As far as I am concerned, we could change the bylaws and make Fred Luter SBC President for life. I got to travel to Israel with him back in October and it is my humble but correct opinion that the closer the next president is to Fred Luter in temperament, passion and deportment, the better we all will be. Of course, I felt the same way about Bryant Wright. He was a good man and did a good job. And I have an unabashed man-crush on Frank Page and I thought Johnny Hunt did a great job as well. But the Luter administration has been refreshing in many ways and I am sorry that it will come to an end when the gavel falls to close the 2014 SBC Annual Meeting.
I have a somewhat suspect track record in picking SBC presidential candidates. I got on the Frank Page bandwagon as a blogger (because of his sterling support for Cooperative Program causes) and traveled to Greensboro to vote for him. We were all shocked at his victory, and absolutely floored that it was a first ballot victory. His election has been a turning point in the SBC’s history and I am thrilled he is now our CEO. But I was not thrilled about Johnny Hunt’s election; had I gone, I would have voted against him. He proved me wrong and did a great job as SBC president. Then came what was probably the most contentious election in recent memory, because it coincided with the GCR vote. In 2010 there were four men nominated. One was a close friend of mine, Leo Endel, who was nominated by my DOM (a member of my church). I advocated Leo because he was exactly what we need as a convention, in addition to being a close friend. We knew his candidacy was not likely to be successful. It wasn’t. The other candidates were Ted Traylor and Bryant Wright, both seen as supporters to one degree or another, of the GCR. Jimmy Jackson was the candidate of those who opposed the GCR.
I was confident in my predictions! Jimmy Jackson would have the most votes in round 1, coalescing the anti-GCR vote. Ted Traylor and Bryant Wright would split the pro-GCR votes and one of them would get into a runoff with Jackson. I assumed it would be the well-known Ted Traylor. To prove that I am not a prophet, I was wrong as I could be. Jimmy Jackson did not even make the runoff, which was between Traylor and Wright. I fully assumed that Traylor would win that (and I voted for him). Lo and behold, you do NOT have to own a tie to be SBC President. Bryant Wright took the office with a fairly comfortable majority (55%). I was shocked. But, as I said before, Bryant Wright became, in my opinion, an excellent SBC President, and if I had it to do over again, I would certainly vote for him (though I’d still start with Leo, and none of the other candidates would have been a disaster.) Of course, there was no drama the last two years as we elected Fred Luter unopposed as our president. We pretty much knew when we left Phoenix that the next year in New Orleans was going to be Fred Luter’s year.
Now, this year, there is absolutely no clear front-runner that I am aware of. I’ve heard some talk that this man or that might be nominated, but nothing substantial or specific. I am not going to name names, because I honestly don’t know of anyone who is planning to be nominated. My goal for this post is to speak in the theoretical, not the specific. I would like to reflect on the kind of person we need before we start getting into deciding between Pastor A and Dr. B. So here are my reflections about what we need in an SBC president in Baltimore in 2014.
1) We need a convictional Baptist.
This ought hardly need to be said, but the president needs to believe what we believe. He needs to wholeheartedly assent to the BF&M 2000, our statement of faith. Of course, people tend to define convictional Baptist in different ways. I’m just saying he needs to be theologically within the parameters of the BF&M in every significant way.
2) We need a Cooperative Program Baptist.
Now, I understand that there is not a strict rule to qualify for office. A man can be nominated for SBC president whose church gives almost nothing to the SBC. They have that right. But I also have the right NOT to vote for such a one. I don’t really know the cutoff I would use, but I think the president of the SBC ought to be from a church that is identified with our denomination. If the church’s website hides the fact of their affiliation with the SBC, then that would be a problem for me. If the church gives a percentage pittance to missions through SBC causes then I will not likely support that man.
Someone can be a great Christian, a great pastor, even a convictional Baptist, and still not be qualified to be SBC President. That office ought to be for someone who is passionate about ministry through convention causes. I will only vote for people who are such.
3) We need a Calvinism non-combatant.
The last two years have been a time of progress in the Calvinism wars. Leading up to New Orleans, it is safe to say that there was some animosity in the soteriological struggle. There has been a lot of progress in the last couple of years. The election of Fred Luter was not about Calvinism in any way. The Calvinism study group led by Frank Page was a real step of progress.
I do not care that much whether the next SBC president is a Calvinist or not. Since I got re-engaged in SBC affairs there have been four SBC presidents (Page, Hunt, Wright and Luter). None of them was a Calvinist and I would vote for any one of them again. but I do care about whether a person is a combatant in the Calvinism wars. At this point, a divisive president could undo everything that Dr. Page and others have accomplished in recent years.
I’ve heard two names floated in private conversations. One is an ardent Calvinist and one has been an ardent anti-Calvinist. Both are good men and I’d love to hear either preach. But I’d rather not see either of them be the next president because if we have a combative president it could be destructive to our convention’s future. If the next president is non-Calvinist, he needs to be like the last 4 have been, accepting of and willing to work with Calvinists. He needs to not view Calvinists as enemies of the gospel or of the convention. If the next president is Calvinist, he needs to welcome non-Calvinists as full partners in convention work. Calvinist or non-Calvinist, he needs to be willing to work with anyone who belongs to Christ and is part of this convention’s work.
I realize that a person’s pre-election rhetoric does not always predict his behavior as a president. Calvinists were wary of both Frank “Trouble with Tulip” Page and Johnny Hunt prior to their elections, because they were known as non-Calvinists. Both have been used of God to build bridges between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the time since.
But I pray that we will not revert to schismatic behavior and try to find agenda-driven candidates who will promote “my side” over “your side.” Ain’t nobody got time for that.
4) We need a consensus-seeker, not an agenda-driven President.
Well, that is not completely true. Fred Luter has advanced an agenda – spiritual renewal and revival. Who can complain about that? But this is a more general version of the Calvinism issue in point 3. We need someone whose agenda is to advance spiritual renewal, biblical fidelity and the glory of God among us. While I supported the agendas by both Johnny Hunt (GCR) and Bryant Wright I think that at this point, it is best for us if we look for a unifying agenda, not one that is specific, schismatic and divisive.
Yes, we have issues we need to deal with, but we are still in a healing process and until some of our wounds have completely healed, it would not be best to seek another agenda. Again, I’m not sure another Fred Luter is out there (not speaking about his race, but his character) but that is whom we need.
If I could sum it all up, I would say the SBC needs two more years of a Fred Luter-style presidency.
5) Should employees be candidates?
That has been a topic of some discussion in years gone by – should people employed by the convention be eligible to run and be elected? State convention execs, seminary presidents and other empl0yees have been candidates, and even been elected as president. This is not a huge issue to me, though it is to others.
So, Who Should Be Nominated?
I don’t know.
As I have prepared this post, two or three names have come to my mind, people I know who I think fit my ideals very well. At this point, I am not sure they would be willing to run, and it is not my intent to attempt to orchestrate a candidacy. The fact is, when he was nominated, I had no idea who Bryant Wright was (I’m up here in Iowa) when he was nominated. The right man may be someone I don’t know. I would ask you to pray and consider as this important election is only 4 months away, and the process of selecting nominees will be ramping up here soon.
I am not trying to lay the groundwork for anyone’s candidacy here. This is 100% theoretical.
Now, it’s your turn. What qualities do you look for in choosing a presidential candidate to back?
One more thing – I wouldn’t hate it if the next SBC President shared Bryant Wright’s disdain for ties.
David,
Bart Barber for President of the SBC. He would strike the right chord on the Calvinist discussion, and I would hope that he would lead us to a definitive position on spiritual gifts. Barber for President!!!!!!
Dwight, I think you would be sorely disappointed (which would likely put you in the majority). If I were president of the SBC (I’m not running), it would be my objective to focus upon the actual constitutional duties of the presidency and do less of the bully-pulpit stuff. I think I’d focus my attention on empowering people in the annual meeting rather than being a gatekeeper to prevent people from having a fair shot in the proceedings. I’d focus on making good appointments and recruitment—reaching out to fellow biblical inerrantist Baptists to encourage them to consider affiliating with the SBC.
And so, the last thing I’d want to do is launch some campaign to revisit the BF&M or push through a statement on spiritual gifts. Messengers who would wish to do so (or to do anything else) should get a fair shake when they try to advance an agenda, but the agenda of the man with the gavel should be no more nor less than to honor the Lord and to protect that right to a fair shake for everyone else in the room.
Sounded like a campaign platform to me, Dwight.
I think it was Shakespeare who said, “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.”
Perhaps Dr. Barber is falling into the third category?
I thought that was Pa Grape as the narrator in VeggieTales?
“Sounded like a campaign platform to me…”
🙂 I guess it did.
But that’s because, as an SBC historian and sometimes-pundit, I’ve had to think about the office a lot. There’s a difference between having thought about the office a lot on the one hand and planning to obtain it on the other hand.
David,
I forgot about the prayer rallies that Barber would lead, and that’s the most important agenda.
What about Dave Miller for SBC President? It has a nice ring to it.
The difference between Dwight’s suggestion of Bart above and your suggestion of my name here is simple. When people read, “Bart Barber for President” they said, “Hmmm. that’s a pretty good idea.” When they read your comment, they will smile and say, “Preston is funny.”
That’s EXACTLY what I did. 😉
Nice.
you are supposed to say, “Oh, no, Dave. You’d make a great president.” Then I would insist that it isn’t going to happen and you’d say how sad it is, but I would stick by my guns. We’d leave knowing we did a silly dance, but my self esteem would be intact.
I’ll have you kniw that I’m a Southern Baptist so I don’t do dance…of any kind.
Also, I’m not known as one who offers platitudes.
😉
…and my self-esteem is gone for another week.
The average CP is between 5% and 6%. Any president should at least approach this, regardless of their Great Commission percentage.
That would be close to my breaking point as well.
It sounds like we want a President whose CP giving is at least average. Why not say that we want his CP giving to be well above average–even exemplary?
A couple of things I’d like to see;
A president who pastors a church that is not a mega church that demonstrates commitment to missions including and above the CP.
Around 10% of all undesignated funds to CP alongside considerable giving AND action toward church planting and other mission endeavors would be important to me.
Also, as I said before one who is not a “warrior” on either side of the “great debates” afoot in the SBC.
One who is not completely unknown but not an SBC household name either…
Oh yea, and one who blogs and interacts with “commoners” in blogs.
(I know There would be downsides and risks to this, but I do think it could also be a tremendous positive.)
(again, it’d have to be the right person….one who is already blogging and one with a good temperament for it….one who is already greatly respected in the SBC blogging world.).
