;)
What About Al?
Posted by Bowden McElroy in Uncategorized
I like Al.
I only know him through his blog but, for the most part, I like what I read. Dr. Mohler is bright, articulate, and passionate. And while I don’t agree with everything he’s written, I always walk away challenged and thoughtful. I encourage anyone who is contemplating a seminary education to put Southern on their short list.
I won’t be voting for him at the Annual Convention because I won’t be a Messenger from my church this year. I will be with my wife’s extended family celebrating her parents 50th wedding anniversary. (Life is filled with choices and my in-laws are more important to me than the next President of the SBC.) That hasn’t stopped me from following the discussion among bloggers about Dr. Mohler’s candidacy. And I’m amazed at some of the fuzzy thinking surrounding the issue of a conflict of interest.
Some have presented all conflicts of interest as inherently evil. Other’s have minimized the conflict of having a denominational employee as President. At least one blogger expressed dismay that anyone would question Dr. Mohler’s integrity. Each of these positions is, in my opinion, one aspect of a multifaceted issue. The first two over simplify the issue while the third appears to reflect a lack of understanding about what a conflict of interest really is. Below are some thoughts that I hope will spur more dialog on a complex issue that I think deserves some serious deliberation.
First some definitions: A conflict of interest occurs whenever a person in a position of authority experiences competing interests, whether or not the conflict results in unethical or inappropriate behavior. In my profession we refer to this conflict as dual relationships or multiple relationships. The issue of dual relationships is one every counselor must spend a great deal of time thinking about: here are a few excerpts from different codes of ethics for counselors.
Oklahoma Licensed Professional Counselors Act:
LPCs shall not knowingly enter into a dual relationship(s) and shall take any necessary precautions to prevent a dual relationship from occurring. When the LPC reasonably suspects that he or she has inadvertently entered into a dual relationship the LPC shall record that fact in the records of the affected client(s) and take reasonable steps to eliminate the source or agent creating or causing the dual relationship. If the dual relationship cannot be prevented or eliminated and the LPC cannot readily refer the client to another counselor or other professional, the LPC shall complete one or more of the following measures as necessary to prevent the exploitation of the client and/or the impairment of the LPC’s professional judgment:
(1) Fully disclose the circumstances of the dual relationship to the client and secure the client’s written consent to continue providing counseling;
(2) Consult with the other professional(s) to understand the potential impairment to the LPC’s professional judgment and the risk of harm to the client of continuing the dual relationship.
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
Therapists, therefore, make every effort to avoid conditions and multiple relationships that could impair professional objectivity or increase the risk of exploitation. When the risk of impairment or exploitation exists due to conditions or multiple roles, therapists take appropriate precautions….
American Association of Christian Counselors
Dual relationships involve the breakdown of proper professional or ministerial boundaries. A dual relationship is where two or more roles are mixed in a manner that can harm the counseling relationship. Examples include counseling plus personal, fraternal, business, financial, or sexual and romantic relations. Some dual relationships are not unethical—it is client exploitation that is wrong, not the dual relationship itself. Based on an absolute application that harms membership bonds in the Body of Christ, we oppose the ethical-legal view that all dual relationships are per se harmful and therefore invalid on their face. Many dual relations are wrong and indefensible, but some dual relationships are worthwhile and defensible….
I would put all of this together and define a conflict of interest within the context of the SBC as occurring whenever one person holds two positions of authority where there is a potential his impartiality or objectivity could be impaired or where there is a possibility the wearing of two hats simultaneously could do harm to the organization as a whole. A conflict of interest is not inherently wrong, but clear steps must be taken to insure no harm is done to the organization and to avoid the appearance of partiality or harm .
The President of the SBC appoints the Committee on Committees; that committee nominates the Committee on Nominations; the nominating committee will make recommendations regarding new Trustees for Southern Seminary who will be Dr. Mohler’s bosses. I don’t see how anyone can say a dual relationship doesn’t exist. The wearing of two hats with the potential for competing interests seems obvious.
What to do about that is a little less obvious.
One position would be that the potential for competing interest exists but the possible damage is minimal. After all, only a portion of Southern’s Trustees are elected in any one year. And the President of the SBC is limited to two terms. Besides, Al’s a nice guy whose integrity is beyond reproach. Depriving the SBC of a talented and godly man for what might happen is simply not worth the price. Christians, especially ministers, always do the right thing and never do anything unethical so why even bring this issue up?
