Johnny Hunt to be nominated for President of the SBC
According to this blog, Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, will be nominated to be president of the SBC in Greensboro, NC this summer.
The announcement, reportedly made by Jerry Vines as he was flanked by Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler and Bailey Smith, raises questions in my mind that I think are worth a thoughtful conversation.
What kind of person would make a good president of the SBC? Most of our presidents have been pastors of local churches although we have also had men who have been denominational servants who have been elected. The position has certainly changed over the last 25 years. The architects of what has now become known as the conservative resurgence understood that the appointive powers of the president could be used to affect significant change in the SBC over 10 years of consistent leadership. This made the office a vitally important political tool in the effort to set the theological direction of the SBC. The men elected had to be tough-minded and willing to be unpopular. During my days in seminary (1980s) it was common to have professors and administrators speak disparagingly of the presidents who were elected to further the conservative agenda.
Today we are long past the "takeover agenda." So what kind of person makes a good SBC president? Personally, I still want a person of strong theological conviction to be in that role. I also would prefer someone who understands the real theological issues and practical challenges that are facing evangelicals in general and Southern Baptists in particular. The president should also be a churchman; someone who understands our Baptist ecclesiological convictions and unashamedly affirms and defends them.
Secondly, what kind of process is there--or should there be--for a person to be nominated for president? James Hefley, the conservative chronicler of the resurgence, describes the process that existed before the conservative resurgence began in 1979. He describes an "informal group of SBC leaders who worked behind the scenes" to insure that their man became president. Hefley calls these leaders "SBC Kingmakers." He writes, "These well-intentioned kingmakers politicked in informal but successful ways, to get men elected to the presidency ..." (The Truth in Crisis, 5:17). He goes on to describe how the kingmakers very carefully planned to have their man speak in high profile pre-convention meetings in order to place him in "a very strategic position for election to the SBC presidency" (Ibid, 19).
C.R. Daley, who was the longtime editor of the Western Recorder of Kentucky, admitted this kind of secret process in a famous lecture he gave on denominational ethics July 20, 1984, to a class on ministerial ethics at Southern Seminary. In that lecture, he also admitted the complicity of Baptist Press and most state Baptist papers in this king-making effort. Richard Land, current Director of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Council of the SBC said this about Daley's lecture: "Well, I admire his honesty, Clearly there was a conspiracy. There was an alliance of opinion shapers and editors at the Convention who sought to promote certain people, who sought to squelch other people, and to manipulate those who ascended to leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention" (quoted in Jerry Sutton, The Baptist Reformation, 56).
I find this very interesting. Daley admits that the deck was stacked in favor of the kingmakers' anointed man in large part because of the cooperation of the "old line strongly established [state Baptist] papers" to promote this candidate to the people. Could that still happen today? In our age of the internet and rapidly deployed media, could a man not anointed by denominational kingmakers and supported by denominational public relations arms be elected president of the SBC? It is an interesting thought.
Thirdly, is it good to have more than one conservative candidate nominated for president of the SBC? Would that breed disunity? Would conservatives who suggested alternative candidates be seen as disloyal and even playing into the hands of the CBF crowd by denominational leaders? Would having two or more legitimate conservatives candidates provide an opportunity for healthy dialogue about Southern Baptist life--with all its needs and potential? I think it could.
Finally, given that the season for mentioning names as candidates for the SBC presidency is now officially open, who are some other folks that you think would make good candidates and why?
Well, those are my thoughts. I am interested in hearing yours.
posted by Tom at 2/14/2006 12:11:00 PM
372 Comments:
Good thoughts Tom, and I agree with your questions and thoughts. I'm going to link to this over at MBB.
Somebody quick!
Launch: Dever4SBCprez06.com
or maybe his church is too small. . .
But what about Roy Hargrave??
Joshua,
I like your idea for Mark Dever.
Not to get too far off track, but is the rumors true that Hunt is extremely anti-Calvinistic? This is of course leading me to my next question...When is enough, enough?
Deacon:
It's true, "extremely anti-calvinistic" is no exaggeration... His mind is filled with mis-perceptions, straw-men caricatures, etc. . .
But, what do we expect from an SBC prez? I think that's what Tom's post was about...=)
One thing I'd like to see is less boasting about membership numbers/ baptism and more fidelity to true discipleship and a Biblical understanding of conversion. . .
With that criteria Johnny Hunt and Mr. Welch are out the door. . .
Any ideas other than Dever?
Was Johnny Hunt the guy who, during the last Pastor's conference, declared that everyone is the elect?
Dever as president? He wouldn't make a good president; there's no way he could lead us to baptize 1,000,000 souls. Don't you know he lost half of his congregation when he began his pastorate at Capital Hill?
In all seriousness, I believe Dever would make an incredible president, an individual that many pastors and congregations would benefit from his leadership because, unlike other SBC presidents, I feel that Dever's leadership would be practical in leading local churches to conform to the New-Testament Church model. Though I'm not certain that he would accept the nomination with all the politics surrounding him (no pun intended).
Based on his church's ability to pay their bills on time, I nominate Ronnie Floyd.
Based on the direction the SBC must take over the next 10 years to bring Baptist praxis in-line with conservative orthodoxy, I nominate Mark Dever, and if he won't take it I nominate Dr. Albert Mohler.
Based on my bias toward bloggers, I also nominate Tom Ascol as a straight-spoken, right-hearted man who wants to see God glorified in His church.
Everyone else is a dark horse in my opinion.
Tom,
You asked ! I would reccomend Roy Hargrave, Tom Ascol, and Mark Dever. Someone needs to look at the true stats of a local healthy church. You will not find it at Johnny Hunt's church. I'm a former staff member and have seen it for my own eyes. Roy Hargrave's church is a historical calvinistic SBC church. It's healthy in the areas that most of the bloggers on this site would look for. Someone needs to order these recent messages of Johnny Hunt and Herb Reavis at the most recent Real Evangelism Conference held at FBC Woodstock. You can order them at It's A New Day Ministries which supports Johnny Hunt. Hunt and Reavis blasted Calvinistic theology real bad so I'm told. Johnny Hunt was the one bragged on at Southern Seminary that students should attend his conference on the church and shepperding. Our calvinistic brothers better wake up and ask themselves why was Hunt promoted when he preaches against many of the abstract of principles ?
