been blessed regardless of who won. It seems that should be our sentiment this year.
Interesting.
What makes him your choice Vol?
I know him. I know that he loves Jesus, and believes in praying. He wants to see people get saved, and he believes in missions. Also, he is a very good, faithful preacher of the Word. He is Baptist in his doctrine. And, he is a good leader of men.
Also, he is a Gospel centered pastor, who is Gospel driven in his Gospel preaching. He is a Gospel Pastor of his Gospel Church.
😉
Steve Gaines would be a FANTASTIC president
“Steve Gaines would be a FANTASTIC president”
Tyler: You have no idea how wrong you are!
I’m really not trying to stir up anything, but could you give me reasons as to why?
It’s as Dave said. But it is also as Bill has said. Sorry Dave, but I totally disagree with you on banning that reason.
Debbie, don’t you know that disagreeing with me is sin?
At least, I think it is.
No, here’s the thing. The details of that are public and have been hashed out a million times. Nothing is to be gained by rehashing them.
I realize many will not agree with me, but that’s why I get the big bucks here. Wait. uh. Never mind.
Not me….under no circumstances would I vote for Gaines.
But this is as contested an election, couple of heavyweights, as we’ve had in a while. I may try and make the convention to vote for Greear.
Should get interesting.
William,
I’m curious. Would you mind sharing why?
Nothing that hasn’t been out there for a long time. I’ve never cared much for him. I suspect we will see plenty in due time.
Bellevue had Rogers, Pollard, and Lee as SBC presidents. Gaines is not in the same galaxy as those three.
…but everyone gets a vote.
OK…sounds like the same reasons I have for not supporting him.
Sadly, once again it Looks like we have a choice between celebrity insider power broker 1 and 2. Hip, Hip Hooray.
I just hope that this race is not actually as I fear it is being set up… Cal vs. anti cal …. if that ends up being the case, IMO absolutely nothing good can come from it.
I don’t know to much about Steve Gaines, but I do know J D Greear transcends the pettiness of the Calv vs anti Calvs debate.
But if Gains is the protege of Aaron Rogers that could only be a good thing.
Aaron Rogers? This is not the Packers message board.
He is his successor. I don’t know who would call him a protege. Adrian’s name didn’t make the BP piece announcing his candidacy.
Nope. I wish him well but no thanks.
Man I dislike that Aaron Rogers. He forced Brett Favre out of Green Bay. No way I will vote for Gaines is he is Aaron Riger’s protege.
Ahhhh! Sorry! I just miss football season 🙁
I believe that Gaines was handpicked by Adrian Rogers to follow him at Bellevue.
It’s amazing how negative and ready to attack a good man like Steve Gaines some people are. Sounds like very divisive stuff to me.
Sometimes even you get pretty negative with some other people, David (mostly Calvinists). That’s a product of our fractured, splintered convention. We all do it.
We have to lay down our weapons, come out of our corners and stop this nonsense.
But I notice how we attack the other side, then get offended when the other side attacks us. We can’t have it both ways. If people are going to slam everything that certain leaders do, or cast aspersions on anyone from a certain group, that’s probably going to go both ways.
I think both sides need to stop it, try to accept each other as brethren and see the good in one another.
Vol,
“It’s amazing how negative and ready to attack a good man like Steve Gaines some people are. Sounds like very divisive stuff to me.”
Do you remember writing this below a few days ago?
“JD Greear. This will be such a unifying nomination. This is the way to bring the SBC back together, once again. This will certainly calm down all the talk about the Calvinist Takeover of the SBC; won’t it?
Wow.”
Vol,
“I believe that Gaines was handpicked by Adrian Rogers to follow him at Bellevue.”
I think you’re right. My question is – and it’s a sincere question – is such an action in keeping with congregational polity?
Not Vol and I hate cherry Coke but if the congregation voted on Gaines it does not matter if a search committee or a longtime pastor choose the candidate it’s congregational polity. The question is did Bellevue vote on Steve Gaines.
Dean,
If, for example, the congregation votes to appoint an elder board who will design and oversee the budget and appoint future pastors – is that congregational?
Tarheel, I have not consulted the SBC Talmud for a ruling on this question but in my opinion as long as the elder board was elected by the congregation, is not perpetual, have terms, and can be dissolved if congregation wishes then the example you state is congregational.