Sound like anyone we know? OK OK, I’ll stop harassing Bart. 😉
We certainly may say this but manifestly have not insisted on it in the past from presidents.
One can spin CP giving as the ultimate test of a good, cooperative Southern Baptist but what it mostly represents is a measure of how much a candidate supports his state convention. At the SBC level elections have repeatedly proven that messengers place a higher value on other things in a presidential candidate.
That said, it would be healthy to see presidents who give at least an average amount to the CP, since he SBC beyond the state convention level is mostly funded these days by designated giving, not CP giving.
Yea, I see your point. I only used the 10% “qualification” because there have been both resolutions and denominational “campaigns” encouraging this.
I agree though that it’s not typically been a steadfast measure in past elections.
Dwight…as a Calvinist I wanna say I agree with your post and I too hope to see a bridge builder (like the last 4) and not a lightening rod.
In fact I’ll vote against, and encourage others to join me, a lightening rod no matter which side of the Calvinism thy fall on, or no matter how much I like or appreciate him in other roles.
Bart, that campaign stump speech….umm…I mean historians analysis…Won me over. 😉 Now who is nominating Bart Barber?!
I think you’ve tapped into what many of us feel the position should be.
I hope that the activists n both sides will wisely defer nominating a warrior.
Pretty Please.
Tarheel,
The benefit of a “stump speech” like that from a non-candidate is that, if enough people like you keep saying that’s what you want in a candidate, an actual viable candidate will emerge and say the same thing.
You’re viable. Of that I’m certain. You really outta consider it.
Please don’t even try a Gen. Sherman…. “If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.”
In respect toward the outgoing Prez and “Nawlins”….Here’s a campaign slogan…..
“Who dat goh shave da fat from the SBC? The Barber, dats who!”
Tarheel, I’d simply say this…
1. I’ll not argue my viability, since I’m shocked that I won election last year, which calls into question my evaluations of such things. Who can be objective when speaking of himself? Not me.
2. Although a lot of us are enamored with the idea of an SBC president from a smaller church, I’ve frankly found it difficult to keep up with the (non-existent) responsibilities of the office of First Vice-President. I don’t even really have a secretary (we have a financial secretary and a records secretary, but I do not have a personal secretary). Pastors of larger churches have more help.
3. I’m the chairman of our state convention board. I’m on the board at SWBTS. I’ve served a term as SBC 1VP. I’d say that Southern Baptists have been more than generous toward me and have given me more than my fair share of influence. I’d rather do well in those areas where I have already made commitments than to add another large commitment at this time.
You’d work it out. I’d have no problem voting for you.
Does the convention not provide any assistance in the ways you mentioned? Seems like the convention could provide the SBC President with a secretary.
The convention provides some help to the president through the organizational geniuses (that is descriptive, not sarcastic) at the Executive Committee. But he is not provided a secretary.
Since presidents have tended to come from bigger churches, the assumption has been, I’d guess, that his admin staff could handle most of the tasks.
Although there are many great people at the convention who interact with the SBC President, the convention does not provide a personal secretary for any elected officer.
I certainly see why this would be a barrier to pastors from small churches serving as SBC President. I could not imagine adding the responsibilities of SBC President to my schedule without significant assistance (not that I every have to worry about that).
How would we even go about reducing the size of this barrier to a small church pastor serving as President?
That would take expending funds, most likely, which is not something most of us would want to do.
Despite my immense preference that an SBC President occasionally come from a less-than-giant church, the need for organizational help, the need for ministry coverage while doing Presidential stuff, and the overall time involved suggests that if we’re going to have volunteer presidents (which we should), they will have to come from bigger churches.
We kinda sidelined on harassing Bart. But my hope in posting this is that people would weigh in on this topic:
What is it that an SBC presidential Candidate must be to gain your vote? What do you look for?
Dave,
I disagree!! Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!!!
#3 is the real hang-up for me with your analysis. The reason? Your naivete in the post itself. You say you want an Calvinist non-combatant but you put together a post that has 5 points. I know you think this is funny but I want you to seriously contemplate what I am saying as one that will not even associate myself with the system. When Calvinists say they want a Calvinist non-combatant what I hear is “We want things to stay the same as they are. The elections of people to major positions in the SBC have come from one seminary in particular.” To prove my point you will notice the only non-Calvinist that has been elected to a position in a small state sponsored Baptist college has been met with more fire than anyone can try and put out.
Also, the only uniting president we have had has been Luter. Nothing against Wright, Hunt, or Page but your article notes correctly their contribution to the division. While it is not a Calvinism divide it is still a divide. The Page nomination was a divide in the convention over the haves (those who have a place and voice) and the have nots (those that footed the bills but did not have a say). The Hunt election was a unity building election but his GCR quickly turned the convention on its proverbial head and brought huge concerns to the CP that Page had for his platform. The Wright election revealed a division in the mega church group. Then his name change end run certainly brought out another division between those who saw nothing disturbing about the name of the convention.
Thus, a Calvinist/Non-Calvinist battle may be the only thing that saves the convention. If you will note in all the previous debates these two groups were united in trying to either push forward or push back on the agenda. The one underlying crack in the good ship Zion is this one and it is getting bigger. You have certainly presented a “private conversation” that I have not heard whispered over here in NC. The names I have heard whispered certainly is staunch Calvinist but the other is not a non-Calvinist. As a matter of fact the other name I have heard whispered has never said anything against the doctrine in any way shape form or fashion. But, you hear things in Iowa that I certainly don’t hear her in the good state of NC.
Just a thought from your more embattled warrior that believes……I leave the last word to you.
Let’s at least be honest about the election of that one non-calvinist to a position in a small state college and say that there were, are other factors involved that caused the reaction to it. I don’t think that even you believe that it is representative of the Calvinist/anti-Calvinist feeling around the convention.
It is a foregone conclusion that new entity heads, major appointments, and certainly SBC presidential nominees will be evaluated on the basis of their Calvinism or lack thereof along with their posture towards the same. I’m with Dave, a quite reasonable Calvinist, in his hope for a non-combatant. Of course that means that if you are nominated for SBC president you will not have my vote, but we can still be friends. 😉
I’m not up for another extended, CR-type of war in the SBC but some like you clearly are.
William,
Let’s be honest about that non-Calvinist elected to the leadership of that state Baptist college. Look at the history of all of this. That President is the epi-center of this Calvinist debate. The allegations against him come as a result of the most high Calvinists not being able to negotiate a debate over Calvinism. As a result the allegations were made up and presented on the internet in such ways as to call into question the legitimacy of his upbringing. Oh, lest you try to say it is about him, remember his brother has not negated anything he has said. So, if you really believe upbringing is suspect then you have two college presidents in the same boat. Why are you so willing to say one is wrong but so hesitant to say the other isn’t?
I have not and do not here wish to engage the questions surrounding EC but I reject your assertion that the acrimony was a result of an anti-Calvinist conspiracy. The damages were self-generated. That’s as far as I am interested in going on this.
I recognize that some SBCers have a more intense anti-Calvinistic view of SBC matters.
William,
I am not trying to engage it you are the one that has used the name. I did everything I could to remove the names and keep it where we could discuss it without bringing in the personalities. Why not do that? Why bring in the personalities? You are the one wanting to engage this with no evidence to the contrary only the internet evidence. You know, you depend so much on internet “facts” you may find a french model for some woman somewhere.
So, we are fighting too much, and the answer to “save the Convention” is to turn and fight about something else–something far less significant for that matter. Got it. Wow, that would be hilarious if I didn’t think you were serious.
Love that assignment of motive to Dave also. I see what you did there. Most impressive.
Joel,
Our “fighting” centers on the Calvinism issue. Let’s be honest!!
You can say all you want that you can get along with Calvinists. I can too. However, the issue is the high-Calvinists that the regular Calvinists are either not willing or scared to denounce. It is like the “moderate” Muslims and the Radical Muslims. You can say all you want that Islam is not an issue but until the moderate Muslims come out and renounce the Radical Muslims we will continue to have the debate.
Tim, a lot of us do not fight about Calvinism. Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.
And that is my point. There are Calvinists who are determined to reform the convention, perhaps. And there are certainly some anti-Calvinists who want extreme actions against Calvinists in the SBC.
My belief about these combatants is twofold
1) they are becoming fewer. Most of us simply want to partner for gospel purposes in the convention. Most of us are tired of the mud-slinging, of treating Christian brethren as enemies.
2) They are becoming more vocal as their ranks reduce.
I am convinced that there is a growing middle of people who just want to be servants of God and not Calvinism warriors. I hope I am right.
Dave,
Here is the issue. I am not a “non-Calvinist”. That is something that we have been trying to say yet with no success.
For those who have the voices in the convention it all comes down to two groups–Calvinists and non-Calvinists. The former group consists of those who desire to reform the convention along with those who don’t want to fight but really just want their voices to be heard louder. Those in this group who really don’t want to fight remains silent allowing for the rhetoric from those screaming for reform to be heard and is making it easier for those not saying anything to gain multiplying voices.
The later group consists of those that are anti-Calvinists along with others who desire to call attention to the fact that a majority of those sitting in the pews are at best a 3 pointer on the Calvinist scale. Those in this group are considered anti-Calvinists just because they refuse to take the monicker of non-Calvinist. What is worse this group is even painted with the paint brush of heresy simply because that is what one convention leader did and has yet to apologize for.
The problem in the former group arises when they begin to attack each other then those in that former group that want to remain quiet become vocal and call for a quietening. As long as the former do not begin coming after each other then everything is ok.
But, when the later group calls attention to the fact that the minority theological position is being promoted and leading the majority everyone wants to point to the “anti-Calvinists” in that group that are screaming and yelling. Then those realistically making an argument are painted as the ones that are causing division. When in reality we are only calling attention to the discrepancy in leadership where the minority theological position is leading and being promoted as what the majority believes. This is the same error that caused the CR to begin with the moderates promoting a theological position that the majority in the pews did not hold. We are trying to say this needs to be righted. But our voices are being muffled by being labeled as heretical, and even desiring to remove the Calvinists.
We all use terminology differently. I don’t know a better term than non-Calvinist. Arminian is viewed as pejorative – though I’m not sure it should be. Traditionalist refers to a smaller group of people who were signatories to the document, but they do not represent all of those who eschew Calvinism. I used anti-Calvinist specifically for those who target Calvinists as inimical to the healthy future of the SBC.
So, until I come to a better term, I use the term non-Calvinist. I will call a public advocate of the Traditionalist document by that name (though I think it is an unfortunate name – traditionalist is a cultural term for me). Some, but not all, Traditionalists are anti-Calvinists.