Scott,
You present a very good point concerning SBTS and them endorsing an individual who could not teach at this seminary, with a clear conscience, because of how his theology doesn't coincide with the Abstract of Principles. It is said that professors must sign the Abstract of Principles, as did the seminary's founding professors, in order to teach there.
And Scott, I was there Thursday night at Real Evangelism. It was, to say the least, sad.
Thanks for your input Tom. I would really like to see another candidate run and be elected. Johnny Hunt is a wonderful guy and has an infectious personality but his theology and preaching are weak. Mark Dever would be a wonderful choice but I am afraid that even nominating another candidate may erupt into a great controversy. The SBC is on edge right now and there are alot of misconceptions floating around. What we need to do is bid our time and wait for the 2008 convention. No one is going to beat Johnny Hunt this year, but we have a chance in 2008. But we need to get behind a candidate that all of the conservatives can get behind. Dr. Mohler would be my choice. He preaches every year at the Pastors conference at Jacksonville and that is a key. No one is going to be elected President without getting the endorsement of that conference.
I would like to see us discontinue holding up strictly mega-church pastors as the standard. I think it breeds an unscriptural and unhealthy emphasis on bottom-line numbers that may not be reflective of true church health or spiritual maturity. I'm not suggesting we eliminate mega-church pastors, but after nearly 30 years at what point do we decide that a man in a church not considered "mega" may still be qualified?
While I am not sure that the SBC is ready for a truly Calvinist president, I hope that we might eventually find someone who is at least not antagonistic to the doctrines of grace. In an ideal situation, I am all over nominating Mark Dever, who unfortunately would probably never accept the nomination (or even more regrettably, be elected). In a more realistic scenario, what about a megachurch pastor who is not a harsh critic of Calvinism, like Hayes Wicker in Florida or Kevin Ezell in Louisville?
This is not good news. I hate to be a pessimist here, but who is it that can stand up to Hunt? His doctrine is sure off, but he is loved by everybody. I see him getting 80%+ confirmation.
Has there been enough recent progress within the SBC to put forth a man with sound theology that can stand up to Hunt? I pray so, but I don't think so. But make no mistake about it, we need to rally the troops. Hunt is not just non-reformed, he’s anti-reformed. I shudder to think of what he might start saying when he gets some power.
Dever is my man. Oh, and don’t think Hunt missed taking a shot at us bloggers at the recent ‘surreal evangelism’ conference.
SDG
I see a "free" election in the SBC is still "as free as the Good Ol' Boy" Network wants it to be. This needs to stop. The SBC election is about as free as the Cuban elections. The presidents are appointed and approved with a rubber stamp. There is no such thing as a free election anymore.
Why do Paige Patterson, Bailey Smith, and others have to stand behind these men when they are nominated? What kind of message does this send? Can their nominees not stand on their own merits?
Why are the nominees for SBC President always men from large SBC churches whose numbers are touted as examples to follow?
I would ask, what is the ACP for FBC Woodstock over the course of the past 4 to 5 years? If we are to follow Johnny Hunt's example, then what kind of example are we following? If his church isn't making disciples and church members, why should the SBC vote for him?
For that matter, why should any SBC messenger vote for a person nominated by the men who are supporting him? This cuts both ways? Why should any SBC messenger vote for any candidate for SBC President, no matter who they are and who endorses them?
I would add also:
I personally don't trust Hunt with respect to his trustee nominees. I've heard some of these anti-Calvinism rants and they almost always talk about "certain seminaries" and "certain professors," eg. SBTS and its faculty and the Calvinists at the other seminaries are in mind. I wouldn't put it past these men for them to have an agenda to replace the trustees at these seminaries with a view to "arresting the spread of Calvinism" in the SBC.
Oh, and for the record, I nominate Wade Burleson as SBC President. It'd be poetic justice...plus, he's been president of the OK State Convention. I find him eminently more qualified that Hunt could even hope to be.
Nathan White,
You and I are former FBC Woodstock members. I was on the pastoral staff and you were a layman. So, we both saw alot. You are correct that we need to rally the troops. This is a scary thing if Johnny gets elected for president. It's time we calvinistic brothers get moving to confront this. Tom Ascol and Roy Hargrave are my first two picks. I would be thrilled if Dever was elected. Whoever runs against Johnny should right away ask for a debate. Sounds crazy but why not? Let Southern Baptist hear these men. They should debate the doctrine of Salvation, Ecclesiology and other doctrines. I will guarantee Johnny will not do it. He would not discuss the scriptures with me in private. He said " I don't care what the Baptist Faith and Message says or what historical Southern Baptist taught. I'm the Pastor of this church and what I believe is what my staff members better believe." Then I was told that a calvinist could not stay on staff so, they gave me three months. He said this to me twice and that he would not discuss this anymore. The reason why we ought to be scared so to speak is that if I was in error it's his duty as my Pastor to correct me and warn me of error. This will be your President! Whoever will run against him that has even a decent theological mind we ought to get behind him !
Wow.
Scott, wow.
Dr. Hunt recently got placed into the "Arminian hall of Fame" over at www.calvinistgadfly.com and it was for those very comments that have been hinted at here, claiming that everyone is elect.
I would love to see Dr. Dever as the president of the Convention. Also, given what I've seen on this blog, Dr. Ascol would be another excellent nominee.
It bothers me to think that Dr. Hunt would get in there, from what I've read about his comments and from the testimony of people like Scott and Nathan.
We need to pray that God would be glorified, that His man who loves His Word and His church, and is willing to submit to that Word and those to whom he must give an account.
May God Reform and revive us and have mercy on us in our time of need.
