…is any discussion as to those whom we will consider to be the next president of our convention. While some may consider this a minor point, I do not. Consider this: two years ago, before there was a well-formed ‘Great Commission Resurgence’ movement, before there was a GCR related Task Force, we had numerous candidates (six, to be exact, by the time we made it to Indianapolis). By this time in 2008 (late February to early March), one candidate had been announced and then for medical reasons stepped aside, another officially announced, and a second candidate officially threw his hat in the ring by March.
Contrast that with 2010. We Southern Baptists are headed to an annual meeting which is touted as monumental for the future of our convention of churches and we have not one man who has been officially nominated nor expressed interest in leading our convention into this momentous future. This is curious to me. Maybe 2008 was an anomaly in our history and it is too early this time. Two-thousand eight was the first time I had paid much attention to the ‘lead up’ to a convention meeting so I have no basis of comparison. I, however, do not think it is too early. I would like to start hearing more about those whom we would consider for our next leader. That being said, I have no one in mind. I have no agenda or candidate to push or support at this time. As we start seeing officially declared candidates, I will certainly decide on the one whom I am comfortable in supporting.
I do pray we are not waiting on the GCR Task Force to declare for us a candidate. I pray we are not waiting for our current president to declare his advocacy of his ‘successor.’ Neither of these were tasked with such responsibility by the messengers of the churches of our convention. We should not be waiting for any ‘powers that be’ to name the only viable candidates. That was what I so thoroughly enjoyed about 2008. The vast number and wide variety of candidates made for great interviews in which significant issues impacting the life of our convention were discussed leading up to the annual meeting. We could use those discussions in this day as well.
Am I trying to drum-up this discussion? Absolutely! SO, where are the candidates? Who will step forward? Whom would you like to see lead our convention?
Sola Gratia!
Okay, Scott. If you insist, I will allow my name to be put into nomination. I should be able to garner dozens of votes. Well, a dozen or so anyway.
Actually, I don’t think it was that long ago that these decisions were made at the last minute. I don’t think announcing candidacy in February would be historically normative.
Brother Scott,
Why not allow your name to be placed before the convention? You would be a shoe in. You are young, Calvinistic in your doctrine and the pastor of a small church. You certainly have a great plank to propel you.
:)
Blessings,
Tim
Dave,
If the lower flag in your avatar will be a part of you candidacy, you have my attention! :-)
As to the historically normative early announcement, while I concede your point, I am wondering if earlier announcements with time for interviews, etc., would prove to be beneficial for messengers. It would provide time to become aware of each man’s convictions and direction as well as time for prayerful consideration of the candidates.
Tim,
Not gonna do it. :-D
SG!
Good point, Scott. Who would you like to see as the next president? Thanks, Adam.
IF there is no long-touted “establishment candidate”, there’s not likely to be a long-touted “people’s candidate” either. And maybe no press about who gives what to the CP.
Perhaps even the “powers that be” have learned something.
Having been one of the candidates in 2008, I believe those who might be considering a run for Prez learned a lesson from what happened in 2008. Lesser-known candidates announced early, interviews were conducted, blogs were written, sides were drawn, and then the last-minute, high profile candidate (Dr. Hunt) was elected.
Also, waiting until later, say, one to two weeks prior to the convention is beneficial to the well-known candidate as he does not have to answer questions from the press and bloggers. It also greatly reduces the time for organized opposition to rise up.
Personally, I believe if Al Mohler decides to run, he will win. If Dr. Mohler decides not to run, I look for Ted Traylor, Ken Whitten, or Mac Brunson to run. IMHO, the highest probability of running will be Dr. Whitten.
All of these men are good candidates, but I think everybody is waiting on Dr. Mohler to make a decision.
Les
I am ready to hear the interview with Dave Miller…. roll the tape (digital recorder).
-Chris
I think Les may have hit the ole nail squarely on top of the head.
David
Adam,
I am uncertain. I like Dr. Mohler and have heard his name floated about. I am not certain.
Though I am relatively sure he would not even consider it, I would readily support Dr. Bart Barber. If not him, then I would certainly prefer someone of similar conviction and grace.
Les,
I think you may be right. Too many may prefer to not have to answer any questions. Sad, in my opinion. I have also heard the slate of potentials you mentioned as possibilities.
Chris,
All the digital soundbite you need… Sterling :-D
SG!
Bob,
Sorry I missed you in my initial reply in #10…
I think you have hit on the same line of thinking as Les. It seems the less time between announcement and annual meeting the less time for discussion and challenge. Too bad.
SG!