Another position would be that even the smallest chance of improper behavior should be avoided. No one is perfect and all of us are at risk to make poor decisions. “Power”, as Henry Adams repeatedly noted, “is poison”. Why even take a chance with poison? Those who take this position would probably want an amendment to our constitution/bylaws prohibiting a denominational employee from holding any SBC office.
A third alternative would be for Dr. Mohler to acknowledge the dual relationship and describe his strategy for dealing with any issues that would involve Southern Seminary. It is easy enough to abstain from decisions that would directly impact the seminary. It’s less clear to me how he might distance himself from the nomination of new trustees on Southern’s board. I suppose the incoming Committee on Nominations could agree to allow the old committee (the one composed under Frank Page’s tenure) to nominate Southern’s trustees. I’m not sure how one would go about doing that, but I’m sure someone could come up with some plan or another that places distance between Mohler as SBC President and Mohler as Southern Seminary President.
All I’m asking is that Southern Baptists acknowledge there is a conflict and then openly and honestly debate just how big an issue it might be.
Were I a Messenger given a choice between two equally bright and capable individuals, I would avoid the issue by choosing the one who isn’t a denominational employee. If I looked at the options and thought Dr. Mohler were clearly the most capable man for the job, then I would want to know how he was going to build a wall between decisions he makes concerning the convention and those concerning the seminary. Wanting that wall in no way questions his integrity; it protects his integrity. And it places all of us above even the suspicion of unethical governance.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Bowden,
All I’m asking is that Southern Baptists acknowledge there is a conflict and then openly and honestly debate just how big an issue it might be.
I am still not understanding the conflict of interest argument. According to the Bylaws, “ A Committee on Committees, composed of two (2) members from each qualified state and the District of Columbia, shall be appointed by the president, in conference with the vice presidents,” Dr. Mohler, if elected, will appoint this committee conferring with the VP’s. He is guarded from this ‘alleged’ conflict of interest.
But, let’s say for the sake of argument, that Dr. Mohler will not consult with the VP’s. He appoints the CoC. That means that he appoints two people from each state. These two people then find two more people to place on the Nominating Committee(NC). The NC then has to agree before presenting the nomination to the convention. My current difficulty in understanding this ‘conflict of interest’ is not due to an unwillingness to understand. It has to do more with believing that people are not robots. While I am sure there are those out there that are ‘boot lappers’ (to use Brother CB’s term), I just refuse to believe that the President, removed from the situation by two groups, is able to pick his own boss. It just does not fly, IMHBAO(:>)).
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
What so many who deny the rather obvious conflict of interest that so many others of us see and affirm exists is simply this: What you allege cannot occur not only can but has happened. It was in fact the very strategy that the architects of the CR employed to take back control of the boards of trustees of the various institutions. What you assert to be impossible is a well-established historical fact.
Oops! I hit submit before re-reading my comment. Always a bad idea. The first phrase should have said, “What so many fail to grasp who deny the rather obvious conflict of interest that so many others of us see and affirm exists is simply this:”
While there is always fuzzy thinking in the SBC, one hard fact that has to be acknowledged here is that the assembled convention has not let any conflict of interest argument prevent the election of numerous denominational employees in the past. Did thousands of SBC messengers in past years merely “refuse to acknowledge there is a conflict” or were they just not as astute as our anti-Mohler blogging crowd?
While there may be other arguments for preferring a candidate other than Mohler, the attempts to make conflict of interest into a compelling reason for not supporting him are rather tepid in my opinion.
Tim,
The argument I am attempting to make is that a conflict of interest is inherent in any dual relationship; the standard for determining a conflict of interest is the POTENTIAL for inappropriate behavior, not the existence of inappropriate or unethical.
The potential is that an SBC President will make a quick phone call to his Veeps and call that a “consultation” and then do what he wants.
Building a wall between those decisions that overlap between the two hats Dr. Mohler would wear if he should become the next SBC President will protect the SBC from the possibility (no matter how remote) of unethical behavior. It will also protect Dr. Mohler from unfounded allegations of inappropriate behavior: if anyone falsely accused him of unfairly stacking the trustee deck he could point the mechanisms in place and demonstrate that he has gone the extra mile of ethical behavior.