There are Arminians out there, but I let them self-designate. If someone doesn’t call themselves an Arminian I don’t use the term.
Actually, the term Calvinist is equally troublesome. I do not assent to much of what is called Calvinism. I do not consider myself Reformed because I reject much of that system as unbiblical. I’ve called myself an antinomist. I’m not sure about Amyraldian. That may be accurate. Four-pointer.
I accept that I am more Calvinist than non-Calvinist, but none of those terms accurately describe me.
The best term for my theology is “biblically right and everyone else is wrong.” Maybe I should call it “Daveism.”
wow,,,did you just compare orthodox Christians who happen to disagree with your view of soteriology (which of course you think you are right to the exclusion of others) to Muslims? Really? Is that helpful in any way?
Yep. Looks like you are really charting a course to “save the convention” there, Tim.
Tarheel,
See, you are trying to engage in inflammatory rhetoric. I have compared nothing of the sort. I merely stated it is the same posturing going on. The outrageous Calvinists are being allowed to speak and tear others up with not one common everyday Calvinist speaking out against the mess. The Calvinists want to be taken as someone that is not out to destroy the convention but partner with a group whose mantra is to take the convention’s soteriological perspective back to the soteriology of its founders.
You cant have it both ways. The moderate Muslims do the same thing with the radical Muslims. They allow the radicals to say and destroy what they want but then turn around and say that we are not understanding Islam.
Tim, I agree to a small point. There are some obnoxious and extreme Calvinists who lead with their soteriology and are uncooperative with non-Calvinists.
However, where you err is that you do not see that the very SAME thing is true of the anti-Calvinist contingent. There is a small but vocal group who view Calvinists as the enemy.
Calvinism is NOT the problem. It is the extremes of both Calvinism and anti-Calvinism that are the problem.
I think most of us, Calvinists, non-Calvinists, whatever, are willing to cooperate beyond our camps and view the advancement of the kingdom and the future of the SBC ahead of the victory of “our side” over “their side.”
I believe, and hope, that the majority believe in that as well.
I agree 100% David.
LOL…Tim.
You accuse me of “inflammatory rhetoric”
Then deny that you compared Orthodox Christians to Muslims
Then quickly proceed using the rest of your post to do it again.
SMH.
Dave,
Ok let’s look at your comparison. I am not going to ask you to “name ’em” but I am going to ask for proof. Can you give me some proof of those that desire to rid the convention of Calvinism?
I can tell you that I personally have not intention in my heart to rid the convention of Calvinism. Go speak to some of my Calvinist brethren. They will tell you my position. Calvinists like Sam Cathey have nothing to fear. Calvinists like Al Mohler prove there is nothing to fear. Shoot, even Mark Dever is being promoted like a contestant on American Idol.
But, I will tell you that I have yet to see any of these speak or hear of them calling anyone whose rhetoric crossed the line. As a matter of fact there is even forwards written in books and promotions for some of these whose rhetoric is to reform the SBC.
I can personally vouch about being “prayed with” by some leaders concerning some times when my rhetoric crossed the line. It was expressed in no uncertain terms that my ten dollar mouth overloaded my penny behind.
So, while I will not deny there are those that may take on the “anti-Calvinist” mantra I can assure you that “prayer meetings” do take place. If they refuse to heed the “prayer meetings” then from my understanding these remain an island unto themselves.
Tim, I’ve served this local association in Maryland for over 9 years. In that time, we have planted more than 30 churches together, and seen 1000 people now worship Jesus who were not just a decade ago. We have launched missions efforts on every inhabited continent. I could go on, but the above should suffice to prove the point I’m about to make.
If you were to ask me where I stand on this issue, I’d tell you I’m comfortable being called a Calvinist. A few others on my Executive Board would agree, and many would not. One of the board members I cherish most would have strong objection to the idea of imputed sin, for example.
We have worked together nontheless, and no one has ever suggested we needed a theological form of affirmative action to get that work done. We simply seek to put the best people int he best spots and get it done.
And candidly, my biggest fear is that you guys–Calvinist and non–are going to come to Baltimore this June and stir that nonsense in a way that causes it to be an issue for those of us who have to remain behind long after you have gone home.
So, if you are going to have a fight over Calvinism, for the sake of the spread of the Gospel in the Baltimore-D.C. area, please do it somewhere else. Leave that nonsense in the south.
Amen, Joel. (except the little jab at the south…what up with that?) 😉
Joel,
Great news! Thanks for sharing that information.
I do like the way you pointed to your “one” that would object to “imputed sin” (I am reading that imputed guilt. If you have one that would deny imputed sin that would not be Christian orthodoxy) Isn’t it amazing that you have 62 churches but point out one board member that would believe like the majority of people in the pews in the SBC. Really, you are making my point.
Now, if you are going to tell me that you are planting these churches and the majority of them are accepting of imputed guilt then we have another concern. You are using funds from NAMB that are given by a majority of SBC that does not believe in imputed guilt, but you are planting churches teaching imputed guilt. That is a serious discrepancy. Does that not at least give a pause to what I am trying to say?
Tim, I was giving you an example, not stating that weonly had one of that doctrinal persuasion on our board.
it is apparent to me that you are spoiling for a fight, and would rather push the conflict–even if it might have an adverse effect on another local area and inhibit the forward progress of the Gospel–than to participate in what God is doing. If people are coming to Jesus in one of our churches, I could care less what particular position the pastor holds regarding imputed guilt, & I think your determination to start a war over this issue is incredibly sad. Again, keep that nonsense out of my city!
Tim,
Your comment about Joel’s “one” board member proves my continuous assertion that this is about power and control, not theology. You are concerned that people like you are losing control. It bothers you that God is working through people who are not like you. You rejoice with Joel on one hand and then disrespect him with the other by saying that your “funds” are being directed to start churches that your mythical majority don’t agree with. The scales are beginning to tip against your theological position and you don’t like it, so you nitpick works of God for the sake of your own ambition. That’s sad.
Mark 9:38-41 is a stunning rebuke from Jesus Himself to comments like yours. You are focusing so much on what you don’t like that you fail to rejoice in what is going on. Is your love of -non-Calvinism, SBC “majority orthodoxy,” Traditionalism, or whatever you want to call it so as not to offend you- greater than your love for the Gospel? Based on other things I have read from you I don’t think so, but when you make comments like this one I seriously wonder.
Why does it make a difference to you, or to the Gospel, if churches in Baltimore lean more towards imputed guilt, rather than an imputed nature? Does that make less of Jesus? Why does it matter that my church in Oklahoma preaches that salvation is initiated by God rather than by man’s search for God? How does that lessen the Gospel?
I find your obsession with these and other matters strange, because I pastor a church where my elder council is made up of men all along the theological spectrum. And three of us preach regularly. I don’t freak out when my brother in The Lord who is more free will, non-imputed sin, preaches. I am thankful for his ministry and for the Gospel he proclaims. He does not lose his mind when I preach that Adams guilt is imputed to humanity. We agree to disagree for the sake of the Gospel- and we disagree strongly on some of these issues.
I think you have let the shenanigans of two or three very loose cannons, whose ministries are thankfully either consigned to the hinterlands of the US- where they can do little damage- or whose names are obscure outside their small circles of influence- make you see the trees instead of the entire forest. The truth is if we stopped giving these guys – on both sides- enlarged platforms by ceasing to engage them or interacting with them- they would probably go away- or their platforms would be reduced to endless feedback loops of the same seven people agreeing with them. Try it brother. Your heart would be better for it. I know mine is.
And for the record, I have no idea what the “percentages” are. Strangely enough, we dont ask. We are more concerned with whether they actively share their faith and have a passion for people in this area. Even more strangely, if they spend an inordinate amount of time pushing a particular theology, we find there to be a correlation with their lack of ability to touch the city, & I wont put them in the field–even if they agree with me.
The idea that battling will somehow save our convention boggles my mind.
Well it certainly solves a ton in comment threads. Look at all that we’ve accomplished over the past few years by battling it out on blogs and comments and emails.
That, my friend, is a brilliant comment.
Dave,
We are a family. When a family has issues they have to deal with the issues before they can get past it. For us to keep calling for unity in order to reach a world for Christ is beginning to become hollow rhetoric. Just like a family cannot get past their divisions without dealing with the issue of division so our convention is not going to get past this until a leader steps up and deals with this issue.
I do not find it hollow rhetoric. For me, it is a passion and a commitment.
You mean deals with the issue the way you want them too…
Frank Page….CERTAINLY more on your side (if we must delineate) than mine…led a team of men (and a lady) who were firmly planted on one side or the other…there were no mushy middle people on the team…and ya know what…they came up with, what I think is a brilliant document to as your put it, “deal with the issue” flatly.
We saw front and center Eric Hankins and Al Mohler speak words of unity and love for one another. We heard Ascol and Patterson speak the same. They spoke of trust and unity around the gospel. They left the committee each still holding just as strongly to their postilion yet forged a path forward.
It might do us all well to read it again…and then as Joel has all but literally begged us on bended knee ….not fight about this in Baltimore.
http://www.sbclife.org/Articles/2013/06/SLA5.asp
Tim,
Are you saying you want a anti Calvinst combatant?
Many Calvinists are saying we won’t vote for a Calvinist “warrior” yet you are saying you want a warrior?
I truly hope your sentiments are not shared by a large number of your fellow anti Calvinists.
Tarheel,
What I am saying is clearly written above. You are trying to put the words out there that are not being said.
Yes, what you have written is clearly written above. Good thing I am not alone in my assessment of it.
I do not feel that I am putting words in your mouth at all, and I am not the only one who saw this as the intent of your post.
Tim Rogers said; “To prove my point you will notice the only non-Calvinist that has been elected to a position in a small state sponsored Baptist college has been met with more fire than anyone can try and put out.”
Not for nothing, but that comment is extremely disengenuious, and I think you know that.
The “fire” you speak of “meeting this small state sponsored presidential election” is NOT about soteriology….you know this. C pome on dude.
In fact the only ones bring up his soteriology at all in any of the discussions have been those either defending the indefensible or those making assumptions about the motives of some of those who have spoken out.
I haven’t seen where those of us posting on this blogsite addressing the unrepentant, defiant and open sin of said new president of the small state sponsored school mention his soteriology at all.
Tarheel………..Just a word of warning. Don’t call him “dude.” He isn’t your “dude.”
I found that out the hard way one time.
🙂
Lol…thanks.
I hope he realizes that “dude” is just a figure of speech and not meant offensively. Maybe me saying that will head off offense…
Dude, it may not work that way.