Yes, I have come across strong, at times. And, I usually get a strong scolding for it, too. And. The whipping usually comes down on me and a few others(who are not Calvinists)very swiftly. I have come to be very aware that negative statements by the Calvinists in here are usually excused.
BTW Dave, I have repeatedly said that I have no fight with regular ole, Spurgeon type Calvinists. I do have a beef with the aggressive, militant, new Calvinists, who think someone is not really preaching the true Gospel if they are not Calvinists. You know, the kind who call me and other Non Calvinists “Semi Pelagian” and who seem to have a take over mentality, who seem to want the SBC to the RBC.
Dean, we are in agreement that the term congregational has a wide interpretation under the broad umbrella of the body having the final say – so to speak.
The only place I might have a slight disagreement is when you stated “is not perpetual and have terms” – I think it can be perpetual (or lifetime appointments) so long as the church is the one who voted to place them in the position and can remove them if they see fit.
Vol, I am glad that you have no problem with me under your definition.
For what it is worth, I do not consider you to be a follower of either Pelagious or his half brother Semi for that matter.
Thanks, Tarheel.
Perhaps Dean meant ‘self-perpetuating’ rather than perpetual. Even the former could be congregational if the congregation ratified by vote a nominee of the current elder board. If the elders maintain their own succession without vote of the congregation then that’s clearly elder rule.
We need to see some formal motions to exclude a few elder rule churches from associations, state conventions, and the SBC.
William, thank you for helping me out. “Self-perpetuating” is what I intended. I am the Archie Bunker of Voices. I do not believe an elder board who names their successors without approval of the congregation is practicing congregational polity.
David, I’m not sure that your victimhood here is appropriate or well-taken.
You were the FIRST person to log on to complain about JD, and if you read his interview (and others have confirmed this to me in private conversations) Calvinism is absolutely NOT a part of his ministry. But you logged on to accuse him of being part of a Calvinist conspiracy.
Then, you complained about people being critical of Gaines.
You can’t have it both ways.
And, contrary to your whining, I snapped back pretty hard on those who brought up Gaines’ past with the mishandling of the pedophilia charge. I shut it down. I think I was pretty fair about that.
So, if you want to criticize JD without even checking on his actual views, that’s fine. But when you then come back and act wounded over those who criticize Steve Gaines, it comes across as having two sets of rules – one for “your side” and one for “their side.”
And the accusation of unfairness I take as a personal insult. I stepped up and shut down the anti-Gaines stuff pretty quick.
The key to congregational polity is that ultimately, the congregation has the final say. If a church’s polity gives the elders ultimate authority over the congregation it is contrary to our polity.
A church can have deacons, elders, or a board of Baptist Commissioners if it pleases, as long as the congregation gets its ultimate say. That’s congregationalism.
Example just given. Lol
What if that church polity grants the elders/deacons/Commissioners authority over all leadership matters until they at their discretion take that authority away from an individual or the group of elders/deacons/commissioners?
I am just trying to think through this. What does congregational polity actually mean? And, is the definition the same in every local church? How does congregational polity and true autonomy relate to one another?
William,
Just a point of clarification. You said, “If the elders maintain their own succession without vote of the congregation then that’s clearly elder rule.”
As one who is an elder in an elder rule church, that is not exactly correct. While that MAY be true as to being an elder rule church, it is not the definition of one. We are elder rule but the congregation has say as to who is elected and can remove an elder by vote. Once elected to be an elder we are an ordained elder for the rest of our lives unless “defrocked.” As to serving on the elder board (session) that is by nomination and election and is for a 3 year term. One can be reelected to one more successive 3 year term and then has to sit out one year. Elders not serving on the session are still elders, but just not active on the board.
I just point this out so that someone doesn’t think that your wording is the essence of elder rule.
““Self-perpetuating” is what I intended. I am the Archie Bunker of Voices. I do not believe an elder board who names their successors without approval of the congregation is practicing congregational polity.”
LOL…no comment on the Archie Bunker thing…I’m working hard at not swinging at softballs today. 😉
I think we are both saying that so long as the church is actively involved at the point of ratification, and retention it fits within our polity. (I would say whether that be “life time appointments” unless disqualified and removed by the church – or terms where they are “re-elected” )
William,
You have questioned my desire for transparency. Your insinuation is not well taken. We are, in fact, discussing two very different matters:
(a) TRANSPARENCY: an open trustee selection system in which people are chosen without pre-confirmation by entity leaders and in which the trustees accurately represent the membership and share information freely, and
(b) DISCRETION: the actions of a board doing damage control in crisis management mode by announcing the resignation due to scandal in the life of one recently crushed by a personal crisis, and in allowing this individual the dignity of resigning himself without dragging him through the mud. I think many resignations are handled like this all the time.
