Floyd or Burleson

I hear alot about the "good ole boy" system. Here's a thought...Burleson and the "young leaders" (I myself am in this demographic) are just the next generation of "good ole boys". In 10 years we may be talking about why every SBC president the past 10 years was a signer of the Memphis Resolution.

 

Barjonah,

It is possible that you might be right about that. A handful of the Memphis 30 could easily become another "good ole boy" system if given enough "power" over time. But others in the Memphis crew have little interest in the political machinations of the SBC.

As to Burleson and the "younger leaders", I don't see that as a lasting alliance. Many younger pastors and bloggers took up his cause because they agree with him on certain specific current issues, especially the new extra-biblical IMB guidelines. Other younger pastors and bloggers share his reformed soteriology, but the any other comparisons are few.

At the end of the day, Burleson is a boomer. He's going to stay committed to the SBC as institution if he believes he can have some influence over what it will look like in the future.

Most (but not all) of the young pastors and bloggers who took up his case this last winter are busters. They are not committed to the SBC as institution. They will stay committed to the SBC if they perceive that they can help lead and influence it to become a missioanl movement (as opposed to a missions-minded institution), which is why they took such an interest in the IMB debacle. For now, many of them are more committed (by percentage) to the CP than most boomer mega-church pastors. That support will wane, however, if convention leadership posts continue to be filled by people who only nominally support the CP. That's incongruous and they're not afraid to say it. If it continues, they'll find and form other mission networks to support.

Also, a growing number of younger pastors are reformed in their soteriology. If the current leaders stay committed to their vitriole against biblical soteriology, that will probalby drive a number of younger pastors away, too.

So either the convention will change or they'll leave (but quietly, leaving in a big fuss isn't their style). I really don't think you have to worry about too many "younger leaders" becoming the next SBC good ole boy system.

 

gb,

Do you recall where you heard or read Dr. Patterson calling for stronger CP support? Recent fundraising materials I've received from dear alma mater lead me to believe that new endowed chairs, a new chapel, etc. will require donations that must be raised through avenues that bypass the CP. Seems a bit duplicitous to rally for greater CP giving while funneling funds away from it. Could you check your source on that?

 

I think you are more correct than I am.

I cannot remember exactly but it seems that he was wanting the SBC to take up another offering or receive more funding from the CP. Don't you find it interessting that Naylor, Dilday and Hemphill could live in the same home he is in without any additional room and then when Patterson comes along he wants an addition. That house is huge already. Form the looks of he and his wife it looks like they have never gone without a meal.

Did you notice on one of the Southwestern News magazines that he was riding a painted horse? I thought he was a real Texan.

 

They are leaving. Many who have not, feel stuck and would like to. Because of the annuity board they have not.

 

I don't think this is true any longer. If I remember right, the annuity board, aka guidestone, now will take pastors of other denominations.

 

I want to be clearer about something I wrote.

I do not mean to imply that younger pastors who are reformed in their soteriology will leave the convention if the entire SBC is not turned into a group of 16.5 million (yeah, right) 5-pointers. My point was that if the current vitriole against reformed soteriology that has been coming from the platforms at the Pastor's Conference and the Jax conference continues, then they'll perceive they aren't wanted in the SBC and will start to bow out.

Also, not all younger pastors are reformed in their soteriology. Many are, but not all. Plenty of others will quietly leave as they realize that the convention as a whole is committed to an institutional model of institutional mission(s).

Sadly, this scenario will become more common:
1.Young smart semiary grad plants a church.
2.Young smart seminary grad/church planter leads church to give 10% to CP for first three years while CP still supports him, too.
3.A few years in, young smart pastor realizes that he's giving 10% to CP, meanwhile the convention is continually led by people who disdain many of his core convictions and whose churches give proportionately much less to convention causes.
4. Young smart (and now wiser) pastor's church is fully self-supporting so they cut their CP giving back significantly, begin to network with mission partners and planting networks who share their core values, and remain SBC but nominally, paying little attention to convention initiatives, issues, etc.

It's already happening to a degree.