SDG,
David Hewitt
Gene:
Seriously, what do you think? There's nobody here but us calvinists.
Getting back to Tom's post, the issue at hand here is not about Calvinist doctrine, but about an elitist mentality behind the political machine of the SBC. I would dearly love to see Mark Dever, Tom Ascol, or Timothy George as president. But those men are not "in the loop" of the decision makers. The average person in the pew or behind the pulpit has no voice in the convention - just the same as before the resurgence. Those in power now have become just what they set out to remove.
I would ditto most of the nominations suggested here.
Any organization that suppresses respectful disagreement is sick.
Someone else besides Hunt MUST be nominated this year. Unity has nothing to do with having uncontested elections- it has to do with attitude- with a loving spirit- we manifest toward each other, EVEN when we have disagreements. Unity has to do with each of us having the Holy Spirit and being in fellowship together- not all being in universal agreement on every issue.
The attitude of the SBC elite is that you cannot, no, you must NOT disagree with our leadership in any way. This kingmaker mentality exists, and it will only continue as long as godly men and women are silent and offer an alternative.
To have multiple persons on the election ballot for president may be termed by some as "controversial," however, I think it is better seen as "healthy."
Mark Dever even talks about losing some votes in his elders meetings and how that is a sign of health- that people can and DO express another view.
Tom, would you accept a nomination? I'm serious.
That should read:
This kingmaker mentality exists, and it will only continue as long as godly men and women are silent and do not offer an alternative.
Tom,
I was hoping to get some of your insight on this matter. Many comments have been thrown around here concerning the Hunt nomination. Comments range from genuine dismay to seemingly fear-based reactions. I totally agree that this will not be the best situation for the SBC as a whole, and even more damaging for the local church. What do you suggest that the individual pastor and local church can do? I am not familiar with Convention politics, but is there anything that can be done for this particular election?
Maybe we can all start educational blogs that don't take an overtly Calvinist or Arminian position. We can probably catch people on both sides of the spectrum with their theological guards down long enough to educate them on the qualitites of a good SBC presidential candidate.
Hey Steve,
Long time no see. I hope your family is doing well. You are right…this stinks of Southern Democrat politics. It reminds me of when I studied Old South history in college, and we talked about how the South Carolina Governorship was passed around by three or four land-baron friends. So I go back to my original question, when is enough, enough? I can’t take two years of this guy going around the country bashing Calvinist.
"I don't care what the Baptist Faith and Message says or what historical Southern Baptist taught. I'm the Pastor of this church and what I believe is what my staff members better believe." --After fighting so hard to change the BF&M, our future leader makes a statement like this? This is unbelievable!
Hey Steve,
Long time no see. I hope your family is doing well. You are right…this stinks of Southern Democrat politics. It reminds me of when I studied Old South history in college, and we talked about how the South Carolina Governorship was passed around by three or four land-baron friends. So I go back to my original question, when is enough, enough? I can’t take two years of this guy going around the country bashing Calvinist.
---And we have a winner! The SBC is run just like the Old South was. Our denominational structure looks remarkably like the structure of the Confederate states, philosophically speaking.
In the 19th century moves to control the denomination this way were rebuffed. Let's take J. Graves as our foil.
After he was disciplined by FBC Nashville, RBC Howell's church, he and his followers declared themselves the one true FBC Nashville and left.
He then used his influence in the Association to overturn FBC Nashville's decision. He then used his influence in the TN Convention to get them to refuse to seat RBC Howell and his messengers.
At the time Howell was in his third term as SBC President. At the next SBC, Graves tried to get the SBC to refuse to seat FBC Nashville. The SBC refused, and seated both Graves and his church and Howell and FBC Nashville. They then elected Howell on the first ballot. They then refused to dismantle the FMB, which Graves and his followers had also demanded. Then, after all of that, Howell resigned as President in the name of Convention unity.
We need men like Howell, not men like Graves running this Convention. (That, Cent, is how I really feel). The more I read of our history and the more I observe, I too believe those who were out of power have now become their old enemies. They decry "dead orthodoxy" from their offices and pulpits, yet they excuse uncontested elections on the basis that their judgment should be trusted. They insist they are not like their old enemies because, unlike them, "we believe the Bible." Uh-huh, then why are you holding fixed elections? If we nominate Mark Dever, Wade Burleson, Roy Hargrave, Al Mohler, Tom Ascol, or another lesser known figure, (or, God forbid a, gasp, layperson (!) )will we find Paige Patterson, Bailey Smith, Johnny Hunt, Herb Reavis, Bobby Welch, or (insert name here) standing behind them? I seriously doubt it.
I think the only way to see a real shift here is to get somebody like Dr. Draper on board. Dr. Draper is for term limits for trustees, and there may be some movement to bring such an idea to the Convention floor in the near future. As much as I decry the "Good Ol'Boy" I also know not all of them get along, and some of them are as tired of these games as the rest of us. It's time to draw a line in the sand and say "You can go this far, no further."
The "war" is over; but some of us have developed a seige mentality. I'd really rather not see the SBC "Revolution" turn into the French Revolution. It's time for a Counter-Resurgence; one that holds free elections, discusses theology openly and honestly, and isn't based on the politics of control of information and the endorsements of a few men who like to pat each other on the back for their large numbers their churches generate, while they can't retain those they baptize and make church members out of them.
I would love to see Roy Hargrave as president but that would be a shock to the SBC system. I think it is very healthy to have multiple candidates running who are conservative. I sense that there is a fear among some big time pastors (Jack Graham, Bailey Smith, Johnny Hunt, etc) that Calvinism is sweeping through our convention especially with the younger generation. I recommend we set forth a young pastor from a no-name church who truly is a shepherd (not a CEO) and has regenerate church membership, practices church discipline, and preaches expository messages, and is evangelistic and missional. To top things off, let Him be a 5 pointer, yet a leader in his association in baptisms and evangelism. Better yet, let's elect a guy who didn't even turn in his ACP. I'm afraid that what we truly value is numbers, egos, and megachurch structures, instead of humility, obedience, and faithfulness to bloom where God has planted us. Is there any young guy out there who fits this description? He won't get voted in, but I'm sure he will receive His reward in heaven by the Father--by the way who is the only one we are to please.