…all the time. And truth and trust are casualties. I’m not just referring to a single recent debacle.
“DISCRETION: the actions of a board doing damage control in crisis management mode by announcing the resignation due to scandal in the life of one recently crushed by a personal crisis, and in allowing this individual the dignity of resigning himself without dragging him through the mud. I think many resignations are handled like this all the time.”
Rick,
Be assured, I am going to call you because I really want to know how you were enlisted to defend the ungodly conduct of Baptist trustees, administrators, and onlookers as you were.
Maybe “used” would be a better term than “enlisted” because if you think your comment above describes what actually happened, you have been greatly fooled and have no idea as to what really happened in Georgia.
Why did you not call me, Rick? Who has so greatly bewitched you, brother? You were lied to, Rick. I hope to be able to call you before the end of the work week and I hope you have more than a few minutes to converse.
I tried, CB. My number for you is wrong. I called Dave today. He said he would give me your number. I sent you an email. I gave my cell phone to you. I have been trying. CB, call me already. I can’t reach you.
*you my number. (I sent it to you in an email, CB.)
I sent an email too
Rick,
I will, as I stated above, call you. Be assured. However, I must ask you publicly since you did what you did publicly; Why did you not call me last year? You had the right number then. I had to change numbers when I came to Eastern KY in October because AT&T does not work well here.
You had my number last year. You also know a dozen guys who had my number last year. Rick, it is my contention that you could have easily have called me before you wrote the hit-piece.
I hope to get resolution on this matter, for I had respect for you, Rick and valued you as a friend. I would like to renew it in this lifetime.
I didn’t think to call you, CB, because I did not consider you to be the subject of the article, nor did I consider it to be a hit-piece. The article was about the author of another article and a board he wrote about. (If it’s any consolation, I didn’t call them, either. I normally don’t even call the primary subject of my articles, much less those mentioned in only a few paragraphs. I don’t think that’s unusual in the blogging world.) Apparently, it has caused an offense, and for any pain I caused you by not calling you, I am truly sorry.
I read the author’s article and his characterization of a board “covering up” something. I honestly believed, and still do, that a “coverup” is when you pretend there is no problem and do not investigate anything or find facts, but simply deny it exists and bury it. From what I saw, what this board did was not a “coverup.” They held an investigation that led to some concerns that were brought to an employee who eventually resigned, at which point the case was closed and the board was ready to move on without kicking a man when he was already very, very down. The press release mentioned his resignation, but did not include the scandals. The author seemed to call that lying. I think it would have been a bit brutal to air all of that. Resignation. Case closed. So I disagreed with an author. But my problem was not with you, CB, although apparently it is now, because I have offended you.
Granted, a little more than ten percent of the article did address your letter and the concerns of the board with the way you presented the information. I thought I was fair to you in that section. I called you “bold, honest, forthright, a gentlemen and a scholar.” Those are my exact words. I did allow that the board may have had some issues with the manner in which you presented your concerns.
May we please not ask or answer any more questions publicly? I look forward to our conversation, with the hope of reconciliation. I hope to renew a friendship I did not know I had lost.
Ahh, Rick,
You just publicly presented an entire defense of your actions last year and now you ask me not to answer? Obviously, you do not want my answer to your public defense to be public.
Please notice that I had brought nothing to this thread after my comment at 5:16 pm other than to address Robert Vaughn regarding his question about the Lord’s Supper.
I was sticking to the promise I made to you that I would call you before the work week ends.
Now, you write a comment for public consumption that is nothing more than that famous Rick Patrick spin tactic we all know so well and for which we so greatly admire you. Had you been a speech writer for Cruz or Rubio, they could have eliminated both Trump and Clinton before the Christmas Holiday and walked straight down the yellow brick road to the White House.
That never works with me, Rick. Never has. And I will not let you by with it here.
Rick, you are correct. You did state in your hit-piece that I was a “gentleman and a scholar.” Yep, you sure did.
But, let’s put that comment in context. Here is the rest of that comment:
“As much as we truly admire C.B. Scott as a gentleman and a scholar, it is difficult for us to say with any level of confidence that we have heard all sides of this story.”
