2006 SBConvention-Calling all SBC Preachers!

I'll be the first to repond.

#1. I think the intentions are good. I firmly support the CP. My church hasn't yet reached that 10% level - we're at 9%. I guess that would disqualify me (not that I'm interested in a leadership position).

--I'm considering recommending that our church restructure our giving. We are in a strong association, so we will continue to support that at about 6%. But I'm thinking about asking our church to give 5% to the CP through the state (NC) and 5% directly to the SBC. What do you guys think??

#2. Dr Page taught one of my seminary classes - good conservative man. The other two candidates are also good men. I think the CP giving was the issue. We voted FOR strong CP giving.

#3. Seems like a very small minority who follow Mr Calvin. I don't see it as a big problem in the SBC. Maybe I'm missing something.

#4. I hope the IMB deals with it - and soon. I'm not sure of all the particulars, though, but the longer it lingers on, the more folks will be sidetracked. We've been sidetracked long enough.

#5. Let me take a closer look at it. I mised that part of the meeting.

PROUD TO BE IN THE SBC!

 

1. In my opinion, I think that the leaders of the convention should come from churches that give 10% or more to the CP. I think that there are plenty of good conservative leaders in the convention whose churches give at least 10%. My reasoning is that the CP is the engine that runs our SBC ministries from the seminaries to the missions. If the leaders are not supportive, how can they expect the rank and file to be.

The argument against of course is that many of the leaders of the resurgence/takeover came from churches that did not give 10% - a point the moderates made many times to no avail.

2. I supported the candidacy of Page, what does it mean? I hope that the tent is broadened to allow new blood to serve on the boards and agencies/ trustees. I think Page actually acknowledged that there are plenty of good conservatives in the BGCT who give as much or more to the CP than our SBTC brothers, yet never get an opportunity to serve - your classic taxation without representation!

3. My pastor is a five pointer, I skew more Armenian. There is plenty of room in the convention for both. I actually liked some of what Paige said in his "debate" with Mohler. We have no problems in our church, to us it is not a fellowship issue, and I don't think it should be.

4. Having Page as president may help Burleson - he was in favor of his resolution going back to the IMB, I will defer to his judgement. Ihope the BOT will deal more fairly with him in the future. they need to stop with the executive sessions except when the health and safety of a missionary is in jeopardy .

5. A back door attempt to go after Burleson. Who does not drink or advocate drinking, but it is a label the powers that be are trying to stick him with

The following is a quote from Tom Ascol's blog that I would agree wholeheartedly with:

"I was told by a friend that when I stood up to speak against Resolution 5 (calling for abstinence from consuming alcoholic beverages) that I fairly well sealed the fate of my effort to bring the resolution on membership to the floor. It was politically foolhardy. I was actually very conscious of the fact that some would probably misconstrue my comments and think that I am an advocate of alcoholic beverages. But the resolution struck me as ill-conceived and unbiblical. We have enough problems dealing with real sins. We certainly don't need to manufacture more sins out of cultural preferences"

 

I will throw out a couple of opinions and thoughts on this as well.

1. SBC Leadership coming from a 10% CP giving church. I am not sure about the percent of giving... but I would want the leader to come from a church that does give. (I do not like the idea of someone telling us what we should give, However I cannot imagine a church that does not tithe, just as I cannot imagine a Christian not tithing... I know they don't, but for me we will as well as any church that I am part of)

Our small body gives 8% to CP and 4% to our local association. We give at least 10 percent but not in the manner some would want us to.

2. My vote for SBC President went to Dr. Page. If others voted for the same reasons as I, it means we want someone who nots asks us to give, but actually does give. (Look at the very low percentage of giving of Ronnie Floyd's church)

3. I attended the first session of the debate between Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler... I thought is was well attended and the format was ok... not enough time to fully develop points.

I do see the possibility of this dividing churches, see Dr Caner's article in this months Liberty Journal. I pray that it does not.

4. Burleson, I wanted it resolved during the meeting, the IMB had months to solve this issue. I do not know all the facts, from what I have heard, I am not sure that he did anything wrong. I wish more trustees and Board members would tell us what is going on.

5. I missed that resolution as well (was it one of Wiley's?)

BTW what did you think of Wiley's nomination speak?

God Bless

 

1. Not necessarily, but it would be nice if our "leaders'" churches at least gave at the convention average by percentage. That should be a minimum standard.