Well, I hope it does. I meant no offense. I hope none is taken.
Tarheel,
Since Dale Pugh has already warned you about the “dude” statement I will not go there.
First, I am not being disingenuous. Look at the history here. I shared that with William above. The allegations are nothing but the dry kindling needed to keep fueling the fire. The allegations have been investigated and proven false. Everything on the internet today was viewed back in 2010 and proven to have not factual basis.
Second, as long as we keep seeing appointments made on the national level coming from the east coast seminaries this issue will not go away. When was the last time you heard a seminary president say to a non-SBC group; “If one is to maintain inerrancy there is only one theology to hold to.”? It seems that statement has been left to be swept under the rug. Also, no one has ever answered Gerald Harris’ question; “Are there Southern Baptists that believe when children die they go to hell?”
Just these two issues prove the point I am making. You can try to sweep it under the rug all you want. This Calvinism divide cannot continue to be swept under the rug. It has to be dealt with sooner than later. If sooner it will presented and a disagreement but it is presented as a minority disagreement. If later there will be no disagreement b/c all those funding the convention will be gone and then we will hear that the non-Calvinists destroyed the convention.
I think the one observation I would make is that I would be against electing anyone who draws a salary from the CP pool as President, 1VP, or 2 VP for the SBC.
I think there is a need to separate those roles, even though the elected officers do not actually control the budget. As Bart pointed out, one of the major roles for the President is to keep the annual meeting on track and fair. There would be too many opportunities for complaint that one entity got more time, or a more even hand in discussion, or had tough questions shut down from the platform, if the person in the President’s chair was also the entity head.
And I assume we’re really only expecting that an entity head would be nominated, not a missionary (IMB or NAMB) or other non-boss at a seminary.
I think being an entity head for life (or until you decide to retire) is more than enough influence on the future of the SBC.
As to CP–
I would prefer we saw as leaders those who have shown it in their actions. I find myself amazed that a person could preach one Sunday that his congregation shows their lack of commitment by low giving, then turn around and become president of the SBC that he has led his church to give very little financially. The same voice that tells a congregation that their money shows their commitment then wants to claim it’s not true of his budget guidance to the church.
Anyway–I would be more interested in the explanation of how a church shows its overall commitment and involvement with the SBC than just a flat numbers game. And with a church’s explanation of a low number–or an unusually high one. Sometimes that high number is the result of generosity. Sometimes it’s a sign that a church will send checks out but do little around their local area.
Doug,
I would just like to see us promote people that fill out an ACP.
Tim, I agree with a lot of your last paragraph, though I think you engage in a bit of exaggeration. What I would love to see from you and others who are like minded is a clear outline of what you would like to see happen that would satisfy you. Write it up, point by point, and put it where we can all see it.
The danger as I see these snippets of complaints bandied about is that you and a few others are seen, unfairly IMO, as SBC tire slashers. Tell us what you want.
William,
We have pointed it out. When the Calvinism committee was put together it was supposed to be the cure all. When the report was released not once did Dr. Mohler say anything about calling the signers of the Trad statement ‘Semi-Pelagian’. His response was, well I didn’t really say they were I said they appeared to be. That is not what was picked up and promoted and still is promoted even by our current 2VP.
So, you want a point by point “what would satisfy” you? That is what the Presidential position is supposed to do. Let’s face it. When we put up a Point-by-Point satisifying structure we will be pointed to many different resolutions, and other things that we all know ain’t worth the paper it is written on.
No Tim. I asked what would satisfy you. You’ve given this some thought. Do you have an answer?
Do you think pastoring at. Church for life, or until you choose to retire is “more than enough influence over the future of a local church.”
I hear this proposal (about banning entity heads, etc from elective office) a lot….if I may I’d like to ask a question.
I wonder why this is such a big issue now, in recent years?
I’ll point out that these objections about ” those who take salary from CP pool” did not exist while Dr. Patterson was President of the convention and simultaneously Presudent of a Seminary.
Despite my disagreement with many of his theological stances, and his (then and now – lightening rod status) I respect and honor him as a fellow inerrantist and faithful theologian. I appreciate his contributions to the SBC, and am glad he offered his service as President of he convention.
I would not have voted for Dr. Patterson as SBC President while he was serving as an entity head. That does not mean he did not make a valuable contribution, but I would not have voted for him for that reason alone. Those objections existed–blogs did not, so it was harder for them to be raised–but they did exist.
As to the question of the influence of a pastor over the local church, I do not quite understand the comparison. What other leadership role in the local church can the pastor be elected to? And I have seen very wise men admit that their first step in retirement is to find a different church to attend because it is time to avoid being the continued primary influence.
There is a difference in being SBC President and being a pastor.
How about a Triumvirate of Dave Miller, Dwight McKissic, and Bart Barber?
Or is that too much influence from Southwestern? Probably too much from SWBTS.
Platform/agenda: convince Midwestern that MWBTS is an acceptable abbreviation; cooperative barbecue tour of the SBC; monthly prayer gatherings with local pastors; develop a feasible continuing education program from SBC pastors; provide guidance on how to keep us focused on cooperating with freedom under the Word through the BFM.
I’d vote for that. Twice.
MWBTS!!!!
I’m with you!
One of the most encouraging signs for the future is the prayer movement that is developing. I really wanted to go to the one in Atlanta in january, but I was busy trying to die of some kind of virus, so I couldn’t go.
I think that the reality of our lack of together-praying is near the root of the other issues: the lack of community, the competition, the willingness to fight over anything–
People who are regularly together confessing their sins, needs, and hopes to Almighty God, regularly praising Him for His work, regularly thanking Him for what He has done, regularly worshiping Him for all that He is…
Those people are passionate for Him above all else. If we would be that group of churches, we could stop trying to figure out how to get folks to stay, give, and join up. We’d have to figure out what to do with all the fellow Christians that want in.
I may make a motion that Dr. Allen be forced to acknowledge publicly that the proper abbreviation of Midwestern is MWBTS.
i think we would get a majority.
“…convince Midwestern that MWBTS is an acceptable abbreviation…”
NEVAR!!!!!
I will fight you till my last breath you scurvy dogs you!!!!
MBTS FOREVER!
So apparently using the “<" marks makes things disappear…Lets try that again
NEVAR!!!!!
(grabs sword)
I will fight you till my last breath you scurvy dogs you!!!!
MBTS FOREVER!
(waves sword around in a comedically menacing way)
Fianlly, I get it. LOL
I wondered what all this conversing about Midwestern was about.
As an impartial judge…one with no dog in the fight…
Midwestern is one word…so it should be MBTS.
I realize that Southeastern is also one word, so it should be SBTS but those initials are being used, I think. 😉
So, long and short of it is this…. just blame THE Southern Baptist Theological Seminary! Everything else seems to be their fault so just pile this one on too.
Butting back out now. 😉
Actually no joke, when I was visiting MBTS, after telling them I was going to choose them or SBTS, they actually harped on Southern for having “THE” in their name and then jokingly went on to blame them for everything in the SBC.
As for the initials, yes you get it! SEBTS and SWBTS have the E and W, because there already is a SBTS. Since there is only one M(word) Baptist Theological Seminary among CP funded SBC seminaries, there is no reason to add 5th letter! If Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary were ever to become the 7th SBC seminary (which I know never will happen as there have been some rumblings of consolidating one or two seminaries as it is), maybe then we would have an issue, but until then…
MBTS FOREVER!!!!
Mid-America is pretty firmly already MABTS, so I don’t expect that would be an issue. I think that it’s more of an occasional slip-up because of SWBTS, SEBTS, GGBTS, NOBTS, and MABTS that it feels right, that it should be MWBTS. Of course, logically, they can call themselves whatever they want to.
I recently returned to the pastorate after an extended stint in the secular workforce, so I’ve been out of the loop as to national-level SBC affairs for some time. Forgive me if I’m being naïve, but are there pastors likely to be nominated who are combative on the Calvinism issue? I would not consider Al Mohler or the SBTS crowd “combative.” I sat under Paige Patterson when he was at SEBTS, and I would not consider him “combative” on the issue. It seems to me that most of the combativeness takes place on message boards and private conversations (or maybe within local churches) rather than at the convention level. I do understand that there are those who would consider a President’s appointing fellow Calvinists or non-Calvinists as a form of “combat.”
Jeff,
Welcome back to the SBC. I know you learned this at SEBTS b/c I attended under Dr. P’s presidency, so this is just a statement of remembrance. Your parenthetical statement is the most accurate statement about the controlling interest in the SBC. If the local church is not Calvinistic but the leaders are, then we have a serious issue. That is the way the convention is structured. If the local church is combative about the Calvinism issue then the convention should not be placing Calvinists in majority leadership. If I were in the PCA I certainly would not expect to be placed in any level of leadership.
“If I were in the PCA I certainly would not expect to be placed in any level of leadership.”
If you were Presbyterian and affirmed their confessions…why not?
I know of no person in SBC leadership who does not affirm the BF&M2000, an if at a seminary I assume they affirm the Baptistic statements there as well.
Tarheel,
““If I were in the PCA I certainly would not expect to be placed in any level of leadership.”
Confessionalism and adherence in the PCA works a little differently than in the SBC. I have been ordained in the PCA since 1992.
In the PCA a minister and/or elder and deacon “subscribe” the doctrines in the WCF and LC and SC. Subscription does not mean an affirmation of every jot and tittle of the confession. The specific language at ordination regarding confessional subscription is:
“Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith
and the Catechisms of this Church as containing the system
of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture?”
In each presbytery where a man is approved into the PCA those men hear any exceptions the man may have with the confession and decide if his exception is permissible. Thus, a man may, and often does, take exception to the WCF on the sabbath related to recreation of any sort on the sabbath. So, not a jot and tittle requirement.
If, however, the presbytery determines that a man’s exception strikes at the “system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture” he will not be received for ordination.
Seems to me that the some in the SBC would rather have a strict jot and tittle type of adherence to the confession. But given the structure in the SBC, I just don’t see how that could happen.
i.e. what the SBC really has and probably should have is something similar to the PCA subscription method. That allows for the two groups of Cs and NCs to coexist without wanting to require uniformity on the interpretation of said confession(s).
Jared’s post is discussing the confession of NOBTS right now and this idea of a “looser” subscription might solve the problem.
Tarheel,
Because their confessions are specific concerning soteriological leanings. The BF&M is not a confession like that of other denominations. We are saying that we are placing before the people a minimum of what they are to believe. Other denominations place their confessions as a maximum, IOW, you cannot go beyond these beliefs.