You are right again, Rick. You did not hear all sides of the story. You certainly didn’t care to hear my side of the story, for had you, you could have easily have called me. However you didn’t, but it is most evident you did talk to someone and I am fairly confident, based on the full content of your article, I know who those people are. They lied to you, Rick.
Why did they lie to you, Rick? Because they know what I know. You are a great spin doctor. And for sure, Rick, you did a great spin in your article.
But here’s the breach in their lies and your spin/hit piece article. I did not buy in. I did not do what any of them would have done and most likely you would have done. I didn’t take the buy out. That stopped the parade and unveiled the cover up.
Now, I will call you before the work week ends. However, if you want to bring forth another public spin here, well OK, I will respond to it publicly.
That’s fair, don’t you agree?
As “the author” – I tend to agree with CB’s characterization of the hit/spin piece.
I also think it would be best to work this out privately, guys.
Rick,
That’s the problem in the situation you are referencing. For years, Ergun was covered for. His falsehoods and half truths and missteps were common knowledge. They were proven facts by his own words. Instead of confessing, he denied. Instead of repenting, he doubled down on deception. And a group of people, who you are a part of, enabled him, and led to this need for “discretion.”
“Discretion” is found nowhere in scripture. We are told to come into the light. We are told to confess our sins. We are told to ask for forgiveness. The end result of “discretion” has played out and it wound up being worse than anyone could have imagined. Ergun, his family, the college, and all of you associated with him are still paying the price. All for what Rick? To what end?
I hope and pray that at least you and CB can mend fences. I believe based on what I know of you that you are a godly man and a man of honor and high character, but your post here gives me great pause.
There is no glory for God in concealing the sins of another so that they can save face.
You can do better brother.
Even Dave wrote in the article that there was no purpose served in mudslinging or kicking a man when he is down. I think that was the board’s thinking. Once he resigned, enough is enough. At this point, I hear you saying they should have still brought forth the dirty laundry. Maybe. But I know many organizations, led by good and godly men, that would just let him ride away in that U-haul and let it be over with. Which it should be. Let’s drop it here. CB and I will talk before the end of the week. I wish we had not addressed the matter in this forum, but it did reveal to me that CB has a problem with me, so I want to make that right.
Not kicking a man when he is down is not the same as covering your butt. Sometimes, organizations further down the road need to be warned of potential situations that arise from the misdeeds of a former employee. It’s pretty clear what was the case here.
Gaines, seriously? No matter how he is defended, Gaines, perhaps with the best of intentions, shielded a child molester. No matter what you think the mitigating circumstances are, do we really want a president with this scandal attached to him? Is this the message we want to send to the country and world? Are there no traditionalists out there with an impeccable record you could support?
1:09 minutes is how long it took, just for the record.
I agree, Bill. It’s mind-boggling.
I’m not that thrilled that Gaines is in the race, because I fear that the focus of the race will turn toward Calvinism and my disdain for Calvinism-focused discussions is well-known.
But one thing I’m not going to allow is Gaines-bashing on the basis of the incident that took place 10 years ago.
I’m not saying that he handled that precisely right, folks, but I will say this, and then I’ll duck. He was following the playbook that churches used back then. He isn’t some kind of priest molesting children and covering it up. He walked into a church and found out that one of his staff pastors had committed sins in the 1980s (it was 2006). He waited 6 months to come forward (not 6 years, 6 months).
So, I’m not defending him, but let’s not act like he committed some kind of disqualifying sin here either. Back at that time, I’m guessing about 99.9% of pastors would have done the same thing and we are a) relieved it wasn’t us or b) hoping no one finds out what we did!
We’ve got a new playbook on how to handle these things, and it’s better, more righteous, more just. Amen. Hallelujah. But if you take that playbook back to previous eras, you won’t find many with clean hands.
So, all of this is to say that we can analyse the Gaines candidacy or the Greear candidacy, but we aren’t going to engage in mindless Gaines-bashing. It’s just not going to happen.
I intend, at this point, to vote AGAINST Steve Gaines. I’m not saying this as a supporter. I’m saying this as someone interested in fairness. Let’s not try to paint Steve Gaines as Jerry Sandusky.
You had better believe the media will pick up on this however. Is this really want we want to be perceived as? As I say, are there no trads without this stain on their record that will not make us look like, well, you know what we’ll look like.
The media can pick it up, and people can make their choices.
But I’m not hosting that foodfight!