 

gb,

I believe you're thinking of Dr. Kelley. He wrote a white paper where he suggested some differnet/additional means by which to raise money for the seminaries. You can see it here:
http://www.baptistcenter.com/Journal%20Articles/Spr%202003/04%20Roots%20of%20a%20Dilemma%20-%20Spr%202003.pdf

The suggestions start on page 13. Given that technology and health care costs have risen dramatically for 20 years, especially compared to any increases in total CP giving, I think he has some good ideas. I hate the idea of another special offering, though. For many churches that would add a fourth to Lottie, Annie, State missions, or a fifth if they also have an annual associational offering. (Now that I have totally derailed the point of this thread...)

 

Another asinine comment. First of all you no longer have to be SBC to participate in Guide stones...secondly, now you call into question the integrity of many young leaders implying that they are somewhat 'for sale', showing greater allegiance to their retirement than their convictions

Again, These comments are shameful at tworst and ignorant at best

Jack

 

RandR...can you give me an example of a vitriol coming from the platform of the Jax conference? I have attended the last 7 and would have noticed such since I myself hold to a God centered, God initiated soteriology. I do not recall the subject even coming up? Did Dr. Mohler speak of such when he was there? Did Dr. Phillips? Perhaps Weirsbe? Dr. Caner did make a stupid comment about "Piper Calvinist' a few years ago but it was simply in passing and was not hardly even recognized.

Jack

 

There was Dr. Hunt who made a snide remark about being careful not to witness to any of the non-elect.

Outside of the Pastor's Conference, it seems that we have a reformed seminary at Southern and the anti-reformed seminary at Southwestern (Dr. Yarnell and Paige Patterson). Just my observation.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph

I think Dr. Hunt's remarks was at the Pastors Conference. I have heard him at the Jax conf and never heard anything out of the ordinary. Although his remarks were imo indefensible, I would not consider them to be an attack...just the same old same old from folks who do not honestly represent the views and positions of those of us who are both reformed and un ashamedly evangelistic.

As far as Dr. Patterson being 'Anti'...there is no doubt that he does not hold to a reformed soteriology, however, I recently received a message he preached in chapel on the subject and he was at least very fair.

Now for the brothers Caner....that my friend is another story!

Jack

 

J.R.,

As to Jax specifically, either three or four years ago, Ed., Sr. made a comment along the lines of, "Show me a church with a Calvinist pastor and I'll show you a dead church," to which a gnetleman beside me (who is NOT a Calvinist) replied somewhat audibly, "Tell that to D. James Kennedy or John Piper." I also seem to recall a thread on this website about similar comments made this year in Jax by Junior. In fairness, I attended the 2005 conference and don't recall any such commnets.

The 2005 SBC Pastor's Conference included the comments made by Johnny Hunt and Jerry Falwell.

Since that time, Bobby Welch has written his column on the matter where he laments the anti-evangelistic position of Calvinists and cites an anti-reformed paper by Steve Lemke.

Also in the last year Jack Graham preached his sermon, "The Truth About Grace" where he talks negatively of Southern (though not by name).

And then there are Yarnell's recent Founder's Day address and SBC Life piece.

Oh...and I almost forgot Caner's rantings.

There are others, these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

RandR

I do not deny that there are many in the SBC big boy club who are anti Calvinistic (word?), I just do not recal much being said about it at the Jax conf. Do not know about Ed Sr? Is that Ed Young? If so, who cares what he says! And I do remember as noted the Caner jab. Nothing at all comes to mind from Jr. Hill and I have had a chance to talk with Dr. Hill over lunch about the doctrines of grace and although he is not one who would hold to them he is a very humble man and readidly admited that he holds no animosity towrds men who do hold to them. You would admit however that there is also a lot of cheap shots thrown around by those who are calvinist would you not?

 

J.R.,

Would you cite one who is a leader in the convention or at a Southern Baptist Seminary? I can't think of one.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Your right Joseph...neither can I. I do know that at times those of the reformed crowd can come across rather arogant...but you are correct and I have perhaps painted with quite a broad brush. Overall the leaders in the SBC whoa re reformed (Dever, Ascol, Mohler, Burleson etc) are very gracious and accomodating of other views.

J

 

Ditto the free willys.

Joseph Botwinick

 

perhaps we can agree that a by product of the fallen condition asails us all

j