So is your contentin that the seminary confessions are meaningless?
Nevermind. I misread your comment.
I agree with Dave’s original post that one can be a Calvinist or non-Calvinist without being combative about the issue. I have no problem with a Southern Baptist of either stripe so long as he supports the BF&M 2000 and the Cooperative Program. I haven’t seen our nationally-known SBC leaders get combative about Calvinism, though I confess I’m not “in the know” about these things. When I mentioned the local church, I mean that there surely are local churches that are divided about whether to call a Calvinist pastor or adopt elder rule, etc. Those issues can definitely get combative, unfortunately. On a Convention-wide scale, I don’t see the problems being as acute. I don’t think an SBC President should have to line up with a majority of Southern Baptists on every issue outside of those delineated in the BF&M.
In other words, I don’t expect a prominent candidate for SBC President to be adamant about, or focused on, promoting or opposing theologies or practices that are associated with Calvinism but fit within the framework of the BF&M. For example, are we likely to have a Presidential candidate who insists that local churches must/must not adopt a plurality of elders?
I think you and I are on the same page.
My use of the term “combatant” may have been hyperbolic and unhelpful. By that, I mean someone who has demonstrated a willingness to work with those with whom he disagrees on the Calvinism issue.
For instance, in one sense, Frank Page is a combatant – he wrote a book against Calvinism. But in his convention work he has been a promoter of unity and cooperation.
So, I admit the term is fluid and not easily defined.
Dave,
Couldn’t reply to your last comment so I’m putting it here. Yes, I think we are in agreement. I was just wondering (in a non-snarky way) if there were likely to be candidates who are combative (in the argumentative, divisive sense of the word) on this issue. Apparently, there could be, but I doubt whether they would get much support. Yeah, I have no problem with a pastor who is outspoken on Calvinism either way so long as he is willing to partner with both sides for the mission of the SBC.
and sometimes “combative” is more of a perception issue than anything. Maybe “lightening rod” is a better term….because sometimes that mantle is placed on people just because they are out front relating to issues and more accurate than combatant or warrior…I think I used that term.
People perceive someone as a combatant…whether it is true or not. Perception becomes reality.
I would not vote for Al Mohler…not becaue I do not think he is qualified, or because he is a Seminary President…but because many anti Calvinists view him as a combatant, he is a bit of a lightening rod. Same for Dever. It would not be a stretch to say that thier election would bring about a shout from Anti Calvinists not heard heretofore.
I would not vote for Tim Rogers or Peter Lumpkins….and I would offer the same explanation for not doing so (except the opposite. LOL).
(I intentionally picked two vocal Calvinists, two vocal anti Calvinists for purposes of illustration only) I know not of any of them mounting campaigns and dare I say I certainly hope they aren’t only for the reasons stated above.
If we are ever going to harken back to a day where strongly convictional Calvinists and strongly convictional anti Calvinists coexist and cooperate together…electing…or even nominating a lightening rod would be counter productive and highly stupid, IMO.
Tarheel, be careful about your terminology. Anti-Calvinist is a term that should be reserved for the extremes.
One can be an opponent of Calvinism without being an anti-Calvinist. Frank Page is an example.
Anti-Calvinist needs to be reserved for those who not only oppose Calvinism on a theological basis, but attack Calvinists on a personal, extreme way.
You’re right, Dave. Thanks.
Not all “non Calvinists” are “anti Calvinsts”…. I’ll try to be more careful.
“If the local church is not Calvinistic but the leaders are, then we have a serious issue.” Says who?!
My first pastorate was a church that was majority non-Calvinist. I was there 4 years. Attendance doubled with a 40% conversion growth rate, largely due to the passion of the people to minister to the city. Then I left to teach and plant churches. That was almost 15 years ago, and they are STILL not majority Calvinist, but there was no “serious issue.”
I could point you to many other examples in my own area where the pastor’s views on any number of secondary issues (Calvinism, eschatology, et al) didn’t coincide with the majority of the people in his church. He was forthright, but didn’t make an issue of it, and neither did they. Both sides learned from each other’s perspective over the years, and again, there was no “serious issue.”
What we are talking about here is far less about theology, and much more about one’s ability to work with people, and knowledge of how to lead them well. Sure, I’ve known a few guys who couldn’t keep a church because they kept counting the petals on their TULIP. I’ve also known guys who made similar hay out of birth control, or KJV only, or dispensationalism, or whether women could teach a mixed gender Sunday School class…..and in every situation, the source of the conflict wasn’t what the pastor believed, but that he was a complete a total jerk about it.
So let’s stop acting like theological differences are what is causing the majority of the division in our churches. Change, power and conflict among both pastors and laity cause 99% of it. And in my experience, the pastor will say “well, they just won’t submit to the Word of God. This is a matter of theology–and they are in rebellion!” and the people will tell me “we weren’t opposed to him holding that position. We were even open to it ourselves, but the way he tried to ram it down our throats just wasn’t going to work, and his arrogance made us feel as though because he had the seminary degree, he was superior to the rest of us.”
Power, control, and lots of misunderstanding are what 99% of church conflicts are about. Part of me wishes it were as substantive as to be able to accurately say it was theology.
The assumption is that all Calvinists are out to Calvinize people and churches. There are, perhaps, some with that agenda. But most just simply want to minister in Christ’s name.
I’d like an SBC president who does not share that assumption.
Dave,
See you make such statements as “the assumption”. There is no assumption. We have teaching in our seminary a leading Historical Professor that advocates making your next pastor a Calvinist. Please tell me what professor at any of our seminaries has stated that we should make certain that our next pastor is a non-Calvinist?
You see it is not an assumption that the Calvinists are out to Calvinize people and churches in the SBC. From a leading Professor you will read this article titled Why your Next Pastor should be a Calvinist Not only that he is writing for a group within the convention that has for its mantra to return the convention to the soteriology of Boyce and the Princeton theology.
Thus, this is not an “assumption” it is in writing. Until you Calvinist come out publicly against this kind of teaching there will always be this “divide”.
I would think and hope that the reasons he posted would also identify a non Calvinist .
His list of “Calvinist descriptors” in bold should, and I believe does describe most pastors in the SBC…at least upi hope so.
He did not, despite your ardent accusations, contend that all churches should hire a Calvinist Pastor….he was simply making a case that Calvinists make good pastors.
Your acrobatics to impugn all Calvinists (I know you’ll deny it) is getting guide comical.
What do you guys mean by “CP giving?”
We give a large percent of our money directly to the SBC in Nashville for distribution according to the SBC allocation budget.
We have been doing this since we founded the church in 1992.
We do this because of the heartbeat of our church and people. We want most of our money to actually get to the mission field.
We don’t hate the State Convention, but they are involved in things that we are not as interested in. And we don’t want 68 cents of every dollar siphoned off at the State level before it is sent to Nashville.
Query: Are we a loyal Southern Baptist Church?
Would a pastor or layman from a church that did this be an acceptable candidate for the SBC?
I can understand why someone from a church like this would not be a good candidate for the State Convention.
But the SBC is a separate organization from the State Convention.
CP is money given that includes both the state and then the national distribution. A few churches bypass state conventions and send straight to the xcomm but very few and very little in dollars.
I would not support a candidate or nominee who practiced this, though I recognize a few churches make this decision.
Most churches who want their dollars to get to the “mission field” as you put it just give direct to the mission boards.
William, we want the money to get to the mission field, but we also believe in the concept of giving to the denominational allocation budget. The vast majority by percentage goes to the IMB and NAMB.
We also believe in education, ERLC and the other ministries that the SBC has. Though we believe that the percentages are low enough that it does not detract from the SBC missions emphasis.
As it relates to the state, when we started the church in 1992, we had lots of people with no background in the SBC. They believed in missions, so it was an easy sell to explain how the SBC does missions, and how being part of a denomination was a good and helpful thing.
It was NOT an easy sell to say that of the $1 put in the offering plate, 68 cents was going to stay in the state to run Baptist colleges, one of which has left the fold and another is not biblically faithful, and do the other local ministries that our church really doesn’t need assistance with, 32 cents was going to be sent to Nashville and from there divided up.
We attend the annual SBC every year and are very active.
We do not attend the State convention.
I don’t take issue with your practice, Louis, but do think that support of the SBC allocation budget is not the same as CP support. Without state conventions there is no CP.
Nowadays, any money given to SBC causes is Great Commission Giving….so, even though your Church may only give 2% to the CP….still, you can tell everyone that your Church gave 25% to Great Commission Giving. That’s what matters now. It’s not CP giving. That way it sounds better when you talk about supporting SB work.
David
David, Great Commission Giving is a new category but I would hardly conclude that it is “what counts now.” When I see reporting on a candidates giving, both figures are used. GCG counts so long as a candidate who is a megachurch pastor gives some small percentage to the CP. I’d bet it will not count for just any candidate and I’d bet that no candidate who gives zero to the CP is elected to anything.
If you were speaking TIC on this…you can say, ‘gotcha.’
Vol, the CP is. Seperate line on the ACP….
Yes, the great commission giving includes CP giving, AAEO, LMCO, other SB causes as well as any toe missions giving the church wants to report….but the CP is still seperate and identifiable as such.
I would suggest that your church is loyally supporting the SBC, but wouldn’t likely vote for you as a state convention officer.
That’s why I stated above that there’s more to it than just a raw number. Some churches are fully committed to SBC national ministries but not their state convention ministries (and all for their own reasons). That shouldn’t disqualify a potential SBC leader.
Thanks, guys.
This has been a growing trend over the years. If you look at the Book of Reports for giving to the SBC budget, you will see the states listed in order of the amount of the contributions from those states.
“Churches” is a category for contributions that come directly from churches, not through CP giving to the states. The “Churches” category giving is not insignificant.
It would in my opinion. Such an individual would have demonstrated he does not support the CP. We must have some level of CP support from our leaders.
I need to reiterate something about my CP statements. Again, no one has or should make a blanket qualification percentage.
But I can decide what I am going to do. And I cannot see myself vote for someone whose CP giving is measured in tenths of a percentage.
I would love to see a pastor from a smaller church who has dedicated his life to growing that church in that small community and to the causes of the SBC within his state and region.
Ya know, if it’s worth anything, I’d bet I fit the Calvinism non-combatant profile. Never expressed an opinion on it publicly, and not even sure if I’ve ever had a whispered conversation about it with anyone not related to me by blood or marriage.
I’m also a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist, love the CP, and haven’t had an agenda since 1998.
So, what was your agenda in and before 1998.