2. I see it as a good thing if it means cooperation on non-essentials and a broader pool of trustees.

3. The anti-Calivnists are driving the controversy with their statements from the platform. But if foolish statements ultimately serve to drive otherwise atheological people to the Scriptures for their doctrine, then SDG.

4. Wade "lost" that one even if he claims he didn't. But the light of scrutiny is on the IMB now, and that can only be a good thing in the long run.

5. Unnecessary. And regrettable in light of the fact that we passed a resolution that would preclude Jesus from serving on an entity board, but refused even to consider a resolution that would have asked us to stop violating the 9th commandment when we report numbers. Amazing.

 

1. Because of our baptist polity that we can demand that a church give any specific amount, but leaders ought to be held to a higher accounting. But the real issue is not the CP, it is cooperative ministry. The CP is just the means through which we work together for missions, seminaries etc. If a church isn't giving through the CP, they are not really in cooperative ministry with other SBC churches.

2. My vote went to Dr. Page because he was not the chosen one. I'm not a calvinist in either my soteriology or my denominational politics. :laugh:

3. The SBC has alway had a stream of 5 pointers in with all the 4 pointers. I like what Dr. Mohler said about the point of the resurgence was that now we talk about real matters of theology from a biblical perspective. That's always a good thing. I'm not scared of 5 pointers. They love Jesus and want to reach people like I do. But this debate will go on forever.

4. the issue with dr. Burleson and the BoT needs to be dealt with. You cannot have a trustee not being allowed to go to or participate in committees. They need to deal with it biblically.

5. Let me preface this by saying, I hate alcohol. I had real problems with alcohol and used to go regularly to AA meetings and got some real help. So I am against people drinking alcohol. But it is not because I think the Bible says it is wrong. Because I don't think the Bible does teach that. I am against it because of the high cost of drunkenness to our families and our lives.
But I voted against the resolution because it was aimed at just the board of trustees for our entities. What about others? I was also against it because it didn't deal with gluttony or other sins the Bible condemns just as highly as drunkenness. One last reason, I voted against it becaus eit came dangerously close to equating not drinking with some kind of holiness.

These issues are never resolved in 1 year. This issue will continue next year in beautiful San Antonio.

 

1. I am not in favor of setting a minimum amount as a standard for people serving in leadership positions. But like others I agree that our leaders should be setting the example here. .27% just does not cut it for the President of our convention. How can those of us who pastor smaller churches ask our churches to give around 10% of our budget to the CP when the big churches are lagging so far behind. I would be curious to know of those big churches that are only giving a very small % to the CP how many teach/preach for their members to give 10% to the local church? Isn't kinda hypocritical for those churches to do that and then not be willing to give 10% to the CP?

2. I am very happy that Dr. Page was elected as President and I hope that it means more people included in the leadership of our convention and we can say goodbye to the "good-ole boy network". I am also hopeful that it will mean the end of the landmark tendancies that are creeping up in the IMB policies and that we will quit narrowing the parameters of what it means to be SBC.

3. I think Mohler and Patterson set the example to all of us that both sides can co-exist happily if both sides will be willing to look past the differences and focus on the major reasons why we exist.

4. I was disappointed that it got sent back to the IMB, but I am hopeful they can work it out in a way that brings glory to God and helps the IMB continue to spread the Gospel around the world. I hope Burleson stands firm on what is right. As someone else said, the best part of this whole deal is people's eyes all over are being opened to some of the problems and are allow dialogue to begin on how to fix some of the problems.

5. I agree with RandR here, it was unnecessary and regretable. I also think it was some type of shot at getting to Burleson. But I think he has handled himself very well throughout the situation.

Overall, I am happy with how things are going in the SBC and considering the situation in other mainline denominations (i.e. the mess in the Episcopal church) it is a great day to be SBC. I pray that the events of this past convention will be an opportunity for us to stay focused on Christ and the Gospel!

 

3. What about Calvinism and the stir it seemed to cause? They belong in the Presbyterian Church.

4. What about Wade Burleson's predicament being referred back to the IMB? It is in effect passing the buck so they are not faced with dealing with it and exposing themselves for what they really believe.

5. What about "the use and/or sale of alcohol as a beverage" resolution? Sends out a wrong message about Jesus.

 

Commanded to go to all to prove that God elects

The word commanded is use 430 times in the bible. We are commanded to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Also, God, ultimately is sovereign(Did I spell that right?) He is always previous He is the one who does the choosing. All Glory and Praise to the Lamb that was slain. Go tell the next person you see that he is the Saviour and every person after that. Evolution is unclean. Southern Baptist Convention I have heard supports those who teach evolution. If that is true come out of her and be seperate.

