Candidate Promoting...

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

Candidate Promoting...

Postby Jon Estes » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:34 am

In the upcoming SBC, the vote for who will be the next President is already being debated as to who is worthy and who is not.

I am fine with questions being asked, if they are questions to not intentionally belittle either of the candidates. I think it is fine if SBCers use their voice to promote their choice, even if they currently are in SBC leadership. I am unwilling to tell an SBC leader that they are less SB and their voice must be silent because they lead one of our entities. I would support this, regardless of who the person promoted.

On a different site that deals with SBC stuff, this has been posted and the premise is that current leaders need to not support a candidate. I am quite sure though that these same persons did not complain when Patterson or Land promoted a candidate after they were sitting at the helm of one of our entities and promoting the chosen inerrantist over the other guy (whoever it might be).

Many here do not have a dog in this hunt but most, if o not all, have an opinion on anything and everything SB.

What think ye?
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:16 am

Jon Estes wrote:In the upcoming SBC, the vote for who will be the next President is already being debated as to who is worthy and who is not.

I am fine with questions being asked, if they are questions to not intentionally belittle either of the candidates. I think it is fine if SBCers use their voice to promote their choice, even if they currently are in SBC leadership. I am unwilling to tell an SBC leader that they are less SB and their voice must be silent because they lead one of our entities. I would support this, regardless of who the person promoted.
I have not given this much thought. I don't think there is any impropriety there, in giving their opinion in such a matter.
Jon Estes wrote:On a different site that deals with SBC stuff, this has been posted and the premise is that current leaders need to not support a candidate. I am quite sure though that these same persons did not complain when Patterson or Land promoted a candidate after they were sitting at the helm of one of our entities and promoting the chosen inerrantist over the other guy (whoever it might be).

Many here do not have a dog in this hunt but most, if o not all, have an opinion on anything and everything SB.

What think ye?
I'm sure I saw the article you mention on that "different site". And I am quite sure that you are right that these same (kinds of, if not exactly the same) people "did not complain when Patterson or Land promoted a candidate after they were sitting at the helm of one of our entities." Perhaps we might reply with Shakespeare or whoever actually wrote it, "Consistency, thou art a jewel."
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Jon Estes » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:21 am

Rvaughn wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:In the upcoming SBC, the vote for who will be the next President is already being debated as to who is worthy and who is not.

I am fine with questions being asked, if they are questions to not intentionally belittle either of the candidates. I think it is fine if SBCers use their voice to promote their choice, even if they currently are in SBC leadership. I am unwilling to tell an SBC leader that they are less SB and their voice must be silent because they lead one of our entities. I would support this, regardless of who the person promoted.
I have not given this much thought. I don't think there is any impropriety there, in giving their opinion in such a matter.
Jon Estes wrote:On a different site that deals with SBC stuff, this has been posted and the premise is that current leaders need to not support a candidate. I am quite sure though that these same persons did not complain when Patterson or Land promoted a candidate after they were sitting at the helm of one of our entities and promoting the chosen inerrantist over the other guy (whoever it might be).

Many here do not have a dog in this hunt but most, if o not all, have an opinion on anything and everything SB.

What think ye?
I'm sure I saw the article you mention on that "different site". And I am quite sure that you are right that these same (kinds of, if not exactly the same) people "did not complain when Patterson or Land promoted a candidate after they were sitting at the helm of one of our entities." Perhaps we might reply with Shakespeare or whoever actually wrote it, "Consistency, thou art a jewel."


I would but I’ve been banned by them.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby KeithE » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:21 am

Jon Estes wrote:
Rvaughn wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:In the upcoming SBC, the vote for who will be the next President is already being debated as to who is worthy and who is not.

I am fine with questions being asked, if they are questions to not intentionally belittle either of the candidates. I think it is fine if SBCers use their voice to promote their choice, even if they currently are in SBC leadership. I am unwilling to tell an SBC leader that they are less SB and their voice must be silent because they lead one of our entities. I would support this, regardless of who the person promoted.
I have not given this much thought. I don't think there is any impropriety there, in giving their opinion in such a matter.
Jon Estes wrote:On a different site that deals with SBC stuff, this has been posted and the premise is that current leaders need to not support a candidate. I am quite sure though that these same persons did not complain when Patterson or Land promoted a candidate after they were sitting at the helm of one of our entities and promoting the chosen inerrantist over the other guy (whoever it might be).

Many here do not have a dog in this hunt but most, if o not all, have an opinion on anything and everything SB.

What think ye?
I'm sure I saw the article you mention on that "different site". And I am quite sure that you are right that these same (kinds of, if not exactly the same) people "did not complain when Patterson or Land promoted a candidate after they were sitting at the helm of one of our entities." Perhaps we might reply with Shakespeare or whoever actually wrote it, "Consistency, thou art a jewel."