I’m not quite clear how you could call the dual relationship “alleged”; that’s the part that seems obvious to me.
Bowden,
From a legal dictionary online:
Conflict of Interest- Refers to a situation when someone, such as a lawyer or public official, has competing professional or personal obligations or personal or financial interests that would make it difficult to fulfill his duties fairly.
Tim is arguing that this apparent conflict of interest does not make it difficult for him to fulfill his duties fairly. Moreover, we have a precedent six times over in our history demonstrating that this is indeed not difficult, as he will be the seventh seminary president to fulfill this role.
Then from your American Association of Christian Counselors defintion above:
Based on an absolute application that harms membership bonds in the Body of Christ, we oppose the ethical-legal view that all dual relationships are per se harmful and therefore invalid on their face. Many dual relations are wrong and indefensible, but some dual relationships are worthwhile and defensible….
Based on the this excerpt, I reject your “defintion of a conflict of interest within the context of the SBC.” You have pulled the negatives and applied it, assuming outright there must exist a wall of protection where one is not needed. Why?
1) We need to decide if a man has be raised up by God to fulfill a role in our denomination. If we determine he has, then we must trust God to work in him to His glory.
2) We must assume that none of the obstacles to authoritarian leadership Tim mentioned are led by God, but men will just do as they are told by the President. This is similar to the aspersions cast toward the lot of IMB trustees currently, that they are not led by God in their decisions.
3) Through the CP, every Southern Baptist has a vested interest in the enities of the SBC. Every president in the past has had an interest in mind when choosing trustees, whether it be methodological, theological, etc. What possible interest could Mohler gain that these others could not? None.
You are calling for honesty. If you want honesty, then look beyond this shibboleth of conflict of interest. Those most vocal about naming Mohler as part of the existing CR power structure in need of suppression are now the ones most vocal about trumpeting the conflict of interest charge.
William,
I am neither “anti-Mohler” nor suggesting a conflict of interest alone is reason to not support him.
I would ask two questions: 1) Would the election of a denominational employee leave one man wearing two hats? 2) Is there a POSSIBILITY (no matter how remote) that the two roles could have competing interests, or that one role or the other COULD create a lack of objectivity?
I think the clear answer is “yes”.
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why some would think this is a non-issue. As I stated above, in my professional world we spend a great deal of time examining issues of multiple roles and dual relationships; I frankly was taken aback by those who suggest it is no big deal. Perhaps you (or Tim) could help me understand why you think this is a non-issue.
VOTE COX, STOP CONFLICT.
Let us protect Dr. Mohler from any possibility of being accused of conflict of interest by electing Frank Cox to the White House.
Oh, Wrong election. I meant the presidency of the SBC.
cb
Bowden,
In all seriousness, this is a good and well developed post.
It may well be that Dr. Mohler would not, in any way, cause a problem by serving as president of the SBC. He is an honorable man. Yet, there might come a time when a person who serves as an agency head having less of a proper honorable and ethical disposition as does Dr. Mohler want to be in the “Big Chair” for personal motivation serving a private agenda.
Therefore, it is time in the life of the SBC to move to cease from electing those who serve as employees of SBC agencies, boards and institutions to any positions within the SBC.
Is it not true that employees of any entity are prohibited to serve as trustees of any entity of the SBC at this current time?
If that is the case is it not due to the possibility of conflict of interest?
If that is the case for trusteeships, it should be the case for all positions.
Also, are there not other persons who are not entity heads who can serve as president of the SBC without causing an argument as to the possibility of conflict of interest? Of course there are. There are many.
We , as Southern Baptists, are fractured enough, at this present time, without needlessly adding another divisive situation to the many we already have.
cb
Colin,
The “shibboleth of conflict of interest”?
If I’m too focused on the negatives and the worst case scenarios, then you’re too focused on the best of all possible outcomes. It is not an aspersion to suggest all humans are capable of sin or biased judgment. Asking someone his plan for avoiding that seems to me to be a reasonable question.
I would sum up your argument this way: because we are Christians, all of us will behave as we should, therefore there is no need to discuss worst case scenarios. I’m not willing to assume everyone has hidden agendas and evil desires; neither am I willing to assume any man is incapable of poor or biased judgments.