The whole mess is truly sad.
Dever as SBC president is but a dream, at least in 2006, as is Mohler. In fact, I wager this move to place Hunt in the presidency is a direct yet subtle shot at Mohler by the "texas evangelists", to coin a phrase first uttered by the iMonk. These men can do nothing but stand around and watch while true conservative envangelical, and by and large Calvinist collaboration is happening across the spectrum: Together for the Gospel, Ligonier Conf., Shepherds Conf, Mohler & MacArthur on Larry King, et al. Hunt and group see their turf being intruded upon and have no other response except to shut down the energy as they see it, the energy being the passion for the doctrines of grace as shown by so many younger and middle-aged SBC pastors, laymen, deacons, etc.
The larger, more interesting question is how will Mohler respond to Hunt's nomination and what are his true thoughts on the matter. Sadly I feel that Gene's comments are right about the ultimate goal may be the replacement of trustees at SBTS and other C-friendly outposts has begun.
Is 2006 suddenly a watershed moment or what.
I'm unclear as to why anyone would hesitate to nominate a Dever or Ascol. These men would handle themselves in a way that, even in a likely trouncing, would speak volumes.
Tom's had enough hurricanes. It's time for politics.
Scott,
If that is true of what you said when you were on Hunt's pastoral staff (which I have no reason to doubt), that is most disturbing.
It only demonstrates that the plurality of eldership--not single eldership--is the only Biblical model for church polity.
I agree with the sentiment that Johnny Hunt would be an sadly unfortunate choice, not because of his theology, but because of his very immature, intolerant and polarizing comments. A true Calvinist probably would not have a chance in the current climate, but there are godly men who are wise and mature enough to accept those who do not agree with every theological point. Johnny Hunt is too divisive, and frankly, too ignorant of the Scriptures.
"They" already think we're trying to reform the SBC so why not get organized and nominate a candidate?
Wasn't there a pastor from a smaller church nominated for president at the last convention?
I'm thinking about going to the convention for the "debate," and the IMB vote, wouldn't it be great to be able to campaign for the alternative candidate!
Perhaps we could get a luxury skybox in the Greensboro Civic Center.
I agree that Mark Dever, Roy Hargrave, Tom Ascol, and Wade Burleson would make great SBC Presidents. And I think this year is THE YEAR to begin to take the "conservative resurgence" to its Biblical fulfillment--the commitment that an inerrant Bible is sufficient to teach us that the church that Jesus is building is made up of regenerate members who gather under the authoritative expository preaching of the Word, practicing the ordinances as set forth in the Word, with congregations who are disciplined in both formative and corrective ways.
We need to remember that when Bobby Welch was nominated to be SBC president that a fellow who was spontaneously nominated from the floor of the convention received 30+% of the vote. There is a growing disatisfaction in the SBC, witnessed by the more than 30% who seized the opportunity to vote AGAINST Bobby Welch primarily because he was the latest person ANOINTED by the powers that be.
Mark Dever speaks in chapel at most (if not all) of the SBC seminaries. He speaks at MacArthur's Shepherds' Conference; is engaged in Together for the Gospel, and has a growing influence among young, serious-minded SBC pastors through his Center for Church Reform. In my mind, he is the PERFECT candidate for times like these. And if we can convince less than 20% more (remember, there are already 30+% who have demonstrated that they are ready and willing to vote AGAINST the next person who is ANOINTED by the SBC kingmakers) of the messengers who will attend the convention this year that Mark Dever is uniquely qualified to lead us for such a time as this, then I have no doubt that HE WILL BE ELECTED the next president of the SBC. If this were to happen, then the pump would be primed for Tom Ascol, Roy Hargrave, or Wade Burleson in 2008 to follow in his steps. I suggest that we covenant to pray together, asking the Lord to give to Mark Dever (and his church leaders) the liberty to say, "Yes," to the proposal that Mark be nominated for SBC president this June.
As far as the mega "churches" and their swelling membership roles are concerned--I suggest that we invite them to "play a game" with us. We could call it "name the members for whom you will give account to God on the day of judgment." We could let them go first, and then when they run out of steam after a few hundred names (leaving thousands of their church members unnamed), we could share the names of those people under our charge and talk about their spiritual conditions and how we have attempted to minister to them. We don't need to be intimidated by the mega "church" preachers. Rather, we need to pray for them as men who must give an account. (Heb. 13:17)
Bill A.
I know not all reformed folks are cessationists, but a lot are. Mark Dever or Tom Ascol for President of the SBC...you might as well be apostolic holiness if you expect that kind of miracle.
What about Buddy Gray? It is my understanding that he has reformed leanings and has also been president of the Alabama convention and (chairman?) of trustees at SBTS. He pastors a large church and (perhaps?) gets along better with the Southern fundamentalist group more than some of the others named here. Maybe there is something big I am missing, but he might be electable. Nonetheless, Wade Burleson is my first choice.
Tom, you have excellent mind-provoking thoughts! I will vote for Mark Dever if he will run. Besides... I'm already thinking about having a bunch of buttons made that proclaim... "Keep Wade!" and sell them at the convention with the proceeds going to missions of course. Sincerely secure, J.D. Rector
These are interesting comments and observations. My post was not intended to invite criticism of Johnny Hunt and let me discourage any more of that here.
Bill is correct in reminding us that the man who was nominated as an alternative to Bobby Welch in 2004 received significant support from the messengers, despite being an "unknown." The percentage of the vote he received was closer to 20 than 30. But still, considering that he was nominated unannounced, with no campaigning, no pre-planned bus tour and no backing from any convention leadership, his showing is pretty remarkable.
Guys, did Johnny Hunt not have MacArthur at his 2005 conference? That would seem to me to be just a touch odd for someone who were seriously anti-calvinistic. However, in the last year, it seems like the anti-calvinistic "shots" have been fired more frequently from our SBC leadership.
