BL.com member Dave Miller elected SBC 2nd VP

[Big Daddy Weaver]

BL.com member and Fox's nemesis Dave Miller has been elected 2nd VP of SBC in a run-off, receiving nearly 60% of the vote.

Miller - whose interactions here at BL.com have generally been rather defensive - is the editor of SBCVoices.com.

As far as I know, he's the first blogger to elected to a national or state office in BaptistLife.

Bloggers Les Puryear and our own Sandy have unsuccessfully sought office in years past. I think Montoya may have run? Maybe he just nominated someone? I can't recall.

Miller defeated anti-Calvinist pastor Eric Hankins, pastor of FBC Oxford, Miss. Hankins is the son of David Hankins, Executive-Director of the Louisiana Baptist Convention.

I'd say Miller's win was not so much about him as it was about Hankins (and his father). Miller is liked in the blogosphere but as an Iowa pastor, he's not well-known. Miller's nomination speech was given by fellow blogger Alan Cross of Birmingham. Cross' speech was OK but not loud and powerful.

SBC messengers seem to prefer the loud and powerful nomination speeches. The speech nominating Hankins was indeed loud.

Hankins and his father were responsible for spearheading the recent anti-Calvinist statement. Looks like the messengers chose to push back against that poorly-timed and divisive effort today with their vote.

[Haruo]

[Haruo]

Congratulations to Dave Miller!

[Tim Dahl]

Congratulations David!!!!

Tim

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

I like Dave. Good guy. Not a bomb thrower.

I think it is clear that the right obscure SBCer who is known amongst the considerable number of bloggers and those who follow blogs can pull some votes under the right circumstances.

[Dave Miller]

Defensive? I'm not defensive! Who said I was defensive?

Seriously, I will quarrel with one thing you said, Aaron. I don't know how it played out on the video, but the folks I talked to pretty much agreed that the nominating speech by Alan Cross was a big plus. He came across as real and sincere.

[Dave Miller]

One more thing (well, perhaps two).

1) I think that this does demonstrate a change in the attitude toward bloggers in the SBC. We are no longer reviled as we once were. Several o the entities are making efforts to build bridges with bloggers.

2) One of the real factors in this was twitter. There was a group of folks, many of them younger guys, who were the ones who asked me to run. They were twitter fiends! I would watch the #sbc12 scroll and @davemiller7 (which has been a very inactive account) and see calls for people to vote for me. They flooded the twittersphere (is that the right word?) with passionate calls to vote.

The young whippersnappers and their new fangled twittering was a factor, I think.

Perhaps concern about the Hankins document fueled some of their passion.

[Haruo]

And the Hankins document is...?

[William Thornton]

[Stephen Fox]

a brief book list for his remedial education:

Geneaology of Dissent by Stricklin. In concert with Molly Worthen's NYTimes piece on Fred Luter may help him bring some honesty to the station he now finds himself in

2)Giberson and Stephens The Anointed: SBC's parallel Universe will not float and I am convinced in my gut Bryant Wright knows it and Jonathan Merritt may already admit to the fact.

3) Google Paul Harvey on David Barton in Religion Dispatches.

4) And take a strong dose of 2nd Half of Jane Mayers stout Bully Pulpit and ask Charles Pickering and Judge Pressler what they make of it.
Looking for a report on this board soon.

In the meantime, other than that: CONGRATULATIONS

Oh and for the record: Inerrancy is a ruse. To paraphrase Sutton from 88 SBC Resolution Number Five on the Priesthood of the Believer, "You know it and I know it."

[Gene Scarborough]

I have blogged on Baptist Life and now do not participate. It is a waste of my time as their position is fixed and has no openess to anything not in their parameters.

What really concerns me is the constant battle going on over at the SBC. The average person looking for a church wants love and encouragement rather than an absolute "you must say it this way" form of faith.

I wish them good lock, but cry no tears over going the CBF route.

[Haruo]

[Gene Scarborough]

Thanks for the correction!

Here I find a happy home with good dialogue and intelligence. There I found nothing but the SBC party line and exclusion.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I thought Alan's speech was good. It did come across as sincere. The guy nominating Hankins was much more dynamic, had a megachurch production feel to it. I think we probably can say that - at least in the past - such dynamic speeches have proved persuasive. I really thought it would. People get sucked in to the loud, flashy preaching.