I would but I’ve been banned by them.

Banned by the SBC?
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8771
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:06 pm

SBC Today. (They're not big on dissent!)

Here is one complaint by them against the Mohler-Moore-Greear "coalition".
http://sbctoday.wpengine.com/southern-baptist-swamp/
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Sandy » Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:31 pm

Quite an article there. I thought the Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist hostility in the SBC was sort of going out of style. Guess not, though this looks a lot more like "We hate Russell Moore because he wouldn't support Trump," battle. A few things had me in stitches, :lol: .

Alan Atchison in SBC Today wrote:We’d find this type of situation repugnant in politics. It would be like government employees at the FBI trying to dictate the next President of the United States or the intelligence community working to discredit a political rival.


I'm not sure what's more amusing about this statement, the comparison between SBC agencies and the FBI (which one is most like the other?) or the fact that Comey tried to do exactly that to Hillary Clinton. I'm sure he missed that.

Alan Atchison in SBC Today wrote:We have one church located in the political swamp with four or five of its leadership team serving as trustees—one of the trustees was head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s trustee board all while this trustee served as a lobbyist on immigration issues. Conflict of interest?


Conflict of interest with what? How would serving as a lobbyist on immigration issues be a conflict of interest with serving as the head of the trustees of the SBC's ERLC? The bigger concern would be why five members of the same church are serving as trustees, but for the backward thinking way that the SBC is organized to do business, five trustees from the same church is a small number. Some of the tightly wound, elite conservative group have as many as 15 on boards and committees, with their wife chairing it. I'd be more concerned about that.

Alan Atchison in SBC Today wrote:This is the moment for outsiders of all theological views—Traditionalist and Calvinist—to unite. Any vote for Greear is a vote for the status quo in the Convention. A status quo where progressives like Russell Moore are allowed to muddle our pro-life witness by trying to make every issue from immigration to creation care into a pseudo-Pro-Life-Cradle-to-the-Grave political theology. There must be an alternative, consensus and unified opposition to this.


:?: How do you achieve unity by promoting opposition and branding the status-quo as "progressives," and claiming that the outsized influence of Calvinism in the Gospel Coalition is "mortal danger to the future of the Southern Baptist Convention"?

Alan Atchison in SBC Today wrote:We must not allow ourselves to be divided when the only chance of stopping the progressive juggernaut is through cooperative action. The SBC needs a candidate who can appeal to both non-Calvinists and Calvinists outside The Gospel Coalition influence.


Not divided, at least, not after a good percentage of the convention's constituency is excluded. You can't just blame this on conservatives, though. This is the way it has been since long before I was born and started attending an SBC church in the preschool (beginner) department at age 3. Honestly, I think that those who are employed by agencies or institutions that receive CP support should not be allowed to serve as an officer, or as a trustee for another agency. Aside from the time it would take away from your salaried job, it is a conflict of interest to be in a position to influence the selection of the board that is going to be supervising your job. That's why Southwestern Seminary is spending cooperative program dollars to build the Patterson's retirement home.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8708
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby William Thornton » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:27 pm

Let's see, there's a Trad, old line, former seminary prez, megapastor running...he's the outsider? :roll:

Current prez doesn't think it appropriate for him to endorse a candidate. Right and proper. Some entity heads support Greear because of his action two years ago, to defer to Gaines, giving the SBC an authentic moment of grace and harmony.

SBCToday hosts some really strange writers. Odd. Probably not helpful to their stated mission.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12007
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Jon Estes » Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:33 am

Sandy wrote: Honestly, I think that those who are employed by agencies or institutions that receive CP support should not be allowed to serve as an officer, or as a trustee for another agency.


Make sure you are sitting down when you read this Sandy -

I totally agree.

I would even add that you can only serve two terms as a trustee at any of our entities and must sit out two terms before you can serve another.

I know too many people who went from one agency to the next as a Trustee.

I do think it wise that the outgoing President does not endorse a candidate. My preference - but would not cry foul if they did.

A precedent has been set for those of one ideology to support the candidate of like ideology. Complaining about it when it is not your ideology when you were silent in previous elections on the same thing... is wrong.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Haruo » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:06 pm

Jon Estes wrote:Make sure you are sitting down when you read this Sandy -

I totally agree.

:lol: :lol:
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12134
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Sandy » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:10 pm

Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote: Honestly, I think that those who are employed by agencies or institutions that receive CP support should not be allowed to serve as an officer, or as a trustee for another agency.


Make sure you are sitting down when you read this Sandy -

I totally agree.

I would even add that you can only serve two terms as a trustee at any of our entities and must sit out two terms before you can serve another.