We should also consider the impact of a sizable (even if unsuccessful) vote for a solid candidate who might run against Hunt.
If, say, Mark Dever or another solid candidate were nominated and managed to take 25-30% of the vote, this would in itself send a strong message to the powers behind the scenes that significant dissatisfaction exists.
If they are truly so worried about "unity" that they would discourage a "presidential race," then it follows that a vote by a quarter of the messengers for another candidate would be heard.
At best, it might discourage an overtly anti-Reformed use of the office... (hoping against all hope)
I would add that there is no reason y'all should consider nominating only a Calvinist to the SBC Presidency. Just don't nominate an anti-Calvinist. We can all, I should think, work quite well with those who don't share our theological convictions in that respect.
The thing to do, if you wish to nominate a different candidate is to avoid a party spirit. "I follow Hunt! I follow Dever! I follow Burleson!" That makes you look like the Corinthian church.
I'd add also that if you, as a group, nominate a candidate with Calvinism in mind, then you get bet your sweet bippies that this will be interpreted by the anti-Calvinist faction to be an open move to "take over" the Convention, and you can probably be quite sure it will be spoken of in such a manner.
So, with that in mind, I would advise strongly that you consider those whose Calvinism may not be as strict, but who at least truly do understand the value of cooperation under a common banner and who does not seek to undermine genuine theological discussion from the bully pulpit of his church newsletter, evangelism conferences, or any other forum.
The point is to float a viable second candidate in order to send a clear message even if he loses. That message would be, of course very simply that the time for appointing presidents is over or soon coming to a close.
My personal desire is to see the Convention's leadership stop acting as if they and only they are qualified to run the Convention. The way the SBC President is "selected" is very like a College of Cardinals that gets together and floats a name for the next bishop of Rome. This has to end at some point. I find it highly contradictory that on the one hand these men support the war in Iraq in the name of bringing democracy and free elections to the people, yet they turn around and have an election that is just a little more free than the elections in some 3rd world nations.
I repeat? Why is Paige Patterson's, Jerry Vines', and Bailey Smith's endorsement of an SBC Presidential candidate necessary? What kind of message do they think this sends? Why can't we have an open, free election in which two or more candidates are nominated without their approval? It's as if we were sold a bill of goods. We were told the battle in the SBC was over, and most if not all of us here supported it, but why are the generals are acting as if we're still at war?
Fellas-
As one of the few non-Calvinists who is reading this, let me say I agree with your worry about Hunt, Patterson, et al and their views on dissent. I may not be a 5 pointer but I work with men and women who are. Doctrinal dofferences are only divisive if you think everyone has to agree with you. That's the real problem here- people afraid of dissent and caring more about conformity than freedom of conscience.
Ryan Abs
DEVER!
Well, I would like to say that I am surprised but I am not! They have been positioning Hunt for this position for several years… why do you think he has been speaking at every state convention and every conference in Florida, Alabama, Georgia and many other states for at least the last 5 years now and Dever, Mohler, and Ascol have not?
Gentlemen this election was over before it ever began!
But that is not why I am writing… I am writing to say that, not only am I sick of the endless parade of Mega-Church Celebrity Presidents… I am sick of this Banana-Republic SBC Government. You name me one democratic nation where all it’s people are required to travel to the Capital to vote on their next president and when they get there (traveling at their own expense) their is just one name on the ballot? I thought Baptist were supposed to be champions of democracy… what a mockery!
Has anyone stopped to ask why the thousands of small SBC Churches who give faithfully to the CP each year yet cannot afford to send someone the convention are being disenfranchised and denied the right to have their voice heard? This is not the 1800’s anymore and there is no excuse for this practice to be allowed to continue unquestioned. Why not send each cooperating church the correct number of ballots (with more than one name on them) a few weeks before the convention so they can participate in the SBC democracy… let those who wish to still vote at the convention do so, but let all Southern Baptist vote… Or are we still a segregated people… only now it is the big and prosperous churches only who have the privilege to vote and the thousand of small churches are effectively excluded.
Sorry, I am just disgusted and amazed that Southern Baptist continue to do this…
Denomational POLITICS is one
thing I do not get involved with so I will sit back and read and pray - and laugh and maybe cry.
But be assured of this fact: No person who firmly believes and boldly, courageously, publicly proclaims the great, grand
and glorious doctrines of God's holy, sovereign, saving and sustaining grace as do most (if not all) the many noble contributors to this blog ~ will ever be elected president of the SBC.
Watch and see!
If anyone's still posting here after 40+ entries: Someone, please nominate as the next president of the SBC the education minister of a congregation truly making numbers of godly disciples of Jesus Christ following Him passionately to the ends of the earth to share the gospel. The direct leadership of associate staff members, not that of senior pastors, is positively affecting the nation (at least at my church!). Since the position is a figure-head one and 98% of SBC'ers can't distinguish Jerry Vines from Al Mohler anyway, to have a devoted minister of education won't hurt--and possibly would help plateaued/declining congregations by the thousands to refocus on their biblical purposes: getting lost people saved and saved people on-mission with God. After all, we've done what we've done and gotten what we've gotten (see "plateaued/declining" comment above)!
JUSTAMOE
My ballot:
Dever
Mohler
Ascol
I admit I do not know enough about Roy Hargrave.
Multiple candidates may create controversy but for those that feel the aura of an "Good Ol' boy" club needs to be done away with and see multiple candidates as a way to do this.
If this does not work maybe the SBC could accomplish two things at once and just have a baptism contest and the winner gets the nod.
Wow again.
We're about to top 50 posts here.
Part of the problem that we have in our churches today is the fact that, although we affirm inerrancy by and large, we deny its effect, or the effect it should have. Permit me to explain.
As has been referenced here, the conservative resurgence has indeed helped us to recover the authority of Scripture -- but it appears to be in name only. That truly bothers me.
If I were to ask the avergage church member in an SBC church today (my church for example) if he or she believes that the Bible is inerrant, that would likely say yes. However, if I were to follow up with a question or two, such as "Great! How much of it have you read?" or "So how has the Bible changed your thinking lately?" I suspect that I wouldn't get the responses that would be consistent with the belief they just espoused.
If we hold to an inerrant Bible that is completely authoritative, then why are we not poring over it? Why do we not desire greatly to understand it correctly and derive all our doctrine from it, rather than holding on to traditionalism, a form of which appears to be the way we are doing things in our convention now?
We might say, "The Bible teaches a plurality of elders," but then, when many of our churches are "single staff churches" we say, "Well, that's just the way we do it here."
We might say, the requirement for preaching is that we "preach the Word" (2 Tim 4:2), but our preaching in our churches is often, at best, loosely based on the Bible, much less being expository, digging into the text and drawing out what God has said.
We claim that the Bible is the only certain for faith and practice, but we deny certain parts of it that we don't like, or find "difficult to swallow," such as the fact that Paul clearly teaches that women shouldn't have authority over men in a church context, or that election really is unconditional, or making statements, as some do, that Calvinism can't be true because of (you fill in the blank), which is rarely, if ever, followed up with Scripture.
All of that said to say this: Our convention, as much as I love it, seems to be very hypocritical in its claims about its loyalty to Scripture. I find it no accident that, when inerrancy was recovered (at least in name) that a lot more Reformed teaching ending up happening at our seminaries. Why? Reformed people are inerrantists, and you are hard pressed to find a true PRACTICING inerrantist who is NOT Reformed, because to be an Arminian and yet say that God super-imposed himself on people and caused the Bible to end up with no errors is a contradiction to their claims of absolute free will! The Bible, if the theological position is to be consistent, would be full of errors. The Reformed person, who gladly and completely affirms that God is total control over everything, even ultimately in control over human wills, has no problem in affirming an inerrant text. This belief is simply a manifestation of God's absolute sovereignty and freedom.
The convention leadership by and larger does not appear to understand this. And, instead of submitting to the teaching of the Word of God that they claim is inerrant, there appears to be a revolt against those people who hold to it most strongly, i.e. Reformers.
We see in our convention, as has been clearly stated by more people than myself in this blog, the same kind of politics that went on before the resurgence. Dr. Nettles was right when he wrote his "Ready For Reformation" book; if this is as far as we go, then the Reformation that began nearly 30 years ago in our convention will not only die, but will go backwards. Instead, we'll claim that we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture and trumpet that claim loudly, but there will be little if any fruit to it in our churches....and I fear, that it already happening in a large way.
Much prayer is required. God is still God, and He will bring glory to His Name. That fact brings me much comfort.
With that said, I close with two things:
First, to God Alone be the Glory in our Convention.
Second, I'll see you in Greensboro, God-willing.
A lowly slave of Christ,
David Hewitt
I second genembridges' comment. We don't necessarily need a Calvinist candidate - we simply need one who respects us and treats us as part of the team. Someone who values theology and an open and frank discussion of the issues.
Part of the team, as opposed to being "enemies in our midst." Which is the primary reason Hunt should not be elected - his diatribes against Calvinism make him both theologically and ethically unqualified.
One name that comes to my mind is Hershael York. He recently finished a term as president of the KBC, and he was widely recognized as a leader who brought unity while maintaining strong convictions. He is well-known for his book and conferences on preaching. Furthermore, he was a good friend of Adrian Rogers. I don't say that to try to slip him into the "good ol' boy" club, but I do think his relationship with Rogers makes him a more comfortable candidate to the convention, broadly speaking, than someone like Dever (although both would be excellent presidents). He is a Calvinist, but I seriously doubt that he would be perceived as a "Reformed" candidate seeking to take over the convention. Of course, I don't know if he would be at all interested, or if such a thing would be possible, given his commitments to both Southern Seminary and his church.
After reading Hefley's volumes on the resurgence, Pressler's, and Sutton's also, I am wondering if we have really moved on. I continue to feel more and more and more distracted by this whole situation. Where are the 'good' politics in Judson's life? Spurgeon's? Paton's? Edward's? Lloyd-Jones? Pink's? As I read history and various biographies it seems as though the politics are all bad. They tend to take our eyes off of the ball. They make everything so diffused and complicated. I don't even recommend Lifeway material anymore. The state conventions seem to be big advertisements for their programs or pep rallies for their schpiel. Associations have become another tentacle by which the state convention controls the organization of the local church.
Now this conversation. What is going on?
I am proud of the SBC heritage. I stand firmly on our historic doctrines but I am losing interest in the inner-workings of the structure.
I vote for Dever.
Great comments!
I think one of the big issues that you have hear in the SBC is that it does not appear that any church is actually held accountable for their doctrinal stance. While I do believe in the governing of a local assembly, if you are goign to refer to your congregation as a "Southern Baptist Church", then you ought to believe what Southern Baptists believe and when you stray from that, other assemblies should hold you accountable and even discipline those who are in error.
This is exactly why SBC has to lower itself to political action rather than doing things biblically. In their valiant fight for inerrancy, SBC ultimately took a political approach in its finality to rid the liberals by focusing on money, rather than simply continuing to hold to the truth.
In either case, no matter who is nominated or voted in, there is one sure thing, as believers in the fact that God is truly in control and He is doing ALL things after the counsel of His will, we can thus conclude that even if Johnny Hunt is elected (sounds ironical, doesn't it), that God will use that for the good of His people. To Him be glory!
Why does the president always have to be some famous preacher man? Why not make a faithful Baptist janitor who consistently shares his faith president?
...remember that...a fellow who was spontaneously nominated from the floor of the convention received 30+% of the vote.
My own pastor mentioned this, and had an interesting thought: if and when the motion to remove Wade Burleson from the IMB trustees is brought to a vote, it wouldn't surprise him in the least, with such obvious discontent in the convention, to see that whole process lead to Wade being nominated for, and elected, President!