I'm not saying the election was all about Hankins. Many know and like Dave. Still, I'm sure more people knew Hankins and his daddy, the exec-director of Louisiana Baptists, at a convention there in New Orleans.

In light of all the Calvinism drama, it sure seemed to come down to Eric Hankins (bad guy) vs. Dave Miller (good guy). I know very little about Hankins. Honestly never heard of him until recently. But what I do know (and from his writings on that I've read), he just doesn't come across as a friendly guy (to be charitable) like Dave.

Also, let me clarify to Haruo what I meant by "blogger"

In the "blogger" category, I was referring to the pastor or layperson who has gained an audience/following through his blogging but was previously not well-known.

Al Mohler blogs. He's no blogger. Many leaders have blogs but I wouldn't consider most of them bloggers.

[William Thornton]

BDW looks pretty solid in his assessment. One thing not mentioned is that runoffs for the various elections are tricky because they are not on the schedule and we all know how SBC attendees like to eat, browse the bookstore, gab in the exhibit hall. The twitter crowd, clearly Dave Miller's group (he gave credit to a 'twitter army') did an effective job of getting their people into the convention hall to vote in the runoff. I haven't seen the breakdown of the original vote.

Some folks just don't want to see this calvinist/traditionalist thing divide up into partisan groups with contested elections. Hankins didn't promote that but he got swamped by many who did. In his personal presentation (I've just seen a video interview of him) he wasn't terribly comfortable and not quite ready for prime time. He seems most comfortable when (zzz) dealing with the intracacies of the theological debate, not great for a stump campaign.

We will see where the Calvinist/Traditionalist thing goes. It's still the major buzz in the SBC these days and nothing is settled.

[Gene Scarborough]

The SBC certainly has it's "issue" to promote division.

My experience with Miller's blog was a couple of really mean and angry commentators who could get by with saying most anything.

No matter what I said and no matter how logical it might be, their feet were set in concrete so why waste my time any longer?

The SBC has changed. It is no longer to my liking. Just glad we have a good alternative in CBF. We are much wiser to seek authenticity and ministry over large numbers and popularity.

[Tom Parker]

Gene:

You said:"My experience with Miller's blog was a couple of really mean and angry commentators who could get by with saying most anything.

No matter what I said and no matter how logical it might be, their feet were set in concrete so why waste my time any longer?"

Gene: I assure you I complained long and hard to Dave Miller about one of those angry commentators at SBC Voices, but it fell on deaf ears.

[Gene Scarborough]

It is so obvious how the slant goes, It's not worth the torture to try and participate.

Aren't we both glad to have a place here where such is not happening and intelligent discourse on all sides of an issue prevails.

[Tom Parker]

Gene:

It is refreshing to have a place to give my Baptist point of view. I've been a SB for 38 years so I do have a viewpoint.

[Sandy]

The intensity of internet discussions, blogs, tweets, comments, etc., seem to have a tendency to create more of an issue around the "Calvinism thing" than actually exists. It certainly didn't materialize into the kind of fireworks display some were predicting for this convention. Afternoon sessions tend to dwindle, and the elections of the VP's are pretty much meaningless. With small convention registration numbers, you can have afternoon sessions with fewer than a fifth of the actual registration total present. An impending split over Calvinism, or even a battle, on the level most Moderates are predicting, isn't going to materialize.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

My predictions are not based on my feelings.

I listen. I'm friendly with more than a few actual insiders. And prior to this SBC, there were some - who know much more about the inner-workings of the SBC than you or I - who were indeed predicting a major battle, who were very very very concerned.

The annual meeting *may* have calmed the waters for a time. We'll have to wait and see. But this issue isn't going to blow over. That much is for sure. There's not going to be some traditional split or anything like that. A denomination can experience great sickness and fracture without a split.

Some of the non-Calvinist group returned home, dejected and doing a bit of pouting. See Brad Whitt's blog post and comments on Twitter. We'll see what comes of that.

Nonetheless, most close followers of the SBC - including participants - certainly don't buy your confident assertion that not even a major "battle" is going to come out of this. Apparently you think you know something that they don't....

[William Thornton]

[Big Daddy Weaver]