I know too many people who went from one agency to the next as a Trustee.

I do think it wise that the outgoing President does not endorse a candidate. My preference - but would not cry foul if they did.

A precedent has been set for those of one ideology to support the candidate of like ideology. Complaining about it when it is not your ideology when you were silent in previous elections on the same thing... is wrong.


I agree with a two term limit for trustees, and I'd take it one further. If you've served your two terms as a trustee, that's it. You are not eligible to serve on any other SBC entity board. There are 50,000 churches in the SBC, claiming 15 million members, and a Sunday worship attendance of about 5 million. Surely, out of that constituency, you can find enough members who are qualified to fill trustee seats.

I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind a denominational fight in the SBC over Calvinism, why Calvinists are a threat. Is it because it keeps some of the conservative resurgence wannabees who have hitched their wagons to their favorite kingmaker or rising star from getting the influence they've worked so hard to cultivate? Is it because some Calvinists, like David Platt and Russell Moore (bet that one is behind a lot of the hostility) are holding down jobs that the non-calvinist resurgence folks think their friends and relatives should have?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8708
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Jon Estes » Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:35 am

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote: Honestly, I think that those who are employed by agencies or institutions that receive CP support should not be allowed to serve as an officer, or as a trustee for another agency.


Make sure you are sitting down when you read this Sandy -

I totally agree.

I would even add that you can only serve two terms as a trustee at any of our entities and must sit out two terms before you can serve another.

I know too many people who went from one agency to the next as a Trustee.

I do think it wise that the outgoing President does not endorse a candidate. My preference - but would not cry foul if they did.

A precedent has been set for those of one ideology to support the candidate of like ideology. Complaining about it when it is not your ideology when you were silent in previous elections on the same thing... is wrong.


I agree with a two term limit for trustees, and I'd take it one further. If you've served your two terms as a trustee, that's it. You are not eligible to serve on any other SBC entity board. There are 50,000 churches in the SBC, claiming 15 million members, and a Sunday worship attendance of about 5 million. Surely, out of that constituency, you can find enough members who are qualified to fill trustee seats.

I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind a denominational fight in the SBC over Calvinism, why Calvinists are a threat. Is it because it keeps some of the conservative resurgence wannabees who have hitched their wagons to their favorite kingmaker or rising star from getting the influence they've worked so hard to cultivate? Is it because some Calvinists, like David Platt and Russell Moore (bet that one is behind a lot of the hostility) are holding down jobs that the non-calvinist resurgence folks think their friends and relatives should have?


Reading what and how some anti-Cals write, you might be correct.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: Candidate Promoting...

Postby Sandy » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:13 pm

It's tough to set aside a lifetime of denominational involvement, and the built-in loyalty that is part of all but a small percentage of my college and graduate education, both done at institutions related to Southern Baptist bodies. I had professors at college in the 70's, and at seminary in the 80's, who were visionary enough to see things that were coming. Some of those that were bold enough to speak out wound up having to leave their churches and their jobs for their honesty. For many others, it was a matter of winning the race to retirement before the chickens started coming home to roost, so to speak.

I took a job with an institution belonging to another denomination, moved to Pennsylvania and became a member of a church of a different denomination, because geographically, it would have been difficult to be involved in an SBC congregation. I worked part-time for a ministry that belonged to an SBC entity for each of the past seven summers, including four summers here in the Pittsburgh area, connecting with local churches and church planters. I resigned from that ministry after serving last summer, so that was my last tie to the SBC (though I think we're still members of the last SBC congregation we belonged to in Texas, because we didn't do a "transfer of letter" and I'm not sure they were aware we joined a CMA congregation). But I don't want to see the SBC become embroiled in another damaging controversy, or set itself on the path to irreversible decline. The denominational structure at the national level is built to allow power to fall into the hands of those who are in a position to be influential, whether it is because of the size of their church, or the money that allows them to be prominent, well known, and visible.

It looks like a lot of the crowd connected to the old conservative resurgence group are quite resentful of the place some Calvinists have built for themselves within the denomination, and the influence they have outside of it. Reading some of those blogs, there's really a lot of hostility there, and quite a rift. That's not going to be good for anyone, regardless of who gets elected. Hopefully, either candidate will be visionary enough, and gracious enough, to figure out how to calm down their constituents, and offer a hand of fellowship. The real crisis in the SBC is a very real and significant decline in evangelism and ministry that has led to a serious drop in membership and attendance. Part of that is due to having a high number of churches that are heading into their twilight years, as churches do, less able to minister in a changing cultural context than they once were. They've got to figure out how to support their churches, pastors, and put energy and resources into that, instead of into a preacher media war.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8708
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago


Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron