Al Mohler: The Right Man for the Wrong Job?
I distinctly remember the first time I met Al Mohler. It was at the 1993 Southern Baptist Convention in Houston where Al was introduced as the newly elected President of Southern Theological Seminary. Al presented himself as he always does - erudite, well-spoken, and driven. Since 1993 several of Emmanuel's church members, both men and women, have walked the corridors of Norton Hall pursuing Masters' Degrees at the recommendation of their pastor.
This week Al Mohler allowed the release of a statement that he would be running for the office of President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Al is well known in the evangelical world, serving on the board of Focus on the Family, appearing often on secular television shows, and weighing in regularly on the political and social issues of our day. Al is ubiquitous, but before anyone suggests the 2008 SBC Presidential election is already decided, it must be remembered that Al publicly endorsed Ronnie Floyd prior to the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention, and it should be obvious from Floyd receiving only 24% of the vote at the convention that the influence of Al is not as great in the SBC as some might presume. There are three reasons why I predict Southern Baptists may not elect Al Mohler, and instead place someone - similar to a Frank Page - in the office of President at the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention in Indianopolis.
REASON NUMBER ONE Southern Baptists are now desiring gospel cooperation, not the separatism of Fundamentalism.
Many thousands of Southern Baptists, including me, were willing to 'battle for the Bible.' We are not willing to battle for additions to the Bible. While Al Mohler strongly believes that the gospel should not be compromised (as do we), and is sometimes critical of the emerging church movement (as are we), it is just as dangerous to demand conformity on matters that exceed the gospel. Some have expressed fear of Mohler's Calvinism, but it his Fundamentalism which should cause pause when it comes to electing Al as President. Whereas Al could argue Calvinism is based upon an interpretation of the sacred text, it is more difficult to deny his Fundamentalism is based on additions to the sacred text. For example, Al has called intentional childlessness moral rebellion. Chapter and verse from the sacred text are not used for such pontifical pronouncements, and we Southern Baptists should always quickly question moral standards that exceed the sufficient Scriptures. Further, when one's orthodoxy (doctrine) contradicts one's orthopraxy (practice or behavior), confusion arises. For instance, in arguing for the moral pronouncement that intentional childlessness is rebellion against God, Mohler writes:
Last time I checked only outright Socinians and Open Theists - not orthodox Calvinists - believed God intends to create children but is defrauded by the saints. Orthodoxy would say that God is as sovereign over the means as He is the ends. Is it not possible that a soverereign God actually had a hand in inventing contraception? Most Calvinists I know would agree. But when Calvinism weds herself to Fundamentalism a conundrum is born.
However, the more compelling reason to reject Mohler's Fundamentalism is the dangerous view of authority. In a cooperating convention like ours the Southern Baptist Convention is THE highest authority. At last year's Southern Baptist Convention the messengers adopted the Garner Motion which affirmed the following statement regarding the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message:
For those who doubt that the Convention knew what they were doing when they affirmed the Executive Committee statement by adopting the Garner Motion, I would encourage you to read the transcript of the entire debate PRIOR to the vote which affirmed the Garner Motion by a nearly 60% magority. Southern Baptists knew what they were doing. The Convention spoke.
But the next day Al Mohler said the Convention did not know what we were doing. When one man - or an oligarchy of men - refuses to follow the Convention's authority, the Convention no longer exists as an autonomous body. I have always worked under the premise that I will do what I am doing on the IMB until the convention speaks and says 'no more.' My authority flows not from the IMB Board of Trustees; my authority flows from the SBC. My ultimate authority is God and His Word, and if the Convention ever departs from either, then I must leave. But I will not leave until the Convention speaks. The danger is when a man thumbs his nose at the Convention's authority and continues to serve in contradiction to that Convention - all the while receiving funds from the Cooperative Program for his ministry. The tide of Fundamentalism - which washes away gospel cooperation by the perpetual demands to conform on tertiary issues - must be stemmed in the SBC. The very existence and identity of our Convention is at stake.
We also need a President who will focus on the gospel more than politics. We need a President who will focus more on that which unites us than that which separates us. We need a President who serves the Convention rather than a President who controls the Convention. We need a President in 2008 who will lead us into a gospel resurgence.
REASON NUMBER TWO: It is at best unwise, and at worst a conflict of interest, to have an entity President simultaneously serving as President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
It will be argued by some that Paige Patterson served as President of the SBC exactly ten years ago (1998-2000). It is no accident that the committee appointed (not nominated) by President Patterson to revise the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message included relatives and close friends. It is also no accident that a restrictive view of the role of women - a view reflected in the personal philosophy of then President Paige Patterson - eventually found its way into the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Though no major doctrinal confession in the history of any Baptist body since 1600 contained such a tertiary statement about women, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted this one - in no small part to the powers of appointment of the President.
Now, let's move to a modern example. Two years ago a majority of Southern Baptist seminary Presidents pushed hard for the implementation of an annual "Seminary Offering" similar to The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and The Annie Armstrong Easter Offering. The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, including her Board officers, felt incredible pressure to acquiesce to the desires of the seminary Presidents. In the end, the Executive Committee, through the appointment of appropriate committees who independently studied the proposal, politely said "no" to such an offering.
