BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Mod/libs warned us about the SBC being one never ending conflict, since there is always an angry and disgruntled group. This is it. It will be ugly among the blogs, hopefully not so much among the leaders.

Yeah, I haven't got a clue. Robert? William?

Ed : No longer being SBC I really don't care who they elect.

It's seen as Calvinist and anti-Calvinist. There is a vocal and militant anti-Cal group who is out to save the convention.

Ed cares...else why would he talk about it? Even used the magic Cal word - elect.

Ed: And William is the only one in this discussion thus far who is currently in regular attendance in a Southern Baptist church.

Hemphill came to Southwestern after I graduated. From reading his books and hearing him preach, I wouldn't say he's a Calvinist. It doesn't appear he's part of a "rabid, get rid of the Calvinists in the SBC" group, though denominational politics in the SBC can be deceiving. The Baptist Press makes it sound like they're just a couple of guys running on their denominational pedigree, one who pastors a megachurch, one with a list of denominational jobs resulting from being well-connected. Greear doesn't really self-identify as a Calvinist, and seems like he's more of the typical SBC megachurch pastor. The church has only recently left their pattern of designated giving and seems to avoid any close identity with the SBC, as opposed to Hemphill, whose endorsements talk about his loyal Southern Baptist background.

Maybe another good knock-down drag out over secondary and tertiary Biblical interpretation is just what the SBC needs to stem the accelerating decline in membership and attendance they are experiencing.

Heck, far as I can see Arminius was a Calvinist. Aristotle was a Platonist.

Hemphill is the "Southern Baptist loyalist." I don't know how that plays with non-Calvinists, or Calvinists, but he's the guy with the pedigree. It's a signal about the kind of nominees that will be appointed to the committees and boards. Have the Calvinists been shut out of those kinds of things? It doesn't seem that they have.

There has been, for a long time in the SBC, a narrative that the Cals have taken over and this in spite of exactly zero SBC presidents being confirmed five-pointers. No question that younger SBCers are more inclined to be Calvinistic. No question either that the Baptist Faith and Message Statement fits both Cals and Trads. The Trads now have their own theological statement, one adopted by not one SBC entity or at any level of SBC life.

Neither announced candidate has indicated any desire or goal of advancing the cause of one side or the other although some Hemphill supporters are positively gleeful over his nomination. These have expressly stated a goal of another CR type movement in which "year-after-year-after-year" Trad-friendly presidents would be elected and work towards a wholesale replacement of non-Trad trustees, wherever they may be. Hemphill, I expect, will speak to this and deny any involvement. I like him because he did not allow himself to be pushed around as SWBTS president years ago. After he left the seminary a job was created for him at the Executive Committee. He is now a big name at a SC Baptist state school, one that was recently tarnished by scandal, that offers a Trad-friendly experience for ministerial students and others.

The choice, best I can see from this distance, is generational. Greear is 44. Hemphill will be 70 when the SBC meets in June. We dipped back into the boomers and recalled a former mega as IMB president from 2011-2014. Those were in that stretch of years where massive deficits were incurred. The current IMB head had to straighten that mess out. While the position of SBC president doesn't have any administrative duties, my thinking is that it's time for that generational change. Greear's church has more IMB mssys than any other SBC church. The church is one of those multi-site, elder led churches that has an extremely focused mission thrust. I'll vote for Greear like I would have in 2016 had I been present.

I think, Sandy, that your view may be slightly dated. At least at this stage, a vocal militant group thinks they have a standard bearer. No evidence for it yet. I would presume stacking by either at the moment. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.