Nothing is inevitable as long as messengers have the vote.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I was at the Pastor's Conference, and after hearing Dr. Vines announcement and the applause and amens that followed, I have no doubt that Dr. Hunt will take the presidency by a landslide.
Yet it does concern me. I would like to see a candidate who wasn't quite so hostile towards Reformed theology and who would at least present it truthfully and not slather it with broad, misunderstood generalizations. However, that was a theme among many speakers at the Pastor's Conference and a very disturbing tone within the SBC in general.
Because my comment is buried down here at the bottom, I doubt if anyone will get down this far, but here it goes anyway.
What kind of maturity level do we display as a denomination when straighforward debate and two candidates for President will cause us to fall to pieces? Secondly, isn't it a bit ridiculous, even hyprocritical, to avoid such 'trouble' under the guise of false unity? A debate or two candidates would not fracture our denomination, if it is that bad, it would only indicate how deeply we are divided.
So what exactly are we afraid of here? Being slandered because the mean old Calvinists broke up the Cooperative program? That mean old Calvinists wanted to talk about theology on a National level? That mean old Calvinists do not want to vote for a man who despises the Scriptural theology that we hold dear?
I have been in the SBC for 4 years. I must say I am ashamed to say I dont know how the process of SBC election works. Guess I have to start somewhere. I must suggest to my pastor that we start teaching this in the new members class, along with letting them know his stance on election(but that is another matter isnt it). Do all members vote? Does each church send a delegate? And if I have a vote, how could I vote on a candidate that I have only a few months to research his leadership abilities? On that note, I would have to hope that my pastor gets nominated. He would be the only one I could trust with such responsibility. His beliefs on election are much like many here at Founders. Unlike my beliefs. I would say that I am a good example of the average General Baptist. Now, how many of you Particular Babtist are willing to put aside your Calvinistic notions and nominate a General Baptist? You may have already done so. Because, I have no idea of the theologies of the men you brethren have mentioned so far.
Hey, Burt.
For reasons that I've already mentioned, I would certainly prefer a Reformed brother to be nominated. However, like Gene, I wouldn't mind if someone were to get up there who was not "anti-Reformed" and was wanting to engage in theological discussion.
Dave
Then you should nominate me brother David. :). Just kidding. It would be more responsibility than I have the character for. Something I continually work on. :). However, that is one of the most important things we must consider. Never promote someone to a position of leadership higher than the position of their character. Hey, I just thought of someone else I could nominate. How about Franklin Graham?
I think that some of the reaction here is a little bit unfounded. The reason that men like Vines, Patterson and Smith endorse candidates is so that we will not return to the days when 3 conservative candidates would split the vote and allow a moderate candidate to win the Presidency. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the moderates and liberals have gone away. I am from Richmond, VA and believe me they are alive and well and would love the chance to make a come back. Hunt is not my first choice for President but there are many who would be a far worse choice. The fact is, he is enmourously popular and will win hands down. I was at Jacksonville and was talking to about 10 Pastors one day and they have never even heard of Mark Dever. if we want to make a difference and be heard we must be organized and we need to stop ranting and raising even more suspicion. Many Pastors in my area are scared of Calvinism simply because they do not know what it is. I am working on reforming our church but it is not an easy process. The SBC will be reformed and we will return to a Biblical view of the gospel but not through panic. Wade Burleson has become a hero on some of the blogs, but we still have not heard from the trustees. On the face i agree with Burleson, but I still have not heard the charges against him. I will wait until I have all of the information before I make a decision. To nominate him for President will do nothing but alienate and isolate us. We should look to 2008 and begin to organize now. First, we need to select a candidate that is actually electable. The only man with the national standing to do this is Al Mohler. We should get behind him. This is awefully pragmatic, I know, but brothers this is, like it or not, politics. Someone should approach him and ask him to allow his name to be thrown out there for 2008. Then we should all get behind him and begin working in our local areas to get churches to understand.
Let me also say this, if we continue to personally attack Johnny Hunt and others we will fail in this critical time. The convetion has had enough of name-calling ect. I realize that there is a good-ole-boys club, but brothers we made this club during the resurgence and we need to accept the responsibility for it. I personally know some of these men and I have no doubt about their sincerity and love for the Lord. I may disagree with their theology but that does not mean that I must dislike or distrust them.
Tom, it comes to my mind that Founders has put out a paper or publication, or some helpful sermon on the issue of staying within the SBC through the painful process of long-term reform versus simply leaving. Am I remembering correctly? If not, forgive me, but if there is something that we would all benefit reading or re-reading, can you point us in the right direction? Thanks
"We were told the battle in the SBC was over, and most if not all of us here supported it, but why are the generals are acting as if we're still at war?"
Said Gene Bridges above.
The so called conservsative resurgence was never about the Bible, it was about power, pure and simple. In running off good Conservative Baptists, Pressler and the Texas good 'ol boys planted a tree, and you are seeing the fruit. Retaining power requires the enlistment of the "theology lite", dunk a million, megachurch pastors, so that is where your Presidents will come from. BTW, if inerrancy is so important, why did that shibboleth not make it into the 2000 BF&M?
The great fear of some with offering two conservative candidates is this; A third moderate candidate will then be nominated in the hopes of winning because of a split conservative vote. If such a senario emerged, ther would be a big push by all the liberal churches to come and vote for that person.
I think Mohler is great, but I also think he is on such a political hotseat that to nominate him might be cruel. He already has got alot on his plate. I know he's tough and all but I don't want us to kill him.
I think Dever or Burleson would be great. Dever is obviously brilliant (which helps). But I think maybe the most important thing he could bring to the presidency is a love for the local church.
Yes, Burleson is controversial but I'm not sure we should be too concerned about upsetting the people who are against him. He may be the change agent this denomination may need.
Also, I honestly have my suspicions that some of these mega church pastors might be planning to elect their own to root out Calvinism through who they place in key positions.
I think that if the conservatives get upset because there is another conservative running against the one they want, then that is their problem. We all (including myself) need to be big boys.
