According to Baptist Press, Dr. Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro First Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Georgia, will be nominated for president of the Southern Baptist Convention at this June’s convention meeting in Indianapolis (Click here for the story). Alabama evangelist Junior Hill has announced that he will nominate Cox.
Dr. Cox is the third person to be announced as a nominee. In January, Dr. Robert Jeffress announced that he would nominate R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and late last summer, it was announced that William L. (Bill) Wagner, a former Southern Baptist missionary and seminary professor and current president of Olivet University International in San Francisco would be nominated.
Junior Hill said of Cox, “He believes that the Gospel is for all people in all the world all the time.” Do you think those words were intended as a subtle swipe at Mohler’s Calvinism?
Just curious.
Brother Chris,
oh well…
VOTE COX, STOP CONFLICT.
This does look like it is a move against Calvinistic influences in the presidency, what with Junior Hill’s endorsement. Interesting.
I think I will change that to:
VOTE COX, FIGHT CONFLICT
For a moment I forgot we are Southern Baptists.
We are never going to “STOP” conflict. How else will we be happy if we are not in conflict of some type. :-)
cb
Alan,
I disagree. Junior Hill is making the nomination because he is so well known throughout the SBC.
That is the reason.
This nomination and election should not be made to be against Calvinism.
cb
Brother CB,
I, along with you, want to believe this nomination is not about Calvinism. I honestly want to believe that it is about Brother Junior believing that Dr. Cox will be better for the SBC than Dr. Mohler.
I am optimistic and that is my take on this thing.
Blessings,
Tim
CB,
That’s good to know. I really don’t have a dog in that hunt. I am fine with a 5 point Calvinist as president, just as I am with a non-Calvinist. I don’t fear any trends in that regard one way or another.
See, no conflict! :)
I guess I’m not a true Southern Baptist after all!
I’m pretty convinced the resistance to Mohler’s candidacy is more about Calvinism than alleged confilict of interest. I have no idea what Junior Hill or Frank Cox think, though.
By the way, according to the Utah-Idaho Southern Baptist Witness, Frank Cox is the fourth candidate. Robert Bosworth, a member of Wiley Drake’s church has expressed his intention (last August) to nominate Pastor Drake. I didn’t know that.
Brother Gary,
Do you have a link to that? I know that Brother Wiley announced back in July that he would run if someone would nominate him. I did not know that he found someone to do the nominating.
Blessings,
Tim
The “narrowing of parameters” coalition need some fodder to give their candidate a chance to win. For Mohler it was the CP giving. After that was clarified, then it was the “conflict of interest” argument.
Whether or not the Cox nomination by Junior Hill is a reaction to Dr. Mohler’s Calvinism doesn’t matter. It will be read that way and the old mantra of, “They are coming after the Calvinists” will be spewed like clock work to spread fear. It is really old.
But, if they want to implicate the respectable name and person of Junior Hill in this, they will badly lose.
I’ve heard rumor that John Calvin may be nominated sometime in March of 08. :)
That may take the heat off of Mohler somewhat.
-Chris
Robin,
I hope that you have thought through your judgememnt and allegation re: the “narrowing of parameters” group. I haven’t talked with anyone about this, but knowing just a little about SBC politics, I know that there are some who are anti-calvinists. Cox’s run makes sense in this regard, but I readily accept it not to be the case if people say so. I was just wondering why an establishment candidate would run against Mohler. No one is implicating the respectable name of Junior Hill in anything nefarious. It was just a question. Sometimes we are so us vs. them on everything that we don’t even realize that we are judging our brothers wrongly.
Alan,
Within the SBC we will find anti’s to all things including anti.
I truly believe Junior Hill is going to nominate Frank cox because he believes he will make a good president of the SBC. Junior has preached for Calvinist and Arminians alike.
I must agree with Robin here (boy that is a change:-). Junior Hill should not be considered as a conspirator in any way. The man is a preacher of the gospel who has always shown great humility of spirit and conducted himself honorably for the Lord.
It will be a sad day if he is made to be less than he is in Southern Baptist life.
Junior Hill, a conspirator? Give me a break. I don’t think he has ever met with any of us conspiracy boys in the first place. :-)
cb
BTW, Dr. Mohler is an honorable man also.
The problem there is simply the potentiality of conflict of interest due to his elected position to serve one of our entities.
Read my last comment on IMPACT for my argument. Robin will get mad at me if I paste it here. Y’all know how he is about stuff like that.
:-)
cb
One more little thing,
Tim Rogers, you demented hooligan and TAR HEEL.
It is not “Boot-Lappers.”
It is “Boot-Strapping-Baloney-Eaters” and we have far too many serving as trustees within the SBC.
If you are going to use the fruit of my labors use it as it was invented.
:-)
cb
Guys,
The question about Hill’s comment was just that: a question. I in no way intended that to be an indictment of Hill’s character. If it was received that way, I sincerely apologize. I love Junior Hill and believe him to be one of the most positive influences we have in the SBC. I cannot tell you how many times his sermons have ministered to me and inspired a greater commitment to personal soul-winning.
The reason I ask, is that I have spoken to a number of well placed individuals in our convention who are not comfortable with Calvinism in the slightest and would make this an issue. I have also heard of several pastors who have said the only reason they will not vote for Mohler was because he was a five pointer.
Again, just a question to get some dialogue going. NOT an indictment of character. I do not know Mr. Cox at all, so until I do some more research I will be voting for Dr. Mohler, whom I believe to be the best candidate.
Chris
Tim,
Sorry, there’s no link. I received the February hard copy issue of the I-U paper in the mail today and it was there. they said the story was from BP and the Western Recorder.
Wow, a guy gets announced as a nominee and the anti’s are out there in force.
Cox may be anti anti. I know Hill and I agree with cb, he is not anyone’s pcket or group. He has a heart for God, people, and Pastors (and in his words, food :)).
I like both Mohler and Cox. How’s that for clarity?
This development is a signal of strength not competition. It’s healthy development imho rather than a conspiracy. I would think there may be more nominations down the road.
Dr. Frank Cox is the man we need to lead our convention in the years ahead. He is committed to the CP and to proclaiming the gospel all over the world. I encourage all the readers of this blog that are members of SBC churches to register as messengers and vote for him in Indianapolis this summer.
Tim G.
Junior has lost over 100 pounds. At his age that is a testimony of a man of discipline and a true desire to be at his best and do his best.
At the same time, you are right about his words relating to food. :-)
Chris,
I totally believe your statement as to motivation. My effort at speaking to that issue may have been overkill due to my believing Junior Hill to be such an honorable man.
At the same time, I must confess, I heard the very same kind of thing you did from some guys yesterday.
cb
Gary Ledbetter,
Would I be correct to believe you see no inherent conflict of interest in an entity head being elected as president of the SBC?
Gary, please believe this is not a “set” question. My goal is not to start a fight with you as has been my goal in the past for which I am do apologize for now.
cb
CB,
What is your answer to the question you proposed to Gary?
Glenn,
I believe it is an inherent conflict of interest, not just for Dr. Mohler, but for any employee of SBC entities.
That is no reflection on Dr. Mohler as a entity leader, Believer or as a man.
It is just simply a practice we, as Southern Baptists need to cease. This issue has been debated for years. It was debated about and with Dr. Patterson prior to his election as president of the SBC.
It is time someone made a motion to end this practice.
cb
Do you think someone will at this year’s meeting?
CB,
No need to apologize, from my viewpoint.
You’re correct. I don’t see any inherent conflict of interest in an agency head being SBC president. We already trust these men with far more than the fleeting influence of president.
Gary
Gary,
In many ways I supported the presidents from 1979 through 2005 with the exception of Jim Henry through the years. I voted for Jerry Sutton in Greensboro.
Would you agree that we have been able to see the change in the SBC over the CR years due to presidential appointments of trustees?
If so, how can you believe the influence of the president is fleeting? Presidential appointments changed the course of the SBC.
I am in no way saying Dr. Mohler would, by intent, hurt the SBC. I do think we need to cause a change to assure that it never happens in the future beyond him.
I hope you see my point has nothing specifically to do with Dr. Mohler as a person. He is a good seminary president and I would hope he stays at his post long after I sign off.