I think we should believe the best in interpersonal relationships and guard against the worst in our corporate structures.
CB,
I agree with your comment; all except the third paragraph. I think we can still elect entity heads IF we’ll address the conflict of interest issue.
Bowden,
That is not my argument at all. My argument is that we are commanded to trust and allow the Holy Spirit to direct the actions of a man. My argument also entails the absurdity of the necessity to focus on the “worst of corporate structure” at this stage in the game. Mohler will be the seventh to be placed in this most precarious of positions, bringing his reputation to reproach and furthering the potential of an evil tyrant taking the “big chair” in the future wreaking havoc and destruction on the SBC.
So my question is this, what was the detriment for all six precedents in the past? What besides potentiality do you have to stake your claim of a negative conflict of interest? Further, why did our fathers past not feel the necessity of erecting the borders you now say are needed? And another question to go along with the last: are we more spiritual as a people now than our predecessors, now seeing the need for this restraint? Or are we now more beholden to secular structures and their attendant ills that have made us far less likely to identify the Spirit of God working in individuals? I am arguing for the latter, if you want to sum it up.
CB,
By his supporters, Mohler isn’t seen as the man who is staking the heart of dissent and binding the rudder towards CR power structure. He preceded any bloggers merely calling for cooperating conservatives in his action towards cooperation in the T4G conference. Mohler has led the SBC in initiating cooperation among evangelicals in this event. Instead, by his supporters, he is seen as the man who will not further divide a fractured denomination, but will instead be one of the few men who can repair the fracture.
Colin,
Re: “What besides potentiality do you have to stake your claim of a negative conflict of interest?”
None. I think potentiality alone makes this an issue.
Colin,
Supporters would say those things.
My point was and is still the SBC needs to address this issue now and end such from happening.
Entity heads need to serve the SBC through leading the entity to which they were elected.
It is wrong when they are called “leaders” of the convention. They are not leaders of the SBC. They are, by elected position, servant leaders of the entity to which they serve, just as a pastor is a servant leader to the church he is elected to shepherd.
Local “churches” are the leaders of the convention and that reality needs to be reestablished in Southern Baptist life. It has, to a degree, been forgotten.
The very fact that we are even dealing with this evident potentiality of conflict of interest proves that.
Convention leadership needs to come from the primary source of leadership (local churches). It does not need to come from the entities that were originally established by the local churches. That, in its very self, is a conflict of interest and have the potentiality of making the entities become the leaders of the primary source of leadership in the SBC (local churches).
That is the very thing that caused us to drift toward liberalism years ago.
The leadership of the SBC is the local church structure which came together to establish the SBC in the beginning. The entities and the entity heads serve the primary (local churches). The tail must not wag the dog.
cb
Bowden,
Precisely, hence my other question. Why in 2008, being the 7th time, does this surface as an issue?
CB,
Would supporters say those things? Comforting as that thought may be, and despite the statement’s intentions, I see myself as an expositor of the Word, a servant leader of men, and a herald of the gospel of Christ. I also see myself as a student of theology and Baptist history, and based on these criteria I formulate my opinions, not on blind allegiance. So if you don’t mind, we can stick with the issues from here on out.
How much wagging does the president actually do? Very little. Most of the wagging these days comes from loud mouths with little to back it up. In fact, that may very well be the definition of the majority of the Christian blogosphere. But I digress.
On this issue, you are wrong. Our entity heads, be leaders or servant leaders, are beholden to not only their own local church, but every other church. In this I agree. But they do, in fact, come from a local church. Because they serve an entity in a leadership, pardon, servant leadership capacity does not negate their affiliation with the local church. I would like to say further that their “commissioning” as a servant leader of the SBC as president comes from another local church, in Mohler’s case FB Dallas.
Now, Mohler is a leader in his local church, though he is not the senior pastor. Shall we limit the nominees to the senior pastor role, or perhaps paid staff, rather than a communal, congregational identification of a man as leader? The beauty of congregational polity is that the community gives weight to servant leadership roles because they recognize collectively the gifts of leadership in the man, which is the way God raises men up. Therefore, if the SBC as a whole recognizes these qualities in a man, and want to commission him as leader, then why should we make a rule against it? It has served us well in the past. And, I almost forgot, it is not in any way contrary to the biblical revelation we operate under.
If Mohler was a member of a local church called the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, your point would be valid. But he isn’t, and it isn’t. And as it stands, we cannot elect whole churches to the singular office of president, so as far as tail wagging stands, Mohler is very much a part of a local church.
Colin,
I don’t know why; I either wasn’t around or at least wasn’t interested in the workings of the SBC when the first 6 were elected. I would like to think I would have brought the issue up then, too.
It could be the counseling I do with ministers and the consulting I do with churches has left me a little cynical. You brought up the question of trust; I would bring up the question of discernment and wisdom: if tweaking the rules or asking certain questions can help ensure an organization operate at the highest levels of integrity, then let’s tweak and ask.
In the last few years we’ve seen conflict at the IMB, the resignation of the President of NAMB, and the financial fiasco at the Baptist Foundation of Arizona. I don’t use those as examples of conflicts of interest but as examples of how organizations don’t always run as they should.
Colin,
First, by the use of the word “supporters” I was not, with intent, singling you out. The credentials you present relating to yourself are valid, yet, not needful as expressions to me. I thought all of that about you before this time, I can assure you. I remind you this is not the first time we have communicated. Therefore, history will prove my statement as valid and in no way an effort to placate, which would be an insult to you, in the first place. I did not accuse you of blind allegiance and I was dealing with the issue in total.
Now, to the substance of this debate.
Colin, the history of the last three decades will prove the changes in the SBC have come through the appointments of the president of the SBC. He most certainly does have influence.
His appointments can have six to ten years on a board. That has been well proven. Judge Pressler was right when he, long ago, said we must control the position of the president of the SBC. I am in total agreement with that. Had it not been so we would not even be having this discussion. The SBC would have long ago gone the way of most other “mainline” denominations. It would be a liberal cesspool by this date if existent at all.
Let me again say, Dr. Albert Mohler is an honorable and fine Christian gentleman. Has he made mistakes? Sure. Maybe he has gotten angry and said some things to people who work for him. What real leader has not? It goes with the territory. The test of leadership is in what one does after doing such things. Dr. Mohler did seek to correct those breaches as he should have. Those who would torment him about it beyond that are wrong to do so.
Now, I am sure he is a leader in his local church. If he was only a leader in his local church, be he pastor or, otherwise he would, no doubt make a very able president of the SBC. (Colin, if he were female and had his understanding and ability he would still be an able president. His ability or lack of it is not the point. I had better emphasize he has outstanding ability and is much the man, lest some wag accuse me of something I have not said)
The problem with Dr. Mohler as a candidate for the presidency of the SBC is that he is the president of an entity, period.
The argument from history of the other six does not negate the mistake of the convention in letting it happen those six times. The convention has made mistakes in the past. Those were six of them. Therehave been many more. We should not continue in the same fashion.
When Dr. Mohler was elected to the position he now holds at SBTS he did, in fact, take a position wherein he must refrain from some things, even good things, in order to be above reproach in all possible areas of his life.
The climate in the SBC is of such nature at this time that no matter how he would serve as president of the SBC he would be accused of something which would possibly tarnish his position at SBTS.
Even now there are those who would question Junior Hill’s motive as to why he is going to nominate Frank Cox as president of the SBC. How absurd, yet it is a reality.
We need to protect Dr. Mohler from this mistake. He is a great president of SBTS and we, as Southern Baptists need to confirm him in that position by not allowing him or any entity employee in the future make this mistake.
We were wrong to not provide Dr. Paige Patterson the same courtesy, but that is another story.
cb
Colin,
Let me gently remind you that CB didn’t just read or study about the history of which he speaks; he lived it. He’s old as dirt but his mind is still good…once in a while.
Les,
Let me remind you that even if I am old, Tim Rogers is far more ugly.
Seriously, I have made some stupid mistakes, even lately, but I do not think my position here is one of them. In fact, it is due to some of those mistakes I so strongly think I am right here.
cb
Brother Gary Snowden,
First, I am sorry that it has been so long since I have ventured back into the waters here. I have been busy today.
Second, the issue of the CR was not one where Presidents were presenting situations where they would be served by their appointments. They were merely appointing people that believed like the Baptist in the pew.
