Al Mohler to be Nominated for SBC Presidency

The point is I'm agreeing with blackbird, here. The Iraq invasion may or may not have been a good idea, and as you said, people have differing views about this. However, as far as I'm aware, Dr. Al Mohler had absolutely nothing to do with it, in any fashion. So why bring the Iraq invasion up as to whether or not he is qualified to become the President of the SBC, unless he has taken a completely militant stand one way or another, and will not even listen to anyone's counsel on this, from any point of view?

Let us assume we have three individuals, whom we'll call Tom, Dick, and Harry who are discussing the War in Iraq. Tom thinks this was absolutely the best decision that has ever been made in the history of our country; Dick thinks that it is absolutely the worst decision in our history; and Harry is still undecided about it.

You tell me, which one is the '"real patriot", based solely on that? I submit that one cannot possibly tell from this, alone.

BTW, I am not particularly endorsing (or rejecting) Dr. Al Mohler for the Presidency; I do not expect to be a messenger; and if our church should decide whether or not to instruct messengers on the church position, I cannot even take a side in any such discussion, for I am the Moderator, and will have to have someone else fill that role on a temporary basis, if I do have something to say, about it, for I will not abuse the position of impartiality, as the Moderator.

Ed

 

I don't think it's a question of patriotism. All three might be strong patriots (contrary to the prevailing opinion that if you don't support every war the U.S. gets involved in you're not a patriot). I think it's a matter of world view. I believe that a Christian should only support wars if they are absolutely the last option open and if they are just. I never did believe this about the Iraq war.

Al Mohler is associated with this to the extent he persuaded the SBC to throw its considerable support behind going to war in Iraq as opposed to finishing the job in Afghanistan where I've been led to believe our real enemies were. We pulled troops out of Afghanastan where the Bush administration said al Quaeda was based, to attack Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

If elected president of the SBC, is Dr. Mohler going to lead us all to pick up arms and fight somewhere overseas, and if we don't comply, excommunicate all of us?

 

Only if we are childless

 

The Salary of any SBC president is not determined by the SBC,the Executive Committe or any other group except the seminary trustees.

The SBC president appoints one major committee--the Committee on Committees, which selects nominees for the Committee on Nominations, which nominates people to serve on the boards of the various agencies, including the SBC Ex-Com.

All such nominations must be approved by the Convention itself. So how can such a presidency be a conflict of interest, given all those firewalls in between?

 

Some thoughts:

One, who decided that 3% was unacceptable? What is your acceptable percentage, and how did you arrive at it?

Two, many churches, ours included, support other mission causes not financed by the CP. Are they to be penalized for that? Are they less worthy because they're not part of the CP?

 

See my post #45 for part of the answer. The SBC president has no power to appoint a single trustee for any SBC institution. The SBC President cannot chart the course of any of them. He has no power over them whatsoever. Most of the presidents power and influence comes from the "bully pulpit" that goes with the office.

 

Traditionally, the "standard" figure has been around 10%. That was, of course, before Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler "saved" the Convention. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the church I grew up in contributed 21.87% of all undesignated receipts to the CP. Nowadays, I think they give somewhere along the lines of 6.5-7% because of what they perceived to be wasteful spending by the SBCs Executive Committee and certain agencies.

Obviously. The church I grew up in fully supported one mission and significantly supported two other startup churches in the region. Furthermore, they also generously supported the associational camp and many other worthy causes... at the same time they provided 21.87% to the CP. Total mission expenditures for our church (not including benevolence) was over 30% of all receipts. We didn't start cutting back on mission work until we called the first pastor who was in the Patterson/Pressler cabal. He led the drive (against significant resistance) to cut our CP missions giving, close the mission we fully supported, and cut back our our support of other mission giving. He wanted more money for payroll and a television ministry. After about two years of slashing mission giving and much more spending in-house, he took off to a more lucrative position in another state, taking the entire staff with him, leaving our congregation without any vocational leadership.

Well it is a sign of commitment to the common cause of Southern Baptists. If his church can't be bothered to give sacrificially to the work that the SBC does together, why should we think he would be committed to our common good? Too many people see the SBC presidency as a place of power and prestige instead of humility and servanthood. If you are willing to invest your money in the work of the SBC, then you will likely be a good leader.

That's not the point. I'm sure that most local mission projects are worthy. But how much is the church actually committed to the SBC? That's the question. Churches need to put their money where their mouth is.

 

Hmm... :laugh:

Given that the Patterson/Pressler cabal took over the SBC by appointing like-minded persons to the Committee on Committees (who were all part of the Patterson/Pressler cabal), your argument is laughably false.

Patterson (now) freely admits that he and Pressler managed the process to get the "right kind" of trustees on the boards of SBC institutions. Al Mohler's potential candidacy is based on his association with the political/theological movement organized by Patterson and Pressler, and we can have every expectation that it will continue to work that way if Mohler is elected.

 

Yep, that's the way it was done and is still being done today. That's the way it was done when moderates and liberals controlled the denominational machinery.

I have served twice on the Committee on Nominations, so I know how things work. The Convention itself has set the qualifications for committees and boards, not the president or the Committee on Committees. Among the qualifications: One must hold to inerrancy, support the Cooperative Program, and must not support the CBF or be a member of a CBF-supporting Church. There's nothing sinister about wanting the "right kind" of trustees. It has always worked that way, regardless of who controlled the denominational machinery. When the liberals did it, it was righteous. When the conservatives used the same method, it was a "cabal."