Les,
I remember you were vocal against the “caucus meetings” of the SBC of “yesteryear.”
Now, as I read your comment in this thread, it is obvious to me that now, not only do you approve of them, you have been attending them.
Therefore, your membership in “Club Enid” is revoked.
Just raggin’ on you Les, :-) But I agree with Scott Gordon and Vol. I believe you are on to something there.
Scott G for SBC Prez or Dave M. – may the interviews begin!
:)
CB,
Any thoughts on Pres Nom for 2010?
Tim,
Thanks…but seriously, anyone strike you as a particularly noteworthy candidate?
SG!
There is a boy in Texas who would, in my opinion, be perfect for such an hour as this.
Ezekiel 37
CB,
You surely don’t mean BDW do you? LOL
Scott,
I certainly respect Mohler and Barber. Great suggestions! Would Dever consider? Is Voddie Bachaum too controversial?
Thanks bro,
Adam
Jake,
I do believe that our beloved CB just nearly snapped his neck doing a double take on that one! LOL
Adam,
I don’t know that Voddie would be any more or less controversial as any of the others you mention – but man, what a great list of names.
Grace,
Wes
Uhh, Jake there Ole Buddy.
I think you missed me on that one. I was thinking of him for FVP.
I agree with Les, Dr. Ken Whitten would be an amazing leader for the SBC. He is my grandmother’s pastor and is an incredible man of God. He takes time to meet with me when I’m in Tampa. If you’ve never been to Idlewild, go there and learn all you can. Pastor Ken–run we need you!
Brother Michael,
I have met Dr. Whitten and shared some ice cream with him in a lobby. He surprised me with his personable nature and his openness to speak his mind. I believe he would make a great President. Can’t wait to see who will allow their name to go forth.
Blessings,
Tim
I nominate CB Scott for president of the Southern Baptist Convention. ;-)
Brother Robin,
Are you crazy? He will attempt to change the name from Southern Baptist Convention, to Sabanation Baptist Convention. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
If we were to become the SABANATION BAPTIST CONVENTION, we would within three years win the National Denominational Championship and we would have at least three meals of B-B-Q, GOLDEN FLAKE “TATER CHIPS, AND SWEET TEA at ever convention. And all the seminary offices and and all other boards and entities would be closed down every year during the Iron Bowl, the Tennessee-Alabama game and the SEC play-offs so everyone could be at home with their families and friends for the games.
The above would be my first acts on the first day as President of the SBC. And then I really would not worry much about the rest of my term. For we would all be happy for once at the same time in the SBC. :-)
Does it really matter about who gets elected? Things just are not going to get better for the SBC.
Tom Parker,
Do you say as an ex cathedra application of papal infallibility or is just a disgruntled Baptist guy making a guess?
CB Scott, what if he’s right? (That would be the third option in addition to the two you have already given, because it is safe to say that the probability of being wrong on a mere “guess” often outweighs the possibility of being right). And I believe you can make such a statement as Tom Parker makes without hating the SBC. I think he still considers himself part of it. Personally, I think thing’s are going to get worse for the SBC before they get better, but I am no prophet, and truthfully, I do not desire front-row seats to this show.
Byron,
If you are no prophet and you do not “desire front-row seats” then why do you continually stand in the lobby asking if the show is sold out?
Curiosity killed the cat? (I could make a reference to train wrecks, but I do not think it applies here). I’m a member of an SBC church, you know (so my paperwork says I am SBC even if my brain sometimes does not). There are many good people in the SBC, but I share Tom Parker’s concern about its possible future directions. And I was serious about thinking it will get worse for the SBC before it gets better, but I also know it is easier to stop focusing on Christ and turn the focus earthbound instead of being properly heavenward.
Byron,
If we are in trouble to the extent you and others say, go out tomorrow and share the gospel with someone. I have found that no matter how bad something seems to be that the sharing of the gospel with another person gives one hope.
Try it. See if it helps. Ask Tom Parker to do the same. Come back later and tell me what you think.
CB Scott, actually, I would rather wait on God to put someone in my path and ordain the conversation. I give a witness online for Christ to the best of my ability, as well. And frankly, more evangelism is not always the best answer to those who bring up problems in the SBC, but boy, it seems to be the most popular one.
I’m sorry, CB Scott, as that was a bit blunter than I intended, but I’m tired of getting the answer of more evangelism, when the problem more often concerns those within the SBC who already profess to believe (as I see it), and why should we bring more people in (which I do agree with) and add to it when we should have already fixed this so we could be freer in the first place to bring people in?