Third, the only ones who have ever argued electing an entity head to this position were the moderates when Dr. Patterson was nominated. If I can recall, Dr. Duke McCall was nominated when he was President at Southern and no one ever argued conflict of interest. (I am neither calling or implying that anyone is a Moderate, I am just stating a fact.)
Brother Colin,
It looks like the wolves are on the prowl. You are holding your own very well. Keep holding and shooting those arrows. After a couple of more bites from the wolves, the pain will subside. :>)
Seriously, you are defending well. I respect these that disagree with you, greatly, but disagree with their points immensely.
Just watch that white-haired
wolffox, that is, he is a tricky one. :>)Blessings,
Tim
Brother CB,
You said; “We need to protect Dr. Mohler from this mistake. He is a great president of SBTS and we, as Southern Baptists need to confirm him in that position by not allowing him or any entity employee in the future make this mistake.” Two things.
Do you realize that you are saying that we need to protect Dr. Mohler from himself? Brother, he is a grown man. I believe you would be hard pressed to find areas where he is not godly in seeking truth. You, yourself have affirmed his godly intentions. With all of this godliness, you are now saying he is not godly enough and he needs the 16 million SB to protect him from his ungodliness. The argument seems circular.
Second, do you realize that you are saying that you can trust him with the shaping of the theological minds of utopia mush that come into the seminary and leave with hearts on fire to share Christ, and minds as sharp as any buck knife that you sharpen. But, we cannot trust him for two years to appoint two Committee on Committees and then any special committee called for by the convention?
I just love crossing plow shares with you. :>)
This is just plan silly to me… If someone can answer this one question then I will not vote for Dr. Mohler…
“Just who in the SBC would not be guilty of having at least some degree of a conflict of interest?”
Once we have disqualified all SBC Presidents, who else needs to go? All the Professors of our Seminaries and Schools would theoretically have the same possibility of a conflict. So if you are going to disallow the Presidents you need to disallow all employees of the Convention regardless of what position they hold. And would not someone who graduated from one Seminary be more likely to be predigest in favor of said Seminary? So how many Pastors would that disqualify?
So once you have disqualified everyone then who is left to be President? This whole thing kind of reminds me of a circle firing squad… once you pull that trigger no one is left standing.
Grace Always,
CB,
I still fail to see any harm done in the past, or any reason to change the rules midstream.
As far as the CR is concerned, it wasn’t one president that made the difference, but a series of conservative presidents, and I know you know this. The fact is that if only Adrian Rogers had succeeded in his election, and was followed by moderates, the movement would have failed. The plan was 10 years to turn the ship, so the well established fact is that multiple terms instituting the same ideology are needed to make significant changes.
I do not think it would be a mistake to elect Mohler to the presidency. I think it would, in fact, be a wise choice. When someone of his ability and gifting is granted to us by God, we would be foolish to restrict his influence.
Colin
Now for a totally irrelevant comment.
The worst thing about getting old is remembering when you were young.
Tim,
You have make some good observations about what I said about Dr. Mohler and I want to speak to that, maybe just so I can more clarify what I am trying to say. But first…
There was a question of a conflict of interest when Dr. Duke McCall was nominated. Of course he would have been blood poison anyway so that is like comparing apples to oranges.
Tim, I have in no way said Dr. Mohler is ungodly, nor have I said anything ill toward his character. In all seriousness, if you will show me any statement I will make proper apology tomorrow if I have to fly to Louisville to do it.
If you read what I have consistently said you will see I have praised Dr. Mohler for his leadership, his character and his honorable disposition. I said he had made apology for some things in the past and it is wrong for anyone to torment him further about those things.
My basic point of argument against his candidacy is the inherent conflict of interest for him or any SBC employee.
It is true we have elected entity heads six times in the past. All six times were mistakes. I am not saying the six did do anything wrong. I am not saying they did not. I do not have knowledge of all their activities. I am saying we should not do this any more. It is a mistake.
There is the inherent conflict of interest and a “lesser” man than Dr. Mohler may be guilty of such in the future. Therefore, I contend we should cease to elect employees of SBC entities as convention officers. You or one of the brothers should make that motion.
Now, let me address the “protection” quote. Again, I do not believe Dr. Mohler is evil or has wrongful intent relating to the SBC. On the contrary, I believe he sees it as necessary for him to seek to be president in hopes of helping the situation. My fear is that due to the divisive nature of the SBC he will be unduly attacked and it will hurt him and the SBC as a whole.