Just kidding….they way you worded that it seemed you had one up until that point. 😉
World domination.
Plus, I wanted to visit Disneyworld.
Lol.
You, as a Southern Baptist, wanted to go to DisneyWorld???
(Pssstttt…..I think the boycott is still in place.)
Guess everyone has secret and rebellious desires. 😉
Ethan for president.
Would Leo Endle be willing to run?
Haven’t talked to him.
I think that he might actually be a viable candidate now, contrary to 2010, when we knew he would likely not be.
I am afraid, though, that our friendship might be over because I said this.
I’d vote for him!
I did the last time. Would again.
Tim,
what does this mean?
“Shoot, even Mark Dever is being promoted like a contestant on American Idol.”
I for the life of me cannot figure it out. Mark Dever is the furthermost from a singing game show contestant of anyone I have ever been around…LOL.
Who knows though.. Maybe he is a singing sensation.
Tarheel,
How many other churches has a ministry that is being promoted by two seminaries? That is what I mean.
Much of the 9marks stuff is very good…so it makes sense that seminaries would use it.
If Jerry Vines, for example, had ever produced anything that good, I’m sure it would have been promoted too.
Tarheel,
I cannot believe you just said that. Wow, and you want to be taken seriously in a conversation?
Tarheel,
Regarding your comment against Jerry Vines:
Maybe you and others should check out
http://www.jerryvines.com/
David R. Brumbelow
I mentioned earlier that I meant no disrespect to Dr. Vines.
I used him in my example because he obviously is one that does not share Dever’s soteriological positions.
I worded my comment to poorly and to some it appeared that I was dissing Vines by implying he has not done as much as Dever…that was not my intent. Not at all.
I simply was saying that Vines, while he has made real, important and obvious contributions to the SBC, he has not produced the same type of material as 9Marks.
If he had or does, I am sure one or two of the seminaries might “push” his stuff too.
Like Miller said, both men are important, both men have made different contributions and both men should be acknowledged for those contributions.
Ok. After 130 comments I think Ive finally come to an equitable definition of “noncombatant. ” That would be someone who doesnt care about someone else’s views on secondary matters. Its someone who doesnt count beans to make sure there is “representation” in the SBC that matches his views, and doesnt think we need to implement a theological form of affirmative action, or be overly concerned about which views are endorsed where. Instead, a noncombatant asks one, very simple question. “Are disciples of Jesus being made?” Other critical questions might also be asked, such as “are marriages staying together? Are children growing up in homes that honor Jesus? Are men acting like men when it comes to their natural urges, work ethic and sense of responsibility? Is unrepentant sin lovingly confronted? Are people getting better with how they handle their Bible, and how they spend tome with the One who wrote it? And, is this environment being replicated so that more of these environments exist, and society is changed for the better as a result?” If the answer is yes, I dont care whether it is “Calvinist.” I want more of it.
Joel,
If a “noncombatant” is someone who must not care whether or not the theological and cultural identity of our denomination’s members is appropriately represented among our leadership, then I would be considered a “combatant” simply for expecting that those who pay the bills would have their concerns adequately represented.
Anyone who knows me personally knows that I am certainly not a combatant, but quite mild-mannered, despite being opinionated.
I just don’t see what’s wrong with wanting our leadership to reflect the viewpoints, theology, culture and identity of the people in the pews. You make that sound like a bad thing.
Rambo was a “combatant.” I simply believe in democracy.
Incidentally, many of those outside our denomination could meet your criteria—”Are disciples being made, are people growing in Christ, etc.” We certainly cannot place THEM in SBC leadership.
As a denomination, we draw boundaries of theology and identity. There is a difference between a SOUTHERN BAPTIST leader and a general CHRISTIAN / EVANGELICAL leader. I think our Southern Baptist laypersons in the pews expect a clear Southern Baptist representation from their leaders. I believe that, in most matters, there is indeed a Southern Baptist “way,” and that our people expect leaders who will reflect our cherished beliefs and customs.
I think SBC identity was assumed in his post.
Also, why do you keep contending that your view of soteriology is he majority view of “pew members”?
I contend based on the way the questions are asked can yeild any number of views and differing ones from the same congregants that mixed with the soteriological teaching of thier pastors ….there’s no real way to ascertain what you are claiming to know so well.
Also, you are using two different definitions for Calvinist based on convenience. Affirming 3-4 points makes one a Calvinist when bemoaning the election of entity heads and hiring for other high level positions. Affirming all 5 points makes one a Calvinist when discussing the small percentage of Calvinists among those in the pew.
Litmus tests like you contend are, IMO, counterproctive and isolationist.
Are you contending that Calvinists should just shut up, be quiet and never serve in leadership capacities?
You resist strongly professors having to sign doctrinal statements you contend are beyond the BFM2000, but seem to advocate such screening (at least in practice and based on YOUR subjective process) for volunteer leadership and certainly for paid employees.
Question Rick….
Is there a possibility that you might vote for a known Calvinist for the position of SBC president? If he sufficently met all your other criteria (since there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate), but was a Calvinist…would you vote for him?
I’d ask the same question of Tim and CB.
Tarheel,
Not if he is from NC and is a Tarheel fan. 😉
BTW, I found you. It took a while, but I know who you are, you little rascal. I think I even know your daddy. Be assured, your secret is safe with me.
Seriously, Tarheel,
I have voted for a known Calvinist to be pres if the SBC. So have many other hardline conservatives who comment on and read this blog.
However, he was not mad about being a Calvinist, nor did he scream at those of us who are not Calvinists that we were not on his level of theological understanding.
He also did not wear skinny britches or spike his hair six inches above his head looking like he just stuck his finger in a light socket either. 🙂
CB,
Once again, I find myself saying amen to what you just said.
David
Tarheel,
Granted, it’s hard to know precisely the soteriology of the SBC’s millions of members. However, even the most ardent Calvinists have normally yielded that the majority of the convention is not Calvinist.
Adam,
For me, Limited Atonement is not the essential issue. Thus, four or five USUALLY doesn’t differentiate significantly. Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace are like peanut butter and jelly. If one accepts the former, the latter just seems to follow. Let me remove the point counting from the equation: “If someone believes God’s predestination is causative rather than reflecting His foreknowledge, so that man does not possess the libertarian free will to respond to the Holy Spirit’s drawing either way, then I’m comfortable calling him a Calvinist. We’re all for P, and with certain parsing, for T. L sometimes becomes a bit of a semantic dance. So, apart from point counting, just tell me if they believe that each person is truly free to say either yes or no to the God whose unconditional love truly desires to save all, and the matter is settled, in my view.
Tarheel,
“Are you contending that Calvinists should just shut up, be quiet and never serve in leadership capacities?” No, not at all, and I never have said any such thing. I’d like to see faithful, accurate representation of the membership. Consider Congress. If 60% of America is Democrat, and 40% is Republican, then I don’t want to see, say, 95% of our congressional leaders Democrats and only 5% Republican. But by no means do I want to eliminate all of the Democrats from America. That’s absurd.
Also, my view of your hiring processes scenario could be more clearly stated like this: “I think there should be one Confessional Statement addressing the candidate’s BELIEFS—not two. Additionally, I have no problem with an organization prescribing certain work rules in a Personnel Policy addressing the candidate’s expected BEHAVIOR—but again, not TWO Personnel Policies that differ from each other. A Personnel Policy is NOT a Confessional Statement. Organizations can only have one of each if they are to avoid placing a candidate in a Catch 22.
I’m really not sure if I would vote for a Calvinist or not. I visit the homebound with them. They preach in my pulpit. We go to lunch. I have Calvinist friends. But as you know, I feel the convention’s soteriological pendulum needs to swing back the other way a bit, in order to provide a proper balance. So the fact that I might vote for one, theoretically, at some point in the future, does not mean that I would be comfortable doing so at this particular juncture of our convention life.
What I’m REALLY looking for in a President is this: http://bit.ly/1lUuNIB
CB,
Eureka! I have found a place of agreement with you!
I too would have a really hard time voting for a vote a dude (sorry Tim 😉 ) who;
“…wears skinny britches or spikes his hair six inches above his head looking like he just stuck his finger in a light socket”
no matter his soteriology or any other “qualifier.” 😉 z
In fact, that might be one of the reasons I did not vote for one of the guys who ran against Frank Page in Greesnboro…. 😉
Another point of agreement – I’d also have hard time voting for anyone who is “mad about thier theology” or go around screaming thier estimation relating to the views of the “majority of Southern Baptists” (which maybe not so coincidently coincide with thier views) etc. 😉
Rick, every measurable indicator in SBC life seems to state clearly that we are NOT, as a whole, making disciples, so yes, that would be my primary concern, as this is the only command Jesus gave His disciples in the Great Commission. As to the “representation” question, I don’t consider the Calvinism discussion to qualify, because there simply isn’t enough difference–theologically or practially–between the average Calvinist and the average non-Calvinist to make a difference. What has been going on in this thread is theological bean-counting, and candidly no, I’m not the least bit interested in that because, again, that sort of in-fighting isn’t resulting in the making of disciples. If we aren’t doing the one thing the Great Commission demands–if our churches don’t reflect a disciple-making culture, then not only am I not concerned about SBC identity anymore, I would want to wipe it from the face of the earth. Its time we started talking about things that really matter.
and for the record, so that I am not misunderstood, I’m not advocating for placing Methodists, Presbyterians, et al in positions of SBC leadership. Those roles should be filled by Baptists–but beyond those doctrinal parameters–which include both Calvinists and non–my priority of inquiry remains the same.
Rick,
Is libertarian freedom a scriptural mandate or a logical one in the Hobbs-Rogers tradition? It seems to me that man was created with libertarian freedom and recovers that after conversion, but between then is a “slave to sin” in “bondage”, etc. If libertarian freedom is a logical conclusion, is it worth being a litmus test?
Joel,
REGARDING TOPIC REDUCTIONISM
In a thread about SBC Presidential Qualifications, I promoted my desire for the President to represent and honor the culture, identity and theology of the majority of Southern Baptists by making sure our leaders looks like our followers. While you are free to disagree, I think “theological bean counters” is a rather pejorative way to describe identifying one’s convictions. Every church and denomination does this—even wings and factions within denominations do this. Like it or not, Traditionalists perceive discrimination today, not only in certain church planting organizations but in certain theology departments, most new entity leadership posts, the majority of speaker panels in our conferences, etc. What you call “theological bean counting” I call “trying to fairly represent the views of all Southern Baptists.”
