Why Burleson ...

[Norm]

... is unfit to lead SBC or why he is the logical choice.

reports that ... the Rev. Benjamin Cole ... will offer ... a resolution urging the denomination to reassert its tradition of freedom of dissent. His resolution, "On Baptist Dissent," states, "we regard all attempts to silence principled dissent by fellow Baptists ... as a compromise of our cherished Baptist witness and an egregious disservice to the Kingdom of God."

Later in the same article we read, Burleson says he will abide by the new rule against publicly criticizing board actions. However, he supports Cole's resolution and hopes it will be approved.

Why would there be a movement to draft Burleson as a principled dissent candidate when he chose to ignore his own principle? But then again, doesn't recent vintage SBC leadership have a history of touting one thing and doing another? Why buck the trend when you can benefit by the sacrifices of others that are willing to do so?