Next SBC President

I'm not saying it's against any by-law. I'm not saying it hasn't been done before.

Since 1979, though, power has become concentrated in the hands of a chosen few, and I'd like to see that change. I was happy to see Frank Page elected.

More than that, though, I am against anything that gives the seminary presidents one iota of additional influence.

That being said, I wouldn't be up in arms about most heads of agencies. I just don't want people like Paige Patterson and Al Mohler leading the convention.

Mohler's seminary "report" sealed the deal for my opposition to a presidency for him. For all he said about the issues related to hiring a seminary professor, he neglected to mention the elephant in the room--Calvinism. Yes, he got applause on the abortion issue, but I highly doubt you would not have heard the approval if he said that only Calvinists would be teaching future pastors at Southern Seminary. I don't even have a problem with Calvinist professors, but I don't like (and I'm sure others would agree) having an SBC-funded seminary beholden exclusively to that theological system. It's just funny how at convention, the issue is always liberalism, not Calvinism. The Abstract of Principles is not used alongside the BFM to root out liberals--the BFM does that.

In short, I don't want Mohler. If he's nominated, though, I wonder if someone will bring up the Calvinist angle. If so, then I could see Calvinist/non-Calvinist political factions forming over two opposing candidates.

 

The "big tent" is an illusion anyway. There definitely isn't a big tent at Southern Seminary. Mohler is not the "big tent" candidate.

 

Funny, I was under the impressions that the messengers elected whom they, as a group, wanted. There has been more than one candidate nominated for every office in each and every election that did not involve a 'traditional second term' for the President, and sometimes even when that was the case. Frank Page was elected in that very way, as was Paige Patterson, Jack Graham, Morris Chapman, et. al., by the vote of the messengers. And personally, I was not unhappy with any of those elected President, even when I may disagree with some of what they believe, for that is the SBC way. The majority of the votes cast for President determine who gets it. Any messenger can nominate anyone for any of these offices.

That is certainly your privilege. Are you also against anything that gives some of the "mega-church pastors", whatever that pejorative phrase may mean, any more influence? How about the heads of So. Baptist colleges and universities? How about the heads of the Mission boards?? Sunday School board? Lifeway? Whatever? Or does anyone get to pick and choose whom and what they are are against, on some other basis?

Sorry about Dr. Patterson. You are too late, there. You may or may not get your wish concerning Dr. Mohler. I'd say time will tell, here.

Do you have any evidence that "only Calvinists" would be teaching at Southern Seminary? Or is this merely hearsay, based on what Dr. Mohler openly advocates that he believes? I was not aware that Southern was "beholden exclusively" to 'Calvinism'. Any evidence for this, other than opinion? BTW, Dr. Patterson is about as far away from the position of Dr. Mohler on the issue of Calvinism as anyone of note in the presidencies of So. Baptist institutions, I do believe.

Also, FTR, the Abstract of Principles has absolutely nothing to do with the Convention, per se, but is, and always has been, binding only on Southern and Southeastern seminaries, the only two SBC institutions that have it as part of their charter.

Somehow, I would have never guessed that you don't want Dr. Mohler. I must have missed a clue somewhere.

Besides, if you don't like someone else, vote for me. :thumbs: I've already declared myself as a candidate for President, and that right here on the BB. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Well if Dr. Mohler gets the nomination (or runs) he'll be heavily opposed. The sad part is the anti-intellectual vein that runs through the middle of the SBC won't hear his positions and write him off quickly. I hear the core group (that Dr. Page defeated) has a candidate in mind, but aren't all together on that man.

Also, Dr. Steve Gaines will never be SBC President...well I'll add an addendum...if things at Bellevue stay the same. Frankly, he'll be lucky to be at Bellevue for another two years. He's made too many mis-steps and has too much opposition against him right now. Also, he's not in the core leadership circle. The biggest strike against him right now, that the SBC passed a resolution this year against his handling of a sexual misconduct case at Bellevue.

 

The Abstract is a Calvinistic statement. It doesn't require all 5 points, but it's more than some can endorse.

From Al Mohler himself:

http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=41

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Under point 6:
"The Abstract of Principles requires all professors to believe in total depravity, unconditional election, and perseverance. The Seminary does not require professors to hold a specific view of the extent of the atonement or effectual calling. Southern Seminary's faculty hold differing positions on these questions, as do Southern Baptists at large."

---------------
I think Mohler has the right to require the enforcement of the Abstract. I, however, wish that the charter(s) would be changed so that the BFM is the only binding document. In the past, the Abstract was overlooked by many--note: Paige Patterson at SEBTS! Mohler is simply enforcing it. I understand that it's historic, but it does not represent the beliefs of most Southern Baptists today.

----

My beef with Patterson has nothing to do with Calvinism. I'd agree with him on that angle, but on others I'd disagree. I know he was President before, but I don't want someone like him as President.

-------
Yes, there is a "choice" by the messengers. However, in recent years, the "anointing" has been effectual. Frank Page bucked that trend. I hope that the trend is not restored.

I'm not worried about Mohler being elected because I think that someone would bring up the Calvinism issue. I do not believe that Mohler would be elected if his Calvinism came to the forefront. I think it could cause factionalism, but it's too much of a touchy subject for him to be elected.








[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

The anti-intellectual vein? I think that rather the opposition would come more from the non-Calvinists, who aren't necessarily anti-intellectual, though some are.

 

I believe you're correct.

Page has been pretty good overall, and hasn't been real controversial.

If Mohler goes up against him, I see Page coming out on top.

In my opinion, Page will be re-elected regardless of who opposes him.

 

Page was re-elected at this year's convention. He will serve as President next year but cannot run again. We are talking about next year's election.

 

Thank you for the correction, sir. :tonofbricks:

Just last night Billy posted "Isn't Page running for re-election?", which threw me off, since I knew the convention was last week.

 

I don't mean any disrespect to the OP or those who are really serious about this question. And while it is important that the SBC president is someone with a real conservative doctrinal committment because of the appointment process that ultimately trickles down to the agency trustee, there is really no danger, in the current era, that a non-conservative will be elected.

My concern is with the hype over this question. The SBC was structured with the local church at the top of the chain and the agency heads at the bottom but in recent decades, it functions in the opposite manner.

Take yesterday's Baptist Press comments by Executive Com. chair Morris Chapman. The quote that stood out to me:

Are any of the pastors of SBC churches here really waiting for Convention leaders to guide you to a renewal of your passion of Christ and the reign of His Kingdom? If you are, what does this say about your own walk with Christ and your leadership of your church?

Further, are any of the faithful here who are members, but not pastors, of SBC churches really waiting for this same guidance from denominational servants or your pastor? If so, what does this waiting say about your relationship with Christ?

I'm fully vested in the conservative direction having played my own small part in it since the early 80s and I continue to support the general direction of the SBC but see an unhealthy reliance on what looks like the beginning of a cult of personality in our community.