Then when you come back with: “All I care about is whether disciples are being made or not…” your argument pulls in the topic of the Great Commission and sets it against our existing discussion topic of SBC Presidential Qualifications. I sincerely hope you are not implying that I care more about who the SBC President is than whether or not we are making disciples. I do not yield that higher ground. I am 100% in favor of making disciples. But disciple making is not my only qualification for SBC President.
To illustrate this reductionism, consider this scenario: “Hey, Rick, what are you doing?” “Putting on my shoes.” “Man, are your priorities messed up. All I care about is making disciples of all nations. And all you seem to care about is playing footsie with your shoes.” “What, do you want me to walk outside barefoot?”
I must also challenge the notion that there is little practical or theological difference between a Calvinist and a Traditionalist. My evidence is a major SBC Committee Report within the last year and about a million blogposts and conversations at Southern Baptist meetings. We’re getting letters regularly at Connect 316 from LAYPEOPLE burdened by the unannounced Calvinist takeovers in their churches. They don’t know what’s happening, but they feel like their church is being taken away from them.
This issue is not a trifling matter, and we cannot simply wish it away. Yes, making disciples is more important than promoting the kind of unity and peace in one’s denomination that will emerge when we treat all groups fairly, but that does not mean that we should ignore the principle of fairness in SBC representation.
So to review: YES to discipleship, YES to denominational fairness for all, NO to bean counting (who has the time), NO to the notion that Cals and Trads have no significant differences, NO to making a post about Presidential Qualifications a referendum on one’s commitment to the Great Commission, and NO to wiping the SBC from the face of the earth—let’s keep it around and make it better, removing the distraction of theological discrimination by those who refuse to admit there is a problem.
Andrew,
Freedom is both scriptural and logical. Although man is a slave to sin, this slavery describes his spiritual state, but not the nature of his will. He has the freedom to reject the world and accept Christ, as the Holy Spirit leads and empowers him. When he is a slave to sin, he has chosen for a time to embrace the things of this world. When he freely repents and believes, he is a slave no longer, having accepted the work of Christ that transforms him from sinner to saint.
Speaking of sweeping generalizations….
“We’re getting letters regularly at Connect 316 from LAYPEOPLE burdened by the unannounced Calvinist takeovers in their churches. They don’t know what’s happening, but they feel like their church is being taken away from them.”
So does that mean that every Calvinist pastor does this? Dies it mean that most do? Is it even fair to say that many do?
Do non reformed minded pastors “takeover” churches? Are there church members out there who feel that a controlling no calvinist pastor is “taking thier church from them”.
Is it possible that some of reason you gt so many letters like that is tht you’ve and other similar groups have established yourself as a dumping ground for such complaints.
The number of letters you’re getting like that are not proof of any type of SBC Calvinist takeover…they’re only demonstrative of the feelings of those who sent the letters.
Tarheel,
A “significant minority” of Calvinist Pastors do indeed gain pulpits by being less than forthcoming with Traditionalist-majority churches. I have yet to hear of a single Traditionalist Pastor gaining a pulpit by being less than forthcoming with Calvinist-majority churches. It just doesn’t happen. I suppose among all other church splits unrelated to soteriology, both Trads and Cals participate proportionally.
Rather than a “dumping ground” for complaints, we have become something of a Counseling Center debriefing those who feel betrayed by leaders they assumed were telling the truth, but in fact, had hidden reform agendas. We never expected this. We thought it would be mostly Traditionalist Pastors discussing theology. And for the most part, it is. But think about it–where else can these laypeople go? A few denominational resources exist. Some DOMs are being trained in helping churches to recover from a secret reform attempt. But there are really no groups out there addressing this concern in Baptist life. So yes, we get their emails. But the tone is never angry complaining–just shock and disbelief. How did this happen? Where did we go wrong? How can we prevent it in the future? It’s grief, not rage.
This is probably not the thread for this, but I’d like an explanation as to what terms like “secret reform” and “less than forthcoming” means?
These are certainly loaded terms that are well used but as of yet remains largely undefined. Well, at least I’ve not seen these accusations defined.
Both Mark Dever and Jerry Vines have contributed to the Kingdom of God and to Southern Baptist work.
Let’s end this line of discussion gentlemen.
This was supposed to be under Tarheel’s comment, not Joel’s.
I got a little carried away.
I agree that they have and still do both contribute greatly. I respect Vines…I’m only pointing out the stupidity of Tim’s comment.
Seminaries using Dever’s 9Marks stuff is logical, it good stuff. Just as logical as it ould be if Vines has produced a similar line of materials….which he has not.
I admit I worded my comment badly.
I used Vines because he’s one that doesn’t share Devers soteriology.
I would like to see a SBC President who is NOT from the South (this has never happened), who is under 40, who has been involved in church planting and is not part of a church that is over 1,000 in average weekly attendance.
I say this as a 60 years old Southern Baptist church member who is part of the leadership of a new SB church plant in San Diego, CA. If the SB movement is to grow (or continue to grow, depending on what figures you believe) it needs to embrace that it is a national movement that embraces young leaders and church planting. While the President of the Convention can not bring about immediate significant change, the president can reflect a new direction in SB thinking that IMHO is needed for us to see growth.
I’m joining the conversation late, but I would like someone who will help to diminish the various fault lines in the Convention and seek to bring unity. I would like to continue the trend and keep electing the kinds of presidents we have been electing — pro-unity, pro-evangelism, pro-missionary, anti-tribalist. Affirming Baptist tradition and distinctives, but willing to make strategic missional changes needed to reverse our decline (Cards on the table, I am pro-GCR and continue to be so). I will not vote for any candidate that wants to narrow cooperation beyond the BFM2000 or who treats the SBC as if we are the only Christians who exist.
As for who that person might be, it would be nice to elect a president who is not a megachurch pastor, not an SBC entity head, is from a pioneer state, and doesn’t take himself too seriously (and, yes, Dave Miller does fit the bill).
It would be nice if folks in this thread would not commit the composition fallacy.
Funny, also, how we Christians tend to exercise the Golden Rule. Instead of ‘doing unto others’ without warrant, conditions are put on how we treat others. Those in disagreement are often called to ‘do right unto me’ and only then will I ‘do right unto you’. This approach results in a never ending spiral of disunity.
The fact that this has been hijacked by arguments over Calvinism is proof enough we need someone who is not interested in stoking theological debate over an issue that is not necessary to agree on for cooperation.
I find the constant battles by the extremists on either side to not only be tiresome but sinful. I have no interest in tearing down my brothers and sisters who do not hold the same view of soteriology as I, and yet are orthodox Christians.
I do not understand why many are so willing to tear down people that they will stand side by side with in glory, praising our God and King. Life is too fleeting a thing to shoot my brother and aid the Accuser in his work rather than submit to God and join him in HIS work.
I’ll close with a quote that has stuck with me; “If you’re suffering and you’re angry, bitter, and joyless it means you’ve idolized whatever it is you’re losing.”
What Nick said.
What Joel said about what Nick said.
“As far as I am concerned, we could change the bylaws and make Fred Luter SBC President for life.”
Dave Miller,
I like Dr. Luter also, but I would not vote for him or even Dr. Paige Patterson, Dr. Jerry Vines, Dr. Bailey Smith, Dr. Jimmy Draper, or the Great and Wonderful Judge Paul Pressler to be “President of the SBC for Life.”
That would constitute tenure. Tenure is one of the horses that almost pulled the SBC wagon straight through the Gates of Hell before the CR rescued it and put new and fresh horses in the harnesses and pulled our wagon out of the fire just in the “nick-of-time.” Amen!
To all,
I would like to see a president who has an agenda, that is subject to convention approval. The SBC is suffering from my vantage point because not since the Bold Mission Thrust and the CR, have we had Presidents who put forth global or comprehensive style agendas. I don’t recall the GCR really providing an organized, publicized plan of action encouraging or guiding local church involvement. Dr. Luther’s passionate plea for revival is a prelude to what could be a future president building upon to lead us into a global/comprehensive style programmatic evangelistic/discipleship type thrust.
It appears that Bart Barber believes that the SBC Presidency should only be a care taker role. If that’s true, the SBC Presidency must be one of the most boring & unnecessary jobs in America. Frank Page’s role fulfil that need. Richard Land & a couple of others have argued that the President’s office is not just honorific or symbolic, but actually powerful. Why have power if it cannot be harnessed for Kingdom good and advancement.
The one agenda that I wish the next SBC President would advance is to launch organized discussions between predominately SBC Anglo, African American, Asian, and Hispanic churches surrounding multiethnic church planting. These discussions would be toward the end that sufficient dialogue, prayer, planning, and relationship building, could lead to NAMB launching all future church plants as multiethnic church plants in the spirit & model of Acts 13:1,2 The Church at Antioch. The SBC is probably the only denomination where there is enough diversity that exist where discussions and implementation of this kind of church planting could take place.
The SBC is suffering from a clear vision, definition, and agenda that’s been agreed to in an annual session. Without that vision, the people perish. I would love to see the next President build upon the vision of revival & unity laid out by President Luter, and now give us a Kingdom, global, comprehensive vision, to impact the best generation, and energize & revitalize our local churches.
I’m with you on the agenda idea, Dwight. Just for fun, I googled “Great Commission Resurgence” to check the dates of the articles. All of them were from 2010 except one—The Plodder’s article asking the question, “The Great Commission Resurgence, is it alive or dead?” Dateline: March 12, 2012—23 months ago. People are really not talking about it all that much anymore.
We need a direction that the ENTIRE convention can support. GCR just wasn’t it. For that matter, when was the last time you heard someone say they were gladly a “Great Commission Baptist?” We’ve had a few agenda-driven leaders, but the agenda just wasn’t largely embraced.
Like you, I want to know what the new President plans to do. I think it’s a fair question, but one our format does not really allow us to answer.
Rick,
Ours is a convention of independent, autonomous churches. You say “We’ve had a few agenda-driven leaders, but the agenda just wasn’t largely embraced.” I’d say that’s by design. Our convention is DESIGNED to prevent potentates from taking the helm.
Dwight says about the office “Why have power if it cannot be harnessed for Kingdom good and advancement?” But the question is, does the president actually HAVE the power that you think he has. He has the power to do the things that I’ve mentioned—make appointments and preside over the annual meeting. Beyond that, the president does not have any power.
He does, of course, have some INFLUENCE, which is altogether different from power, but even at that, I’d say that the presidency of the SBC doesn’t really even provide that much influence. Men become SBC President because they are influential; they don’t become influential because they are SBC President. I’d say that the average SBC President presides with approximately the same level of influence (i.e., ability to persuade independent, autonomous churches to do something different from what they are already doing) that he had when he entered the office.