Glenn,
I know of no such motion at this time. If there is one it will not come from me. I hope I have made my last motion during a SBC.
cb
CB,
Thanks for your comment. If there is one thing all Southern Baptists can agree on, its that Junior Hill loves the Lord, loves the lost, and loves telling the lost about the Lord. Every minister is better for having paid attention to his example.
Chris
Alan
Whether your name is included in the “narrowing of parameters” group will be up to you and your actions. Drs. Patterson, Mohler, Moore, Yarnell, and others have literally been crucified by many of the “narrowing of parameters” group. While doing this, they have been applauded and encouraged for their sin by what remained of the group. I will say that some have broken with some of the bloggers and spoke out against the actions of Ben Cole. To that, I give them credit.
From what I have heard and understand, Frank Cox is an honorable man. Junior hill was preaching revivals before you and possibly I were born. If someone wants to discredit them in the same manner that the before mention men were, they will further show the sinful depths they are willing to go to win the day. But if one disagrees with the vision Frank Cox has for the SBC, then that is fair game. Respectful dialogue is what is needed, not personal assassination that has permeated some sites.
Where ever you fall, will be up to you.
CB
I think you and I may agree on more than we disagree. :-D
Brother Glenn,
I believe Brother CB’s last motion at an SBC Convention was concerning our former President–US Prez that is.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
If Junior Hill agrees with Dr. Cox’s soteriology over Dr. Mohler’s, why WOULDN’T that be a factor in his decision? Based on the quote, it was. So what?
It says nothing ill of Junior’s character to make the connection.
Robin,
Just a quick comment about the use of the word “literally.” Jason Kearney had an interesting post about the use of that word about a week ago or so on his blog. His point was well taken. To say something “literally” happened is to ascertain that it truly did occur as contrasted to saying it took place figuratively or metaphorically. Had the good doctors you mention “literally” have been crucified by the narrowing of the parameters group as you describe it, this post would be a moot issue as Dr. Mohler would be deceased.
Gary
Thank you for the information from JasonK. I read that post also when it came out.
God Bless
Robin,
:>)
Robin,
I do believe that there has been a narrowing of the parameters of cooperation, but I am not into “crucifying” anyone over it. As for my actions and words, I hope that they are honorable and not derogatory in any way toward anyone, yourself included. We can disagree on issues, even passionately so, but why should we tear each other apart? That is not my desire, nor do I believe it to be your desire. My point is that we don’t need to just assume that we mean ill about things just because we disagree some. I am sure that we agree on far more than we disagree on, in the vast scheme of things.
I was sincerely just asking a question and not implying some type of negative conspiracy. I don’t see anything wrong with another establishment candidate who is not a Calvinist running against Dr. Mohler. I believe Dr. Mohler to be an honorable man, as I do Junior Hill. I don’t know anything about Dr. Cox, so I wondered if some were wanting to run a non-Calvinistic candidate. No big deal.
Really, truly, no kidding – I didn’t mean anything negative by it. I actually don’t see it as a problem. Why would anyone disparage Junior Hill? When has anyone ever done so? Why would anyone say anything negative about Dr. Cox? To ask about motives for running is not to disparage. It is just to dialogue.
As for what others will do with this, I have no idea. I can only speak for myself.
Robin,
Alan Cross is a fair man. He will listen and respond with his true convictions. Hypocrisy is not his style.
cb
<p>CB and Alan</p>
<p>If you will notice, I have not accused Alan of anything. The only name I referenced was BSC. Again, the actions of bloggers will define where they stand as we approach the convention.</p>
<p>I think most reasonable people can admit that the “C” word has been used unfairly to instill fear and “garner” (pun intended) support for the “narrowing of parameters” ecumenical facade. It is funny that after Dr. Vines was unfairly attacked (I won’t say crucified) for his sermon against Calvinism, he was still invited to Southern to preach. It is also funny that Dr. Mohler and Dr. Vines are good friends. But, all of that is not known. </p>
<p>It is time to get real, fairly debate the issues, and not create illusions that are not there.</p>
CB,
Of course you’re right about the affect of conservative presidents over the course of time. If we elected all 12 agency heads back to back (or even half of them), and if they all had the same agenda, and if their appointments mostly shared that agenda, and if the nominations committee also generally toed that line, then the agency head presidents could become a bad idea.