My point has been that the power to appoint the Committee on Committees is quite a bit of power, but the SBC President can't appoint or control the appointment of a single trustee or board membere. Just trying to get the facts straight.

 

Although I disagree with your mischaracterization of "...and liberals", I agree. And it was wrong then too. Isn't that what the more fundamental members of the convention complained about back then? Now they're doing it more consistently than it was ever done before.

And the Committee on Nominations was selected by the Committee on Committees which was selected by the President of the SBC. So if the President of the SBC gets politically-reliable people on the Committee on Committees, then they get to influence all nominations.

Just because there isn't officially a direct line of "command" doesn't mean it doesn't exist informally. And given the long history of the Patterson/Pressler cabal for attacking those who stand in their way, there's quite a bit of opportunity for the Presidency to be abused.

Wow! Thanks for your honesty.

The first qualification of the committee goes beyond the Convention's guiding document (the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message).

And that's what we're talking about.... whether a pittance qualifies as "support."

Here's another "qualification" that wantonly goes beyond the BF&M.

There is if it goes beyond the stated qualifications of the Convention. Since you readily admit that the Committee on Nominations does this, you have essentially made my point for me. Only those who are favored by those in power (Patterson, Pressler and those in their circle) are nominated for committees. While the majority of the voting convention in 2007 demonstrated that they are tired of the Patterson/Pressler cabal (Ronnie Floyd didn't come anywhere close to being elected), the cabal effectively controls the convention for a number of years (until a new majority can be elected to each institution) whether the people of the convention want it or not.

And that's wrong.

I don't think it was always that way, but it probably quietly started somewhere in the 1950s or early 1960s to keep the more fundamental people "in line." It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Despite your inaccurate characterization of those in charge as "liberals", it was a cabal and was still wrong.

It is still wrong.

Technically no, but the nominated presidents from the political cabal are almost always elected. So the single party system that tries (and usually succeeds) to be kingmakers, uses it's influence to control the whole process.

And you did a fine job of it. I think the evil of this system has been laid bare for everyone to see.

The so-called "conservative resurgence" bunch are perpetuating (if not expanding) the same evil that they complained about in the 1960s and 1970s. It just that now that they are in charge, they too are intoxicated with power. And the entire convention suffers at their hands.

 

Tom

As a potential voting messenger from a SBC church, I say that 3.3% is too low - if the rest of the SBC decides otherwise we will have an SBC president running around the country trying to persuade SBC churches to increase thier giving to the SBC so that his precious seminary will have enough funds to continue to operate - or at the very least to convince the SBC to have an annual offering to benefit the seminaries. Good luck with all that as his church did not give to Lottie or Annie last year.

As to his appointment power - what Baptist Believer said!

 

Let's walk through the process. Local churches send messengers to the SBC. The hold a presidential election and a conservative wins. In other words, the majority of those voting were conservative, the winning candidate was conservative.

He now has a mandate to make moves consistent with his own beliefs and those who elected him. Nothing would make me more unhappy than to elect a conservative and the first thing he does is act like a moderate or liberal. So he appoints the Committee on Committees, and appoints conservatives. Surprise, surprise! Why that's awful; conservatives elect him and he goes and appoints conservatives.

The C on C members then go looking for conservatives to serve on the Committee on Nominations, and down the line.

That's right. They were the rules used by the establishment to perpetuate their power prior to 1979. You may think it was wrong, but conservatives played the hand they were dealt.

We're talking about inerrancy. The qualifications were established by the entire SBC convention. May they not do so if they wish? May the messengers not instruct its employees and agencies? The BF&M, BTW, is a theological document, not a how-to manual.

Are you saying that the messengers, acting as a convention, may not require support for the Cooperative Program and non-support for the CBF?

You may think 3% is a pittance, and that's fine. You may even apply that as a criterion for your vote. But the convention itself has passed up several opportunities to set a minimum percentage.

I said:

No, the C on N does not. It follows guidelines explicitly approved by the Convention messengers. The committee is actually following to the letter the stated qualifications of the Convention.

It's really interesting that following the Convention's wishes is now characterized as "evil." It's really interesting that the very system used by those in power before 1979 is now "wrong then and wrong now."

Conservatives played by the rules and won. Now, those playing by the rules are "intoxicated with power." Yet the messengers keep electing them year after year.

It is interesting that the SBC President, by exercising the power he has, given to him by the convention, should actually do what the Convention expects him to do. Only now, it's just an exercise in raw, intoxicating power to perpetuate evil.

I could be wrong, but it sound to me like the problem you have with the SBC leadership, BB, is not really the exercise of power; it is the outcome of that exercise.

 

Looks like somebody actually asked Highview Baptist in Louisville about all those figures:

http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2008/01/highview-baptist-church-corrects.html

Thanks to a brother on another forum for this link.

 

It was no secrect that Dr Mohler's name would be put forth for the nomination this year, dont you think that whoever at ighview was responsible for putting the info out would have made sure it was accurate so that potentially bad press would not have gone around? The 3.3% number and 0 to Annie and Lottie were in Baptist Press!

I still think it is wrong/a mistake for an entitiy head to be president of the convention - if I were to be in Indy I would vote no on that reason alone

 

I'm wondering why the Zero Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong Offerings didn't raise a red flag with Baptist Press. The ACP figures should have triggered all sorts of followup questions.

I can see why the CP figure of 3% didn't set off any alarms, even those it seemed low.

I detect among some Mohler doubters that they just don't like him, and are searching for things to justify their opposition.

Of course, I didn't mean anybody here. We all have pure motives.