 

I think it's nice, but should be a litmus test for qualification.

A watershed event for progress in our convention. Keep in mind the SBC president means JACK SQUAT technically since we are a collective of autonomous churches. The election of Dr. Page means our people are tired of the old guard and their manipulations and agendas. It means our people want to see the Gospel advanced and not political motivations.

Calvinism is a non-issue. The SBC should be a big tent. Calvinists and the rest (because there is more than two camps here) should worship arm in arm.

Troublesome. Won't be handled well. The accompanying motion that people who are receiving pensions from entities they are trustees for is a bad thing. But I'm starting the think Wade has stirred up more than a hornets' nest and is over stepping his bounds. That said we should have freedom to dissent.

ridiculous. I'm pulling together a blog post about this. Absolutely foolish. I don't drink but I can't condemn someone for something Christ Himself participated in while on this side of eternity.

the SBC is at a crossroads. Fundamentalism and Landmarkers are trying to strip this fine convention of her soul. We must press on with the carrying out of the Gospel and forget this pointless disputes about peripherial issues in theology.

thanks for the thread!

 

I'm not an SBC pastor....

...but a very active SBC layman who, as an SBC pastor/missionary child, is well aware SBC events over the past 30+ years. My 2 cents:

1. I have more difficulty with setting a specific amount. 10% seems fine (especially with historical giving in mind). I have no difficulty in making sure that conventiono leaders (presidents, committee members, agency heads, etc...) come from churches that give a significant percentage (shared sacrifice) to the CP. Those who don't give ought not be the ones determining SBC policy.

2. I see Dr. Page's election as a vote of "no confidence" in the current leadership network....specifically because of the appearance of arrogance. It takes an "act of Congress" to find out the salary and supporting staff costs of the executive managers at the agencies. For example, does anyone know how many salaried folks are dedicated to the office of president at SEBTS? How about each VP/Deans at the seminaries? The recent events at NAMB show how even good men can become corrupted by being insulated from messenger accountability.

3. Calvinism has always been a fact in the SBC and will continue to be so. Personally, I like a certain level of diversity among folks who share a common view of Scriptural authority. With the rise in folks who are heavily influencing the younger generation from a Calvinist perspective (Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, etc...), I expect that those who are afraid of Calvinism in the SBC have much to fear in the coming decades.

4. This was probably the proper procedural thing to do. Now we'll see if a) the IMB BoT wants to entrench and/or b) Burleson (and the SBCbloggernation) have the staying power to see this through.

5. This just adds to the silliness of the annual meetings. While my extended family bears the scars of alcohol abuse, unhealthy habits involving sedentary lifestyle and improper diets have and continue to exact a heavier toll than the consumption of "adult beverages".

That the messengers approved the anti-alcohol proposal while rejecting the call to add other harmful habits to the resolution shows the self-centeredness of the messengers present. Those of you who attended this year can probably attest to the high percentage of overweight and otherwise unhealthy folks usually present at these meetings.

 

If they want to be just like people who think and act just like them then they would be better off being with Presbyterians. After all why call oneself a Calvinist if he does not agree with Calvin all the way. Did not Calvin baptize infants and believe in a utopia of Christians much like Karl Marx did with communism.

If people can accept differences and maintain unity, great. If they continue to argue and fight they will consume one another and should leave immediately. If they continue to argue and fight I would question their walk with God because the Bible says others will know they are Christians by their love for one another not by their ability to argue their point and win arguments while the world is entertained as they watch from outside the arena.

 

1. 10% is not a sign of good godly leadership. I know some who give 10% but they ain't worth .01%. I know some who give .01 % and are well worth more then 10%.

2. I saw his election as a sign of disdainment in the "Mega" church leadership in the SBC----just because you're a mega church doesn't mean you can lead the SBC

3. I always say on this board that Calvin is a little bit less than inspired and infallable. Personally--I do not have a single volume in my library of his work----theologians with ADD can't follow him past the first paragraph!

4. I knew it would happen! I predicted that the predicament would be posthumerously postponed. "Can" his little rear end and lets get on with the program!!!

5. I'll preach absentance from alcoholic beverages until the day my wife "'lays me in the ground" and covers me with dirt!!!

I liked the resolution encouraging Public School teachers. Personally--my wife and I homeschool our children---but there are several in my congregation who are public school teachers--and I commend them to the Lord Jesus Christ for their profession!

Blackbird