You’d have to agree that if only Rogers and Vines had been elected, and 8 years apart, their influence would have been fleeting.
For it to come up no more often than it has over the past 20 years is not even potentially troubling. At this point I trust the convention to short circuit any effort by agency heads to take over the presidency. A motion to that effect is not necessary.
A single president has an opportunity to affect the convention by his moral authority (Bobby Welch, for example) more than by his constitutional powers. That’s what I mean by fleeting influence.
Gary
I just noticed that my “affects” and “effects” were used casually in that post. Please proofread with grace. GL
Gary Ledbetter,
You have presented a definition of “fleeting influence” that is fair in its application here. Thank you.
Robin,
You are going to have to stop cussin’ in your comments. Alan and I have no idea what you called us, but it must be bad if you have to code it with “”
Your wife needs to wash your mouth out with soap.
:-)
cb
See, Robin, my Apple computer is so pure it will not even type what you said when you said; “.”
:-) :-)
Just raggin’ on ya, Robin
cb
robin,
just dont let her use lifebouy!
david :)
Dr. Al Mohler is the man we need to lead our convention in the years ahead. He is committed to the CP and to proclaiming the gospel all over the world. I encourage all the readers of this blog that are members of SBC churches to register as messengers and vote for him in Indianapolis this summer.
just to balance this post a bit! :-)
Robin,
I think that we can miscommunicate because of assumptions sometimes. I dare not assume to know what you think on every issue, but I don’t understand why you have been so quick to think that false illusions are being created in this comment thread because a question was asked. It is part of the dialogue. You have defended Junior Hill as though someone was attacking him, when we were only looking for information. I only bring this up because I think that it is very possible that we can talk past each other and be oppositional with one another, even when we are not in disagreement.
Alan
Why is the question even asked?
Drs. Patterson, Mohler, Moore, Yarnell, and others have literally been crucified by many of the “narrowing of parameters” group. While doing this, they have been applauded and encouraged for their sin
Robin, please identify the ‘many’ by name in your above comment. I’m only asking because you accuse these unnamed people of sin, and it would seem only appropriate to name the ones you accuse since there are many people in the SBC concerned about the narrowing of doctrinal parameters and you acknowledge that not all of them are in ‘sin.’
Also, please be specific about the ‘sin’ that has occurred?
Finally, could you identify those who are ‘applauding’ the sin?
If you are unwilling to answer the above questions, could it be that you are actually unable to do so because that which you call ‘sin’ is simply disagreeement? In my opinion, your thoughts carry more weight and your ideas are advanced when those who disagree with you are not labeled as people in ‘sin. ‘
In His Grace,
Wade
Robin,
The question was asked because it occurred to me as a legitimate question. Is this a forum for discussion or a place for everyone to completely agree on everything and applaud every thought? My point is that I wasn’t even disagreeing. It seems completely logical to me that someone would run a non-Calvinistic candidate against a Calvinist like Dr. Mohler. I don’t see a problem with that. That doesn’t sound like a conspiracy to me, nor is it something that should be an issue or something that would cause me to think less of someone.
Now, there is no reason to get ugly in that type of contest or to disparage Calvinists or non-Calvinists, but I would think that many Southern Baptists who are uncomfortable with one perspective or the other might appreciate a choice. I am not one of those Southern Baptists because I don’t care. I know that we are a convention of Calvinists and non-Calvinists and we have been since the beginning. I do not fear a Mohler presidency for that reason, nor do I have a problem with anyone who would oppose him for that reason. Calvinism is not a character issue, nor is running a non-Calvinistic candidate in opposition to a Calvinist a character issue. It is just having an opinion.
So, Robin, asking the question is only meant to illuminate the process of selecting a president.
Alan,
When one conisders…
…negative comments about Calvinism that have become somewhat common at the annual Pastors Conference
…the recent statements/articles about Calvinism that came from the meeting of SB Evangelists
…Junior’s inclusion of the statement about the gospel being for “all people in all the world all the time”…
then OF COURSE you were only verbalizing something many other people were undoubtedly wondering.