What I meant by “protect Dr. Mohler from this mistake” is as follows:
One glich in the armor of many great men is that they have confidence they can do anything. They are always willing to make the sacrifice. History is filled with such men. Dr. Mohler is a great man as are some others I have addressed in the past year. There are times when strong men who love such great men need to stand firm and say, “NO.” “This is a mistake and you must, for your own good, stand down.”
That is what I mean by “protect Dr. Mohler from this mistake.”
I have said the same of Dr. Patterson and the trustees where he serves. Dr Patterson is a great man. He just needs strong men around him. Both of these guys are visionaries. Visionaries need strong men to balance them. I hope you see this as a praise and not an attack for I do not think I can better explain it without illustration. And at this time I refuse to say anything else to cause any more harm than has already been done.
As I said before; “To confront is one thing, to torture is another.” As of late I have seen little of a confrontational value. I have seen much that smacks of torture and I am filled with shame as I have told you privately. Some things have gone too far and I know no other way to say it. I can see no good thing in the latest developments of all of this.
I am against an employee of any entity of the SBC being elected. I am against any employee of a SBC entity making a nomination.
But, I will tell you this, Tim Rogers, If Dr. Mohler is elected and he is unduly confronted or attacked and I mean unduly, I will oppose his adversaries with the gusto of a barbarian and the willful intent of a rank hooligan. I will be the nastiest dog in his kennel. You can take that to the bank.
cb
Brother CB,
After re-reading my response to you, I must admit I need to stand down on using the term ungodliness. I apologize as you have not said or implied that Dr. Mohler was doing something ungodly. I should have used the term inappropriate. I believe you are saying it is inappropriate for an entity head to serve as SBC Prez. And I think your argument would be that inappropriate decisions could result in a particular level of blindness when it comes to issues dealing with that specific entity. I still disagree, but I do believe I understand your point.
The reason I disagree? What exactly does the SBC Prez. do? He is the figurative leader. He appoints, after consultation with the elected VP’s, two Committee on Committee. He also appoints the Parliamentarian for the annual meeting. He fills the figurative position of Ex Officio for all committees. He appoints any ad hoc committee the convention calls for. An entity head has much more responsibility and certainly can mess us up quicker than the SBC Prez.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I have stated my position and you have stated yours. We do not have to agree here and it will not be the end of the free world.
I do thank you for hearing my point and realizing I am nor attacking Dr. Mohler.
One thing; Do not underestimate the power of the “Big Chair” in SBC structure. Some fellows did that long ago and now they have their own little “Celebration”
cb
Guess I’d rather be late than MIA.
The SBC isn’t a group of seminaries or colleges or mission boards, banded together to reach churches and seek support. It’s a group of churches banded together for the advancement of the gospel. So, to whatever extent the SBC is “led” by its officers, let them be people from the churches, not the other entities.
Maybe the local churches have passed the buck to the SBC, and viewed the Great Commission as a financial responsibility and not one of evangelism. So let’s cut it out already.
I don’t know of a better start at that, than to get someone in office not dedicated to furtherance of the conglomerate we seem to have assembled. Someone getting a paycheck from the conglomerate doesn’t seem likely to even START that job.
ps: I’m a calvinist, too, so I automatically like Dr. Mohler, right?
“So my question is this, what was the detriment for all six precedents in the past?”
I will answer that with a question. How did we get an IMB Trustee who was sent to prison for fraud…who just happened to be a former SBC President’s brother in law? Even if he was not president at the time, we can see the incestual conflict of preferences played out over time. And, I can imagine there are many who will try to tell me the family relationship had nothing to do with it.
Personally, I think we can see from Wade’s experience what happens if you are not willing to go along with every single decision from the powers. It took some years to assemble ‘team players’ (or lemmings) like this.
Note: Today (February 14th) the BP News reported that Dr. Mohler would be dropping out of the “race” for health reasons. Let’s remember him, his family, and Southern Seminary in our prayers.
It’s our loss; I thought the discussion engendered by Dr. Mohler’s candidacy for President of the SBC (issues related to conflict of interest, Calvinism, and engaging/confronting the culture) was important to the SBC.