A new direction for the SBC?

The only positive aspect of it that I see is that he represents a grassroots dissatisfaction with the good ole boy system controlling everything. Truthfully, I didn't like any of the candidates, but at least Page represents a move toward more local control of the convention.

Joseph Botwinick

 

IT was good to see more than one candidate for pres.

Even though I'm not a calvinist as far as adhering to 5 points I would still very much like to see Al Mohler be SBC pres. someday in the near future


As much as I admire DR. Patterson if he got to get his victory lap as SBC pres. Then Mohler should most certainly get a nomination considering the work he has done at Southern.

 

My hope is that there is an opening up of opportunity for boards and agencies in the SBC for those who want to serve, but don't currently go to the "right" church.

I have no problem with the SBC requiring that one be an inerrantist, but the fact is that churches that are BGCT only are for the most part as conservative as SBTC churches and give as much or more to the CP. There is no reason that you cannot find good conservative trustees in those churches. Page alluded to this in one of the interviews that I read. I for one hope it happens

 

I have at least a little hope that a new spirit is coming in the SBC, and particularly that when NAMB gets a new president the arbitrary and crippling defunding of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention will be reversed. Some may remember that NAMB unilaterally abrogated DCBC's version of the cooperative agreement that it NAMB has with all state conventions. DCBC is the only state ever to be treated in such a way. I'd like to think that if the constitutency of the SBC really knew what had happened and what its effect has been that there would be an outcry to remedy the problem.

 

I'm gonna go with JBot on this one! The race wasn't even close! Page left both Sutton and Floyd "eatin' dust"

I believe the convention was dissatisfied with the "good ole boy" system----but dissatisfation is only an illusion---don't think for one minute that Page doesn't have his own version of that same ole system---just different "boys" to play the game!!!

Blackbird

 

You are probably right blackbird, but I am enjoying the illusion for the moment.

 

That's a really cynical take on Page. From what I have heard, he seems to be a person of integrity. A person of integrity doesn't play "good ole' boy" games.

 

Even Dr. Welch understands the need for new blood. Of those nominated to serve on boards, 97% were first timers. That was because Dr. Welch determined that was the way the SBC had to go if it was to continue.

 

I have served twice on the SBC Committee on Nominations, and neither time did I detect any political agenda at work. The Convention itself has mandated some firewalls to ensure that only inerrantists and supporters of the Cooperative Program were nominated.

Last year, Chairman Wayne Lee of Texas made a strong request that we nominate younger Baptists to the boards and commissions.

This year, the trend continued, with 97% of the nominations going go those who had never served on an SBC board before.

With regard to saturneptune's OP, I don't see a lot of change coming through President Page. The change is coming from the messengers themselves, witness Dr. Page's election. Remember, it took nine years to completely revamp all the boards after Dr. Rogers was elected the first time.

Change is already being fueled by the blogosphere. Its influence was evident at Greensboro. But big ships do not make sharp turns.

Two issues will not go away: Calvinism, as more and more young pastors are embracing it. And Baptism, as the conflict over "alien baptism" sharpens. It is already dividing associations in our area, and sooner or later will work all the way up to the Convention itself. Those who thought Landmarkism was dead are finding that it is still around, just silent up to now.

And all that will set up an escalation of conflict between the Emergent and CGM movements and the more traditional congregational model. It is not at all certain, IMHO, that the SBC is a big enough tent for all these different movements to co-exist down the road.

It may eventually not be a question who will run the Convention. The question is, will there be any SBC as we know it to run at all?

 

Dr. Estep poredicted that very thing some years ago. Those in the pew are just now finding out what professors and others have known for many years.

 

I believe that one major reason Dr. Page won the presidency is anger by small churches of the small percentage of giving by large churches to the Cooperative Program. I am not certain that doctrine, methodology, or the good old boy network had much to do with it.

 

Don't make me:laugh: :laugh: !!!!

"Good ole Boy" games means this----it means that when it comes time for appointments and nominations to various boards and agencies---the President isn't gonna just go through the "SBC Telephone Book" randomly appointing members---but those members--I can just about guarantee you--will come from within the President's "Circle of Friends"--a circle that everyone has--regardless of integrity.

Meanwhile---the telephone will be "ringin' off the hook" in Page's office---from the "Lower Echleon" who wants a piece of the action!! Anything to "fatten up" the resume!!!!!

 

""Good ole Boy" games means this----it means that when it comes time for appointments and nominations to various boards and agencies---the President isn't gonna just go through the "SBC Telephone Book" randomly appointing members---but those members--I can just about guarantee you--will come from within the President's "Circle of Friends"--a circle that everyone has--regardless of integrity.
Meanwhile---the telephone will be "ringin' off the hook" in Page's office---from the "Lower Echleon" who wants a piece of the action!! Anything to "fatten up" the resume!!!!!"

I guess it must be nice to know the motives of all who serve in denominational work.

Why do we find it so easy to impugn the motives of anyone with whom we don't agree. Why can't we just accept the fact that people want to serve.

 

Bro. Tom! Who says I don't agree with Page?? I don't have nothin' against the guy---and I'm not questioning his motives!!

But here's kinda sorta a "downfall" of the SBC!! No one elected for President ever "campaigns" for the position----no where in the election process did anyone hear Page say anything like

"If you elect me, I promise to be fair in appointments among all SBC members!"

No where in the election process did we hear Page say anything to the lines of---"The most effecient process of appointing board members is through a random draft---military style---every member of the SBC will have their name put in a computer and will be assigned a number which will randomly be selected by the non-bias method of computer draw!!! All we're asking is---is if your name is drawn--be ready to serve!!!

No---in my biased opinion---I believe that even a man of integrity as Page is---will ultimately choose the "Good Ole Boy" system of appointments. I guess what I am saying is----in my biased opinion--Page will be biased in his appointments---just like the rest of the past that have been wrongly accused of being biased themselves!!

 

I didn't think you were impugning Dr. Page. You said:

I thought you were impugning anyone who wants to be on a board. I don't serve so I can fatten up a resume. I doubt very many others do either.

Dr. Welch appointed 97% newbies to boards this year. That is a start.

 

Okay, let's play a little game. You are Frank Page and one of your major responsibilities is to pick two people from each state convention to be on next year's Committee on Committees.. Your first inclination is to turn your thoughts to people you know. That could be a pretty big list, but maybe not, because you have to have a mix of lay people and pastors and the like. How many Baptists do you know in Utah?

You're going to reach out and seek recommendations from people highly-regarded in that state. You are going to appoint people you don't even know based on recommendations from people recommended to you as reliable sources in that state.

Sure, there are people, maybe some of the good ol' boys, who want to influence your appointments. So what? Are their recommendations to be rejected just because of the source? And you're free to ignore them if you want to.

When I served on the Committee on Nominations in 2005, the SBC encouraged input from all over, published names, addresses and phone numbers of Committee members. We both got letters, e-mails, even from other states, recommending people forthe Kentucky slots. My pastor counterpart, who lived in Eastern Kentucky, didn't know a lot of folks in my end of the state, and I didn't know a handfull in his part of Kentucky. I relied on his contacts and he relied on mine to select nominees, and we trusted each other's judgment.

I guess there was a good ol' boy network in Kentucky, because we definitely did reach our to our friends. And most of our nominees were known either to me or my pastor counterpart. Others might have done it differently, but that's the only way we knew to do it.