Even if that were his motivation, it isn’t sinister. So asking the question shouldn’t be considered an insult to the man’s character.
Wade
In my opinion, your thoughts carry more weight and your ideas are advanced when those who disagree with you are not labeled as “spooky.”
Robin
Robin,
I am more than happy for people to read the post to which you refer, but I must correct you on one point you make in your comment. Nowhere in my post, as people will discover when they read it, is any person identified as being in ‘sin.’ Rather, radical fundamentalism is precisely defined. Further, I don’t even call holding to radical fundamentalism (or spooky fundamentalism) as ‘sin.’
Since you have identified one person already, and implied that there are ‘many’ others in the camp of those who oppose the ‘narrowing of doctrinal parameters’ who are in sin, I am asking you to back up your comment with facts. The specific questions are asked because I am sincerely interested in your answers to them . Diverting the subject does not negate the request for a response. Again, will you answer the following?
(1). Please identify the ‘many’ in the camp of those who oppose the narrowing of doctrinal parameters who are in ‘sin.’
(2). Please be specific about the nature of their sin.
(3). Finally, please explain what you mean about people ‘applauding’ this sin.
These are serious charges you make, and I am simply asking you to back them up with precision and substance.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wade
As soon as you tell us who the trustees were that asked you to come on board to the IMB for the task of getting rid of Dr. Rankin.
Frank Cox is the most qualified person to ever run for SBC President. Cox has served as Chairman of the Executive Committee where he led the EC through many thorny issues; Cox served as President of the Georgia Baptist Convention where he led this state from moderate leaning to solid conservative; Cox served as President of the SBC Pastors Conference. Frank Cox is a strong conservative with a strong record in CP giving (13 % at North Metro) and a strong record in evangelism.
I admire Albert Mohler and am thankful for his leadership at Southern Seminary. However, no man has his finger on the pulse of Southern Baptist life as does Frank Cox.
Robin,
If I choose to publish you can read the names along with everyone else. I can assure you that I can identify the people who sought to undermine Dr. Rankin’s leadership and force either an early retirement or forced termination. However, even if I do choose to identify the individuals involved, I have not once called their actions ‘sin.’ I have simply expressed a disagreement with them over excluding Southern Baptists from leadership because they ‘pray in tongues’ or hold to some other tertiary doctrinal issue that is not addressed in the BFM 2000.
I would assume by your refusal to identify either the ‘sin’ or those involved in ‘sin’ or those who applaud ‘the sin’ that you are simply using rhetoric and have no substance to support your allegation. I think your comment is now seen for what it is.
Wade,
I would hate to rain on this “correction of an allegation” but did not Robin effectively change the wording concerning this issue in comment #39?
Tim,
Maybe Robin did change the wording. If he did and I missed it I do apologize. I am hopeful that allegations of ‘sin’ by fellow pastors will cease and we can simply express disagreements without moral epitaths.
In His Grace,
Wade
In 1979 I dreamed of the SBC one day being able to choose from several presidential candidates. Candidates who all believe in inerrancy, and the importance of the inerrancy of the Bible. I praise God that that day came in 2006 and now in 2008.
We will always have other problems, but thank God that for now the issue of the Bible being completely true and trustworthy has been settled in the SBC. Isn’t it great that we can “fight” over which conservative to vote for?
Whoever you vote for, go hear Junior Hill preach every chance you get. The same for Robert Jeffress.
David R. Brumbelow
David Brumbelow,
Very good. Very good, indeed.
cb
David,
Thanks for bringing that to our attention! No doubt the last 40-60 years have been like the reflection of a wayward Israelite for the Baptist…. Not being able to know if God can speak without error….
Blessings,
Chris
See posts 30 & 39.
Robins comments about “sin” appear to stand.
I am thrilled with Frank’s nomination. He has manintained a passion for the glory of God, his family, the souls of men, his church, his denomination and for excellence ever since i first met him in the early 80s. He walked through a hard providence, loosing his wife to cancer, and exhibited nobility, faith and hope. He is a personal soul winner, skilled administrator and knows how to build colaberative teams. He is highly qualified.
Good game!