Rick,
Amen!!! I pray that God would raise up a president who has His agenda to offer to our convention. Without an agenda, what’s the purpose of the convention? If we are only here to do what we have always done, the way we’ve always done it, then all we need is to push the reset button, every two years. Our vital signs & statistics are trending in the wrong direction because of a lack of a clear agenda. A good way to continue this trend is to continue without an agenda.
See! I told you I would disappoint you!
Dwight,
And now you will see the darkest and ugliest aspect of my personality: This last comment from you is the only thing in this entire thread that has made me want to run—just to prove you wrong!
Is that sick or what!? What’s wrong with me!? 🙂
Bart,
You represent a younger generation and a small church pastor. From those two angles I would still find merit in your running & winning the office. You also represent a safe choice, inasmuch as it is highly unlikely that any scandal or radical sweeping proposals will take place under your leadership. For those who think the SBC is kicking on all cylinders, and simply need to maintain the status-quo, or doing business as usual; your philosophy, vision, and resume/personality profile is perfect to serve as of the office of the president of the SBC .
For those of us that believe that the SBC us in desperate need if revitalization & a fresh, annointed, God appointed agenda/vision, then , someone who sees the convention president as being elected to offer a vision, agenda, and leadership that the churches can rally behind need to be elected. Again, because you represent a demographic that we have not seen as President since I have been observing(since ’79), I would be grateful if u were elected. But, I prefer someone with a bold vision, that the vast majority of us can buy into, even if that means a vision to create excitement, participation, giving, prayer support, and a deeper, more intense committment to the things that we are already doing.
Dwight,
I agree with you about the need for visionaries. I also am happy to have a visionary elected as president of the SBC. But—please hear me—I think it breeds frustration when people believe that the SBC presidency is a good vehicle for a visionary to use to advance a bold vision. It will breed frustration with:
1. The visionary-president himself, who will learn quickly how little power he has to effect change in either church or denomination.
2. The people of the convention, over whom sometimes the visionary-presidents are tempted to run roughshod to ram through their visions.
A less political, more persuasive route is the way to cultivate a vision through the SBC. That can be done without having the president’s gavel. Look at how much impact, for example, Mark Dever has had upon the SBC. How about Eric Hankins? Tom Ascol? Steve Gaines? Malcolm Yarnell? I could go on and on. These people have been able to advance a bold vision without ever holding SBC office.
The only way that an SBC president will be able to accomplish what you a desire—a unifying bold vision for the convention—will be if that president does all of the work to cultivate and spread that vision BEFORE he runs for office. Then the presidency can be a capstone that ratifies and moves forward the vision with which he is identified.
I agree, Bart.
As a lifelong southern baptist who believes in the distinctive of local church autonomy….I’m having a tough time agreeing with Dwight and seeking a power yielding president.
This is why I stated that I do not want a lightening rod.
Wow, those who want a strong powerful executive at the Dias during our conventions. – let this sink in….I mean really sink in;
“The only way that an SBC president will be able to accomplish what you a desire—a unifying bold vision for the convention—will be if that president does all of the work to cultivate and spread that vision BEFORE he runs for office. Then the presidency can be a capstone that ratifies and moves forward the vision with which he is identified.”
Do we really want political/agends campaigns going on and people vying for office? Raw politics, really?
I sure don’t.
Dwight, I mean absolutely no disrespect to you and/or your thoughts articulated here watsoever. I simply disagree.
Tarheel,
I think we have had the type of meetings that u like(with few exceptions) for many years now. They lead to lethargy and apathy that we now see in the SBC.
BTW, the name change proposal(disliked by Bart) was an excellent idea. I believe that it fueled extra attendence to the NOLA convention, along with the election of Luter. It signified to me that the convention was open to a new identity, definition, change, agenda, and vision. But, the lackluster results and support–along with watering down the proposal–suggest that you and Bart’s position of a nonaggressive President is probably the thinking of tge majority. Bart, makes an excellent point though; much of the impact to effect change can and often does happen outside of the office of President.
I am meeting with 25 pastors and 42 lay leaders tonight to plan and promote a Kingdom Family Gathering, March 13-16, at the church where I pastor. Many of the pastors have a quasi relationship with the SBC. However, we believe that we can effect change working independent of the SBC better. I believe that, that is the wave if the future. That way, the convention can continue, business as usual, and everyone remains happy.
What Bart said.
Bart,
As usual, you make good points, and your reasoning is well informed.
When I joined the convention in ’83, and faithfully attended Associational, State, and National meetings, it was clear to me that the agenda/vision of the SBC was church planting, growth through the Sunday School(Growth Oriented Sunday School, GOSS) International Missions, CR, and seminary expansion. The focus, identity, and vision of the SBC was clear to all.
Today, the SS attendence is in major decline. IMB has laid off six hundred missionaries. I’ve read dismal figures about the success of chuch plants in recent years. The vision that I joined under served us well for a long time. But the fact that we are fleeting and floundering clearly suggest we need fresh wind and fresh fire on the old vision, or we need a fresh vision.
When President Patterson initiated the 2000 BFM revision, I thought that was a bold agenda to put on the table. It seems like the annual session is better attended when there is a bold vision on the table. Why even attend the Annual meeting if everything will remain the same.
I appreciate your agreement that a visioneering Peesident can be a good thing. I also acknowledge that the challenges & difficulties duly mentioned are real, and there may be other, ways to cast and launch a vision that impacts the convention outside of the office of President. I still prefer a grand unifying vision, that could take as much as 15-20 years to implement.
I would like to have a Prez who would schedule the SBC at Convention Centers in cities where Gun Shows are held in the same Convention Center starting immediately after the SBC sounds the last gavel.
A Prez that would do that would do more to promote unity among us in one week than a “Blue Ribbon” Peace Committee could do in a year after spending a fortune for meetings around the country.
‘Cause no matter if a guy is a Calvinist or a Traditionalist, every Southern Baptist preacher worth his salt likes shootin’ stuff.
Such an annual meeting would bring back the crowds to the SBC and create a higher quality “After SBC Vacation” for pastors rather than going to boring museums or silly theme parks. . . . or having to take the girls to Washington DC “so they can see our government in action” after Baltimore. (Gag, Gag, Gag, and gag me again with a dull deer antler.)
Frankly, if our seminaries would begin a Ph.D. program in Firearms Use and Management, we would have to build new dorms and housing units at all six. Higher theological education enrollment in the SBC would have an unprecedented “Boom.”
And this is why I say, “CB Scott for President!”
Now THIS is visionary!
🙂
Not just guns. Too many SBCers are enamored of Mark Driscoll and his screwed up ideas of what constitutes manliness (watching MMA for example). SBC pastors need basic training on changing their own oil, mowing their own lawns, being able to build a campfire, and throwing a baseball in a way that isn’t an embarrassment. Once they can do all that, then maybe we can consider letting them handle a gun.
Some people do manly things, others watch pseudo-manly things on television.
I don’t think much of Mark Driscoll’s teachings and I can mow my own lawn, build a campfire, and throw a baseball (at least so it is not embarrassing) – so do I get to handle a weapon now?
Bill – you need to get out more – your idea of what constitutes who SBC’rs are is fairly narrow. Just saying 🙂
Rob
The SBC manliness committee will need a youtube video showing you in the process of changing your own oil.
If people can demonstrate their deer gutting and fish cleaning skills, then they will advance through the manliness hierarchy, but I have outlined the minimum to get people in the door.
Being vegetarian or a soccer fan will result in demerits.
I’m not sure, Bill Mac–
Based on those guidelines, even I would be qualified to be SBC President.
And we all know that’s not a good idea.
I’m not sure what liking Veggie Tales has to do with manliness…
Liking Veggie Tales is just basic humanity.
Doug: My guidelines are just general for SBC men. Probably the best qualification for SBC president is not wanting to be SBC president.
Enamored with Mark Driscoll…wow.
That was so 5 years ago. 😉
Seriously, I think much of the Driscoll enamorment is shrinking among Southern Baptists (and others for that matter) – and am not sure it was ever as high (for any extended period of time) as many seem to think. That is just my opinion though.
He’s an easy target and whipping boy though, so I understand why many keep doing it. 😉
“Probably the best qualification for SBC president is not wanting to be SBC president.”
That is a good point. I agree, but then if he does not want it he will not run it. lol
Perhaps our seminaries should include a class on Concealed Gun Carry Permits and Outdoor Survival Skills.
A number of pastors I know, however, and a seminary president or two, would already qualify.
David R. Brumbelow
Let’s be honest…it would be fantastic if as part of getting your degree from a seminary you emerged with all manner of practical experience. In reality, though, the degree is merely the opportunity to start learning…
What David said. 🙂
CB,
LOL
It’s tough for me to see voting for a sub-5% Cooperative Program giver for president regardless of whatever Great Commission Giving a nominee’s church shows.
How do you know what the candidate himself actually gave?
Candidate’s church percentage.
What if it is a low percentage but the pastor has led the church to make incremental increases?
12 years ago our church gave 5% of the budget to the CP….this bothered me so I spoke with the treasurer and the finance committee numerous times about the issue because we were receiving in offerings more than the budget was set for (this was by design of some of the “we gotta save money for a rainy day” crowd, of which the treasurer was President, 😉 ) …finally I convinced them to change the 5% of budget, to 5% of all designated funds received. That increased our CP giving immediately.
After they agreed to that, I went back to to the well so to speak the following budget cycle and encouraged a 1% increase in the CP giving every year until we reached the current level of 10% of all designated offerings. (Incremental approach was to prevent shock, strokes, and heart attacks by making a 5% jump in a single year like I really wanted to do.) 😉
Now, when all is said and done our yearly missions expenditures now near (and some years exceed) 25% of all undesignated receipts.
Of course LMCO and AAEO and state missions offerings are over and above the designated giving as they are designated offerings.
I only mention that because sometimes pastors are in the process of leading big changes in the area of CP giving and out of hand dismissing a Presidential candidate because of a percentage his church gives to CP, could potentially be unfair to him. In other words – we don;t know the dynamics of the church he pastors.
“Finally I convinced them to change the 5% of budget, to 5% of all designated funds received.”
Should read;
finally I convinced them to change the 5% of budget, to 5% of all UNDESIGNATED funds received.
5% of undesignated giving is slightly below average but above my threshold.
Actually, it would be easy for a church to give 5% of BUDGET to the CP and consider some level of above budget giving to be reserve funds and therefore designated. The church could report 5% to the CP. Truth is ACP financial figures are rather soft for many churches.
I agree.