Byron,
In your answer you present the heart of the problem. The SBC is existent due to churches having commonality in theological belief. No doctrines are more precious to Baptists than ecclesiology and soteriology. (It is true that the Doctrine of the Trinity is the foundational doctrine in Christianity, but I am speaking of that of which “most strongly glues” Southern Baptists together.)
The Great Commission is central to a proper understanding of ecclesiology and only those (individuals/churches) who truly understand a biblical soteriology can be biblical in their ecclesiology.
Bottom line. A real passion for God is always going to “push” us to share the gospel. Always. People with a real passion for God are also passionate in sharing the gospel. People passionate for God, passionately sharing the gospel build strong churches. Strong churches will build a strong SBC.
But, you Byron, have already told me you do not believe the Great Commission to be for us today. Do you remember telling me that in a comment before Christmas 2009? I remember it.
Byron, the problems in the SBC would be solved if we capture, in our souls, a “biblically sound” passion for God. Strong churches will result and the gospel will be shared.
So, like I said, no matter how bad it seems, the sharing of the gospel with another person always gives one hope.
Yes, CB Scott, I remember saying that. And, what you have said has been fair enough overall. I could be wrong on the Great Commission, but please subtract me from the equation (I’m a nobody anyway) and think about what I said, because I believe it still applies. It’s not to negate evangelism, but get the “house in order” so evangelism will be more effectual. I won’t say any more about it, just thanks for your gracious disagreement and I will have to just observe how it goes for the SBC.
Bryan,
Evangelism is “effectual” in and of itself. It will be “good medicine for what ails you”, the SBC and all of us anytime. It is better than “Castor Oil” or “Black Draught Syrup” for the general healing of the body personal and the body general of the SBC.
CB Scott, I know I said I wouldn’t say any more about it (on this conversation I meant), but I have to ask for Scripture references for what you just said, and I will study those privately. Thanks.
Byron,
The purifying qualities of Castor Oil are found in 1 Tim Rogers and the cleansing abilities if Black Draught Syrup are found in 2 Wes Kenney.
CB Scott, one more question please: why did you call me “Bryan” in comment #35 but not before and not since? That struck me as odd.
Byron,
I typed “Bryan” instead of “Byron” in comment #35 because I am old as dirt, have had more broken bones in my hands alone than you have years of life and as of yet, I have had neither my Castor Oil or my Black Draught Syrup today.
But before you get too uppity with me young man, remember this;
These wrinkles in my face are war maps, this thickness in my girth is “core strength” and I have taken down a many of young struttin’ Peacocks like you in my day and with either one of these beat-up old hand of mine, I can still slap you naked with the other hand tied behind me.
Now, Mr. BYRON SMITH, how is that for an answer. :-)
CB,
Please dont slap Byron, or Bryan as you like to call him, naked. I dont think any of us could take that sight…a naked Byron.
lol
David
CB Scott, frankly, I’m disappointed in your last two comments, and David’s comment is either juvenile or a poor attempt at humor. You continue to have my respect, but not my agreement, and it is quite obvious to me that you do not know me very well. However, the lack of respect that I and others of my kind receive is no surprise. We’ll simply grin and bear it, and press on. Being misrepresented and treated uncharitably is no new thing, and I don’t suppose it will go out of fashion any time soon.
Here’s the deal, though: your last comment reminds me of the non-violent resistance to the British occupation in India. I’m just one more person asking inconvenient questions and making unwelcome observations about the SBC. I wasn’t the first, and I won’t be the last. These questions and observations are larger in scope than the current conflict, and they cannot be ignored or dismissed forever, no matter how many comment streams are closed and how many times the matter is declared settled. And God is well able to raise up as many as it takes to wear down the obstinacy and obfuscation against the truth in the SBC, and perhaps He will.
But, I am not your enemy. I am not David Worley’s enemy, or the enemy of Peter Lumpkins, or others I could name. I am disappointed somewhat, but sadly not much surprised. Doing it “the same way we’ve always done it” while respecting the same results could be cited as an example of group insanity, or at least collective error. Evangelism is needed, but repentance and revival will bring about all the true evangelism the SBC ever needed.
And that, sir, is the bottom line.
I should have said, “expecting the same results”
Byron,
Get out of your mother’s basement and go out and meet some people your own age and have some fun. You need to lighten up greatly. Do you think my misspelling your name was some kind of slight toward you? Get off of that stuff. It was a simple mistake. Nothing more.
The conspiracy theories work well and get milage over a Don Quixote and Mini Quixote’s blogs but they don’t wear out much tread among normal people. Life is far too short to be yelling the sky is falling all the time.