Mr. Burleson and Mr. Dever. I am sure both of you are humble men, but please don't be too humble (if you know what I mean). If Southern Baptists see a need in the SBC that you also see and are looking to you for help, than I think you might should at least think about it.
The so called conservsative resurgence was never about the Bible, it was about power, pure and simple.
Were you at SEBTS under Randall Lolley? Do you know what kind of theology was taught there?
Did you hear Daniel Vestal say of the Bible, "it's only a book" at the 1999 Convention? I live in a town that hosts SEBTS in Exile, the pet name the former faculty of SEBTS have given to a divinity school they elected to form. About 2 years ago, one of them stood from the lecturn at a graduation ceremony and extolled the blessing it was to turn out openly gay graduates for service in the churches. Let's not forget about the Alliance of Baptists. They formed and split from the Convention not quite a decade into the resurgence. Will you seriously argue they were not or are not composed of real theological liberals?
I'd add that theological conservatives were actively excluded prior to the Conservative Resurgence. So, if the resurgence was about power, so was the activity prior to it. That was conducted by the other side of the aisle.
Perhaps in your neck of the woods it was more about power. In fact, I would say that a great deal of it was about that very thing out in states like TX. However, in NC and VA and those of us in these states, it was most certainly about theology. I was there. I had to sit through the classes. I had to endure my beliefs being made fun of by seminary faculty. I had a campus minister that went out of his way to oppose having my own pastor come to speak at our BSU because he believed in inerrancy. Most of the folks that I read saying it was about power and nothing else usually point to SWBTS under Ken Hemphill. Well, Ken comes from my home church. I know the situation, and, yes, it was bad. I also agree that, compared to SEBTS and SBTS, SWBTS always had a reputation as the most theologically conservative of the "Big 3" seminaries. But unless you were at SEBTS, you really don't know what it was like sitting in classes being told the grammatical-historical method was outdated and defunct and that higher-critical hermeneutics was the way to go or having Reformed theology sneered at in class and a whole laundry list of other such teaching.
BTW, if inerrancy is so important, why did that shibboleth not make it into the 2000 BF&M?
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
It did make it. Prior to the adoption of the revised version of Article 1, the lines: Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy and All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. ...were not there.
The last line:. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ...was affirmed by certain seminary faculty who are no longer at SEBTS and SBTS to refer to an existential "encounter" that is directly derived from neo-orthodoxy. In addition, I have multiple friends who have sat under pastors graduating from those seminaries who have had to stand denials of the truth of Scripture. One of my friends was dismissed from a church a few years ago because he believed in the Trinity and the pastor did not. The pastor won that little fight, and, yes, he really is an anti-Trinitarian. I'm sorry, but when I hear "it was about power and nothing else," all I can think is "You weren't on the receiving end of what I was at that time." When Article 1 of the new BFM was debated from the floor, I believe it was Daniel Vestal that said, "...after all, it's only a book." Why, we wonder did he find the new version of Article 1 so objectionable. If it wasn't about theology, why the big fuss over "Scripture is totally true and trustworthy" and "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation?"
I agree a lot of good men were hurt. I happen to think Lewis Drummond wasn't treated well, and the trustees at SEBTS tried to too much too soon with him. I've seen good folks treated badly in state conventions too. I was at the meetings when they nominated Dr. Patterson, and I know that no other candidates were seriously considered. I found that to be a power grab. On the other hand, SEBTS did come to prosper under his leadership, much to the dismay of the former faculty.
I do not deny there has been a good deal of nepotism and politicking from the conservative side, but to say it was only about power is simply untrue.
The great fear of some with offering two conservative candidates is this; A third moderate candidate will then be nominated in the hopes of winning because of a split conservative vote. If such a senario emerged, ther would be a big push by all the liberal churches to come and vote for that person,
I think this is a good observation, and I'd add that many perceive the younger group as being too irenic, which is rather sad if you ask me. Maybe it's because we're tired of not having free elections. On the other hand, eventually you have to let a toddler walk or it will forever crawl. One gets the feeling the old guard does not trust the younger generation. Why?
Two thoughts here:
First, I take exception to the notion that we should be concerned about a moderate being elected as a third candidate if there were two conservatives running. In fact,I wonder if the SBC president is required to win by simple majority anyway, thus forcing run-offs in three-way races? Even if not, I don't see any evidence that a mod could be elected in the current environment. It would have been a lot easier for them to elect someone back in '94 when Henry ran against Wolf. But the mods were just happy to think that Wolf might not be elected. Furthermore, a little known pastor from a rural church in NC was nominated in '04 to run against Welch. Welch still got 80% of the vote, and I suggest that the 20% voting against him were not mods so much, just folks who didn't want Welch to be elected and were weary of the Oligarchy.Like most of the posters here.
A lot of the mods have left or effectively left the convention. I think a much bigger concern than mods getting elected is the threat of mind-numbed baptist robots always electing the conservative candidate agreed on by ten or so pastors/denominational leaders.
Secondly, I understand why people are tired of always seeing mega-church pastors elected, but it is a bit ridiculous to think we should elect a seminary student or the church janitor or a seminary student who is also a skillful part-time church janitor. Certainly, mega-church is not a necessary qualification, but people want to follow distinguished leaders who have shown that they can handle many responsibilities well. We don't elect city council members as president of the U.S. Many of you probably decide whether or not you will attend a reformed conference or not based on who the leaders/speakers are, yes? Well, I am hosting a Christian conference in my living room this weekend. I will be the speaker in all sessions. I am also leading worship (acapella) and cooking the meals. I am a former missionary and first year sem student, so very well qualified. Hope you will all come.
Incidently, the sound man in my church is probably a great guy, but may not have great speaking skills, or the decorum that we would like to have in an SBC pres who visits the White House. There is one body, but many parts.
Let's expect leaders people look up to for some reason. Not necessarily the pastor of a large church. A good author or seminary prof might be great (Dever, York). Keep it realistic.