Dave is a man who must take his potlucks seriously and sees the need to make them great again. Vote Greear!
That is awesome!
JD is a Calvinist. He was quickly endorsed by Dr. Mohler, with all the Gospel this and Gospel that, code words. I reacted to that. Another SBC leader being ordained by Mohler.
Also, the book that he wrote and the conversations I remember taking place after it came out, also led me to speak out.
But, I am bowing out of this conversation. I don’t wish to waste anymore of my time on it.
Have you read his book?
His book was recommended to me by a decidedly NON-Calvinist pastor.
Vol-
I will renew my request. Read the dang book. You have no idea what you are criticizing. Or at least read the reviews and the endorsements for the book if you are too lazy or hard headed to read the whole book.
Seriously man. Have some integrity to attack what the man actually said rather than what you think he might have said.
First of all, take a deep, cleansing breath. There; don’t you feel better?
I was describing why I wrote what I did, the other day. I was explaining why I reacted that way. I am not putting down Greear’s book right now. Good grief
Although, here’s a quote from his book, which does lend to my angst:
“Praying the sinner’s prayer” has become something like a Protestant ritual we have people go through to gain entry into heaven. As “gospel shorthand,” it presents salvation as a transaction one conducts with Jesus and moves on from rather than the beginning of a posture we take toward the finished work of Christ and maintain for the rest of our lives.
While I do agree that just saying a prayer won’t save anyone, I am not real fond of the way he wrote this in THAT BOOK, because it does appear to be a put down of using the Sinners Prayer, and of people who use it.
Vol,
Context matters….read the book.
I love and appreciate you but you are looking foolish criticizing something as “Calvinist” that is decidedly not (and you would know that if you read it) and for more proof the book is highly recommended by – – – wait for it – – — David Allen – who encourages readers to not be “scared away bit the first half of the title of the book” and goes further to say “while I might quibble on a few points and would have expressed a few things differently the vast majority of this book, I wholeheartedly endorse…buy it! Apply it!” .
Also a full throated endorsement was given in the forward which was written by Paige Patterson.
Neither of these men would have signed off in such glowing terms on a “Calvinist manifesto” would they?
I contacted a friend, because one of my members asked for a book that explained salvation clearly – she wanted to give it to a friend. I asked this friend for a recommendation. He is a non-Calvinist – unapologetic and forceful, though he is not belligerent or separatistic. He recommended Greear’s book. I was surprised.
I think his review would be in line with PP and Allen. Might word a thing or two differently, but it’s clear, compelling, and biblically sound. It is not some kind of Piper/Johnny Mac/Sproul or Mohler treatise on the 5 points.
I’ve got a copy coming.
Don’t know if it’s still on, but CBD had the book on sale for 3.99 a day or two ago and I ordered one.
For all the cool kids who want to read it now, rather than to wait for days like DavM 🙂 , here’s the link to the Kindle edition:
http://www.amazon.com/Stop-Asking-Jesus-Into-Heart-ebook/dp/B00B92GPTI/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457635999&sr=1-1&keywords=stop+asking+jesus+into+your+heart
It’s $2.99
Some of us were “cool” before there were “cool kids”. But now we’re too old read on Kindle.
Regarding “Praying the sinner’s prayer,” this simply is not a Calvinist/non-Calvinist issue. I and others I know objected to the way this and some other practices were being used (such as close your eyes and raise your hand) long before I ever even heard of a Baptist who was a Calvinist.
Calvinists and non-Calvinists already start from different directions on this, but non-Calvinists differ among themselves on the wisdom and utility of some of these methods.
Think I’ll get the book (old school, paper & ink).
DaVol (simplest way for me to delineate you v. other Daves here) —
There is being a Calvinist, and then there is being a crusading Calvinist, or cage-stage Calvinist.
Being nominated because your leading of your church embodies potentially great opportunities for the future of the SBC (emphasis on ethnic diversity, multiple avenues of missions involvement [church planting, giving, and engaging in the field], among other things) while also having a Calvinistic view of soteriology but who views strife over such matters as non-beneficial…should not, does not meet the criterion so may Trads raise in rejection (rejection I must note to ANY Calvinistic nominee [at this point in SBC life] going forward in relation to any open position to be filled).
It appears that a moratorium on any Calvinistic SBCers is what is being demanded until a requisite “equilibrium” (whatever that must look like) has been established. It seems to me those pastors who have been digging in and leading well regarding Great Commission & Great Commandment faithfulness…BUT, who are Calvinistic…must remain on the sidelines until further notice. In case I’ve been unclear, I don’t buy it.