Your reasoning for not sharing the gospel is not biblical and is the reason so many guys like you that run from pillar to post saying the SBC is dead are seeing no hope. You do nothing to invest in hope. Don’t tell me what I told you does not work. it works here. It worked for over 2000 years and will continue to do so. if you think the sharing of the gospel is impotent that is your problem,but don’t come arguing to me it does not work. I see it happen on a regular basis.
CB Scott, now you’re jumping to conclusions. I never said I don’t believe in sharing the gospel, nor do I think it should be restricted to some elect group, or anything like that. I just don’t believe the answer for what ails the SBC is simply more evangelism, more money, more church buildings, and more programs or budget alterations to make those programs more effective. Plus, I never commented again on the misspelling of my name in my last comment. I didn’t take it for a slight, and never said so. I simply asked a question, and got a diatribe in response which was unwelcome and unexpected. See, you really don’t know me, and you don’t know what I do or don’t do to invest in any kind of hope. The bottom line remains in my belief that repentance and revival will prove far more effectual for evangelism than simply evangelism alone. Make of that what you will.
Now, Byron, tell me who is jumping to conclusions here? Who mentioned buildings, money, elect groups, programs, etc, etc? You did. You are obsessed with a fantasy of conspiracy within the SBC that frankly does not exist.
Byron, get out of the basement of your Mother’s home, leave the computer, meet some real people your own age. Talk a while. Get to know someone. Share the gospel. it will give you hope.
Or just sit there and cry the sky is falling. Just don’t tell me sharing the gospel is impotent to solve the problems that you are so concerned about in the SBC.
CB Scott, I should have mentioned that was my impression of the GCRTF preliminary report (or such as is my impression of skimming the written document at Pray4GCR). And, I don’t live in my mother’s basement (or anyone’s) as both parents have been deceased for quite a number of years. I’m not necessarily implying that sharing the gospel is impotent (given my Calvinist leanings, my beliefs are quite the contrary). I just think that other things, such as repentance and revival, take priority. But, like I told Les Puryear concerning tithing, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I’ve found my seat, and good or bad, all I need now is popcorn and a drink, and just to sit down and watch.
CB,
Here, here! Personal acceptance and obedience to our Great Commission calling is what will renew and strengthen our convention!
Has this discussion with Byron been the establishment of your presidential platform? :-)
I would ask the same of Byron, but apparently the cooperative efforts of our convention of churches is merely an afternoon matinee in his eyes.
SG!
OK Byron,
Sometimes I make mistakes and I am willing to admit it. You do not live in your Mother’s basement. Then get out of your older sister’s basement. I am sure your brother-in-law would appreciate not having to support you any longer.
And since you declare yourself only in the audience; please eat your popcorn and be quite so others can hear the show. So, why be proud of being the kind of guy they make all those warning videos about to shut you up before we can see the movie?
Oh, and get a job. That will also do wonders for your “sky is falling” disposition.
Scott,
It is just my weakness to try to “reform” wayward young fellows like Byron. It took me four years to get Tim Rogers on the straight and narrow. But I am getting old and I don’t know if I have that much time to be successful with Ole Byron here. Maybe you can talk Wes into helping me out for a while. We will scrape up the cash to send Byron up to live with him for a while. I am sure Byron’s brother-in-law will pitch in a little to help with transportation.
CB Scott, you are wrong on all counts concerning family, where I live, and what I do. Sorry. None of you know me, so please don’t operate on your assumptions. I don’t have the habit of publicly speculating on the private lives of those I disagree with, so I leave that to private pondering. ;)
Byron,
We both know I have you \”pegged\” fairly well. Now get out of the house, meet some normal people (or abnormal people if you desire) and share the gospel.
Hope will begin to spring up in you as a \”spring of living water.\” Where have I heard that before?
CB Scott, well, you’re right about me needing to get out of the house, meet new people, and have fun at least. I’m quite tired of the current fiasco. Oy vey, I’m glad I’m not invested in this any more than I am. I can sleep comfortably tonight knowing that I need be concerned with neither the future of the SBC nor anyone’s responses to my opinions concerning it (why should I care even if I happen to be right in the end, as it does not matter for me one way or the other?). Good night to all!
Byron,
Good night to you also…..and tell your sister and brother-in-law I said good night to them also.
CB Scott, thanks, I only wish that was my reality (oh, to go back a number of years and relive things knowing what I know now). Again, you do not know me. I have done my best to show you respect, and do so now. Thanks for sharing your opinions, however, as I find them interesting.
My vote goes to mohler, akin, or brunson