« A Response from Dwight McKissic | Main | Conference On Baptist Distinctives »
Mohler Nomination Announced
Posted by Wes Kenney | January 2, 2008
According to the Southern Baptist Texan, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will be nominated for president of the Southern Baptist Convention at this June’s convention meeting in Indianapolis (Click here for the story). Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the historic First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, has announced that he will nominate Mohler.
If elected, Mohler would become the sixth seminary president to serve as president of the convention.
Topics: Announcements |
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Do you all think that it will matter to the Baptist in the street that an entitiy head is running for president whose church only gives 3.2% to the CP?
Jim
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Jim,
I think it will matter a little, but not as much as if he were the pastor of the church, who is viewed to have more influence in leading his people in that percentage. But, Dr. Mohler is a very prominent Southern Baptist, and I’m sure carries a lot of weight in his church. I can’t wait to see what others have to say about this.
Greg
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
CP has been grossly under-emphasized in past years. Let us not make the mistake of over-emphasizing it now. Allow me to illustrate:
UNDER-EMPHASIS: “My church gives 0.03% through CP and I wouldn’t do anything to try to change it.”
OVER-EMPHASIS: “My church gives 3% through CP, and unless it starts to give more, I’m going to church somewhere else.”
Do we, or do we not, believe that God leads individuals to membership in individual churches? If Dr. Mohler has somewhere asserted that 3% is a good target for CP giving, then I have a serious problem with him serving as SBC President. If he favors strong support of the Cooperative Program, then I will not fault him for obediently attending the church to which God has led him.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
It’s borderline silly to think that the CP is always the litmus test for who is qualified to be SBC President. Although the CP is very, very important, there is a WHOLE lot more to the SBC than just the CP.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
I could not think of a better person. His ability and track record of speaking to the world about the Gospel awsome. At a time when the country is becoming increasingly secular (just look at the atheist best-sellers) we need someone that can intelligently communicate the Gospel and give reasons for hoping in Christ.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
I agree that when Dr Mohler walks into a room, the level of the IQ is immediately raised by at least ten points. He is always great on TV and his interviews are fantasttic. I like and agree with most of what he says.
However - I do not think entity heads should be president of the convention, and I do think that an entitiy head should come from a church that contributes at least 10% to the CP. I think that 3% is terrible. I personally think that to be president of the SBC, it should be a requirement that your church should give 10% as an example to the convention at large.
I would hope that all of the members of the EC, and all entitiy heads would lead thier churches to give at least 10% to the SBC - or move to solid conservative churches that do. Those entities take so much out of the CP, I would think it reasonable that thier heads would lead thier churches to give at least 10%. I would imagine that the city of Lousiville has a few solidly conservative churches that contribute 10% to the CP.
Jim
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
This nomination couldn’t have come at a better time for America’s “reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement.” Mohler’s first real book - Culture Shift - will be hot off the press just in time for a signing session!
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 am
OK, so I’ll tally Jim Champion as one who believes that a person ought to allow a church’s CP track record to trump the leadership of the Holy Spirit when agency heads determine where to attend church.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Jim,
What, exactly does CP giving have to do with being a “solid, conservative church?”
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
I do recall him saying at the ‘06 TFG conference that he would like to see the local church put him out of business. I would like to see the concept of the local church training and equipping future leaders get some more air play.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Geoff
What I meant - and probably did not state well, is that Dr Mohler should be able to find, in a city as large as Louisville, a church that he is in line with theologically that also happens to give a reasonable percentage to the CP.
Bart, in my opinion, a leader of one of our entities should be held to a higher standard regarding church membership when it comes to CP giving. Two reasons - one, their entities are primary consumers of the CP dollar and two, they need to set an example to other churches within the convention.
At the end of the day, it will be the messengers who decide. I most likely will not be one of them, but if I were, I would vote no - primarily because I am against entitiy heads being president of the convention, secondarily becasue of his churche’s CP giving
Jim
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Jim,
I understand the sentiment, but disagree with it. As I noted in my initial comment, I believe this to be an over-emphasis upon the Cooperative Program. It would be different if he were the pastor. I would even entertain the relevance of the issue if he was the 2007 Budget & Finance Committee chair at his church (if they have such a thing).
To summarize my viewpoint:
1. 3% CP giving is generally bad (unless there are significant problems at the state convention level that would lead one to fund around the state convention).
2. CP giving percentage has certainly never induced me to go to a church where the Lord was not leading nor to reject a church where the Lord was leading. Indeed, to rebel against the Lord’s leadership over such a thing is to place the CP above the leadership of the Holy Spirit, which would be sinful, IMHO.
3. If we had followed your suggestion about entity heads in the 1920s, we would have deprived ourselves of E. Y. Mullins, and with him, perhaps, of the Cooperative Program and the Baptist Faith & Message (his leadership was influential in the adoption of both in 1925). Mohler is hardly breaking new ground at this point.
4. As a total aside, I’m praying that the BGCT will make a wise choice for a new Executive Director. May you wind up better off than I think you will be.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Bart
I would not expect you to agree with me on this one - we come at if from two different points of view - although I concede your points on Mullins.
As I stated however, my main opposition is to an entity head to be pres
As to point 4 - we are in definite agreement on that one brother. I had hoped that Lowerie would win the BGCT presidency, and that his wing of the BGCT would have more influence in the current proceedings.
Jim
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
jim champion,
when you said this about dr. mohler….”I agree that when Dr Mohler walks into a room, the level of the IQ is immediately raised by at least ten points.”
that’s what’s usually said about me when i walk into a room!
david
January 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Hey Jim,
I think the quality of leader, theologian, and intellect that Mohler is should be taken into account. Also, we should consider the fact of his ability to be able to talk to all kinds of people from different backgrounds in an intelligent manner. His leadership skills are witnessed by his ability to lead a major liberal seminary back to orthodoxy. Not only this but SBTS is now the largest seminary in the world! That is quite astounding.
Jim consider some counterpoints to your objections.
1.) An theological Academic (like Mohler) can have the tendency to see the big picture. This is not to say that a local pastor does not. But academics are supposed to look at the big picture. That is, where is the culture going… what are the ideas and philosophies that we christians must interact with. Pastor do not always major in that kind of high level analysis, however Academics are required to. Also we should consider that cultural analysis is something that Mohler is an expert in (after all he has just written a book and has a lot of experience in the public sector doing that sort of thing).
2.) The CP giving can’t be the main litmus test. I agree that it is important but there are other factors that are much more important. Also, I think your placing way to much importance on it, especially as we consider the fact that he is not the Pastor. Could he have gone to another church…. yeah…. but suppose he has had important reasons to stay there! I have grown up in a pastor’s family and one of the most heartbraking things for pastors is when someone leaves becuase not everything done at the church is 100% the way that they would have it done. There are no churches that are 100% perfect. Thus lack of perfection is not a reason to leave a church. There are reasons for leaving like: a.) church ordains homosexuals b.) theology is non-orthodox….. those kind of things.
Anyhow, I think that Mohler would be a great pick and I think that our convention would benifit greatly for having a brain in the “whitehouse” (joke).
January 4th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Dr Mohler COULD be a great president of the convention. As to wether or not he sees the big picture affecting the SBCer on the street I am not so sure about. He sees what affects his seminary, which with his trustess he is able to steer in the direction that he wants it to go. I am very uncomfortable with an entitiy head being able to chose the commitee that appoints the trustees to his seminary (always have been, always will) Although in full disclosure, I wish that Dr Dilday had been afforded the same luxury
Dr Mohler does speak eloquently on culture issues, when he is engaged in a debate on Larry King I am most often solidly in his corner cheering him on.
When he is at the SBC thumbing his nose at the Garner motion - not so much
When I look at the most recent Lifeway survey regarding younger pastors and thier attendance at the convention I wonder if bringing in yet another Cr warrior is the proper message to be sending. Ed Stetzers blog and the comments that follow are very interesting.
By the way, to me Dr Mohlers reformed beliefs dont bother me - although I am not reformed myself, my pastor and most of our staff are.
I still think that a primary consumer of CP dollars should come from a church that gives 10%, it knocks down that bully pulpit that the pres of the SBC has to encourage churches to give a higher percentage at a time when we need more growth in the CP (not that there is a time when we need less, but you know where I am coming from!)
Jim Champion
January 4th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Jim,
“Thumbing his nose at the Garner motion”? Not.
Thumbing his nose at the huge, unstated interpretive baggage that some people tried to sneak past the Southern Baptist people along with the Garner motion? Yes.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Bart
One action, two interpretations - aint life grand??
Jim
January 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
a new trend has emerge announce early so in keeping with the trend and the times I announce that I will not vote for Dr.Mohler if I attend the SBC
Convention because I see a conflict of interest with an SBC President that is employed by an institution that reports to the convention not wistanding previous presedents in SBC history that does allow him to run and serve
January 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Jim,
I keep hoping you are going to just stick with the fact that you do not want an entity head as pres, but you keep on sticking that giving the CP 10% in there.
I am OK with the entity head part, and I can see a conflict of interest there, but I could care less about the church he attends gives 10% or not. I recall when J.D. Greer was a hopefull, the biggest concern that people had was that his church put more money into their own missions initiatives than what they gave to the CP.
It’s really all about the money isn’t it??
January 6th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Brian
As I have stated over and over - my main objection is that I dont think an Entity head should be pres of the SBC. My secondary concern is the 10% thing (which would be one of my primary concerns were he not an entity head)
I think that we have plenty of very qualified people in the SBC who come from churches that give at least 10% to the SBC. How can they lead others to give liberally to the SBC if their own churches do not?
So, if I oppose an entitiy head it is not primarily all about the money - when we have a pastor or layman nominated one of the primary things that I will look at is the money
Jim
January 29th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I go to church with Mohler and we do only give 3% to CP. But we do however have a 1 million dollar missions buget. We are sending 500 on mission trips this year and give a lot directly to the IMB. Pastor and staff believe our money has more of a global impact when we send money overseas without going through middle man in KBC. CP is due for an overhaul if it is going to survive another 15 years! All the larger churches in the convention are doing this and only ones that are not are those whose pastors want to get elected.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I think Al Mohler might be best suited for the ministry he currently has. I love the Al Mohler show, and I think between that and his other “ministry” he seems more suited for those venues. IMHO.
At times I wonder if some men are building resumes, for other things like an opportunity to serve as an SBC president. I’m not saying that’s what he’s doing but I wonder at times. No, I’m not putting that on anyone in particular it’s just a thought in general.