All of that being said, while I have a leaning preference regarding the two announced candidates, neither of them fits my ultimate preference. I’d like to see a smaller-sized, faithful church pastor, irrespective of soteriological stance (as pertains to the aforementioned debate DavM so thoroughly enjoys), be nominated for SBC president. I believe that voice would be of great benefit for the entirety of the SBC in the days going forward.
Also, if being “endorsed” for office by Mohler means one is a Calvinist…I would suggest you call Ronnie Floyd and tell him this – because I am confident that this memo has not crossed his desk when Mohler nominated him for Convention President.
Speaking of the sinners prayer and altar calls. I just read this article about a young man in a worship service who braved the storm and embraced both! I was deeply moved upon reading it, I trust y’all will be too.
http://babylonbee.com/news/man-recommits-life-christ-just-put-altar-call-misery/
I assume The Babylon Bee is a humor site? Sadly, the source behind the humor is real life!
Oh, my goodness, it is THE humor site.
Just started up, kinda like a Christian Onion site. Absolutely hilarious.
This article might explain the rise of the trumpster.
http://babylonbee.com/news/new-survey-finds-92-evangelicals-supported-genghis-khan/
I really don’t want to argue about all of this. I’m sure that JD is a good and faithful Brother in Christ, who loves Jesus.
I will put my two cents in here – the topic: what I want to be in an sbc president.
1)A man of integrity, character, humility, and a Christ like spirit who is willing to talk with anybody without an air of hubris or condescension.
2)A pastor of a real church in Southern Baptist life who does not have many secretaries or staff members to do his bidding; who knocks on doors, speaks and ministers to people daily; is willing to counsel and pray with anyone at anytime no matter the color of skin, if they are rich or poor, a deacon, elder, the visitor, or just plain member who rarely attends and gives little – and would prefer to do this than meet with the boys at the golf course. One who embodies the Spirit of Christ in his daily walk and will continue that walk even while fulfilling the duties as President.
3)A pastor who is willing and able once elected to speak to and with the total constituency of the SBC; be it Calvinist/Trad and the big and the small church. His speaking engagements are not chosen to benefit his pocketbook with the gratuities of the affluent – but he goes where he may only get the money that paid for the gas that brought him there if anything at all -all for the pleasure and benefit of those who he ministers to.
4)A man who is transparent in all of his work and ways. He keeps no secrets from his church = he keeps no secrets from the churches. He would never countenance a secret agreement to keep committee minutes in limbo for years = for all work done for the benefit of the SBC is open to all participating Churches.
5)He does not seek his own will but what will glorify Christ and His Kingdom. He will not appoint cronies, but will truly seek input from all of Southern Baptist life. He will not reappoint from the same sources and the same churches who always have representation – but will seek to place faithful pastors and laypeople in positions of responsibility = those whose lives glorify Christ and would do a God honoring job regardless of the clout they have, or the amount of money they control in their own bank accounts.
Granted this is an ideal. It is an ideal I have always coveted. It is one that I pray for continuously. In my opinion, such a man so far has not been nominated to be Convention President this year.
Rob
What I want in “A” SBC President. (Signed, the grammar police. LOL)
I think I’m gonna quarrel with the Police on this one, Amber. ESS BEE CEE starts with a vowel and needs the “an.”
If you pronounce SBC “Southern Baptist Convention” then it would take the a.
Years ago, (maybe over 40 years ago, wow has it been so long) my college English professor, Ms. Starkey, a true Southern Baptist if one ever lived on planet earth, taught me the exact same thing as Dave Miller just wrote in response to Amber McMeans.
Dave, did you have Ms. Starkey as your college English Professor?
so when Hank Hanegraaf on his Bible Answer Man show says “it’s not A apologetic issue, it’s THE apologetic issue” is he correct? his English usage I mean.
just doesn’t sound right to me
According to an editor at Writer’s Digest, it is the sound over the actual letter. Look HERE. Englishpage.com says, “Use A before words such as “European” or “university” which sound like they start with a consonant even if the first letter is a vowel. Also use A before letters and numbers which sound like they begin with a consonant, such as “U”, “J”, “1” or “9”.”
As best I remember this accords with what I was taught (and what I practice). I write “An humble man went to a house.” (Of course, with the current mispronunciation humble….)