Now, fastforward to 2008. Suppose Al Mohler is elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He will not only serve as the President of an entity, he will preside over the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. He will have appointment powers - including over any committee he wishes to form to reinvestigate a 'Seminary Offering." This potential conflict of interest is fastidiously avoided - by policy and bylaw - within the secular corporate world, and it SHOULD be banned by any non-profit religious organization, including the SBC.
One of the reasons that the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008 seems to be controlled by the top down, instead of the tried and true historic Baptist grassroots level of governance, is because too many Southern Baptist leaders in the past thirty years have never met a sycophant they would not promote. Truly great leaders gather people with opposing views around them so that their leadership iron will remain sharp by the fires of dissent and challenge. The oligarchy of leadership that has typified the SBC during the Conservative Resurgence must be broken for no other reason than the incestuous control of agencies and boards through the appointment of simple 'yes' men must be broken for the health of our agencies. Demands for absolute conformity in all things among Baptists is like inbreeding within a family. Soon, the children will be unable to think on their own - literally. And, even more tragic, those in charge of the family won't hesitate to remind the children they are too dumb to know what needs done.
REASON NUMBER THREE: The Southern Baptist Convention needs the leadership of a man who sets the example for generous giving through the Cooperative Program.
Mohler is a member of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, where he serves as a "teaching pastor" and a Sunday school teacher. The church contributes 3.3 percent of its $5 million in undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program and nothing to the SBC's two mission offerings according to Baptist Press (UPDATE: It seems that Highland did not accurately report their traditional mission giving to the ACP. See the church's clarification here. We commend Highland for their stated goals for traditional missions giving for 2008). The mission's giving of one's home church is more important than it might seem at first glance, and in the coming months and years I am quite positive that this issue will only grow in importance in the minds of those whom will chose who leads the SBC.
There already has been an announcement that two other men will be running for President. I know both men and believe them to have good motives and the best interest of the SBC at heart. Just like Al, they will do what they feel called to do.
I do believe, however, that there may very well be another candidate for President of the Southern Baptist Convention who will be right man for the right job. He may, or may not, be revealed until May - just a month prior to the SBC. It is even possible that this man will not even announce, and simply let his name be revealed at the SBC Convention. Regardless, Southern Baptists should continue to express their gratefulness for Al Mohler, but should give serious consideration to whether or not he is the right man for the wrong job.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
This week Al Mohler allowed the release of a statement that he would be running for the office of President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Al is well known in the evangelical world, serving on the board of Focus on the Family, appearing often on secular television shows, and weighing in regularly on the political and social issues of our day. Al is ubiquitous, but before anyone suggests the 2008 SBC Presidential election is already decided, it must be remembered that Al publicly endorsed Ronnie Floyd prior to the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention, and it should be obvious from Floyd receiving only 24% of the vote at the convention that the influence of Al is not as great in the SBC as some might presume. There are three reasons why I predict Southern Baptists may not elect Al Mohler, and instead place someone - similar to a Frank Page - in the office of President at the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention in Indianopolis.
REASON NUMBER ONE Southern Baptists are now desiring gospel cooperation, not the separatism of Fundamentalism.
Many thousands of Southern Baptists, including me, were willing to 'battle for the Bible.' We are not willing to battle for additions to the Bible. While Al Mohler strongly believes that the gospel should not be compromised (as do we), and is sometimes critical of the emerging church movement (as are we), it is just as dangerous to demand conformity on matters that exceed the gospel. Some have expressed fear of Mohler's Calvinism, but it his Fundamentalism which should cause pause when it comes to electing Al as President. Whereas Al could argue Calvinism is based upon an interpretation of the sacred text, it is more difficult to deny his Fundamentalism is based on additions to the sacred text. For example, Al has called intentional childlessness moral rebellion. Chapter and verse from the sacred text are not used for such pontifical pronouncements, and we Southern Baptists should always quickly question moral standards that exceed the sufficient Scriptures. Further, when one's orthodoxy (doctrine) contradicts one's orthopraxy (practice or behavior), confusion arises. For instance, in arguing for the moral pronouncement that intentional childlessness is rebellion against God, Mohler writes:
To demand that marriage means sex--but not children--is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children.
Last time I checked only outright Socinians and Open Theists - not orthodox Calvinists - believed God intends to create children but is defrauded by the saints. Orthodoxy would say that God is as sovereign over the means as He is the ends. Is it not possible that a soverereign God actually had a hand in inventing contraception? Most Calvinists I know would agree. But when Calvinism weds herself to Fundamentalism a conundrum is born.
However, the more compelling reason to reject Mohler's Fundamentalism is the dangerous view of authority. In a cooperating convention like ours the Southern Baptist Convention is THE highest authority. At last year's Southern Baptist Convention the messengers adopted the Garner Motion which affirmed the following statement regarding the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message:
We acknowledge that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.
For those who doubt that the Convention knew what they were doing when they affirmed the Executive Committee statement by adopting the Garner Motion, I would encourage you to read the transcript of the entire debate PRIOR to the vote which affirmed the Garner Motion by a nearly 60% magority. Southern Baptists knew what they were doing. The Convention spoke.
But the next day Al Mohler said the Convention did not know what we were doing. When one man - or an oligarchy of men - refuses to follow the Convention's authority, the Convention no longer exists as an autonomous body. I have always worked under the premise that I will do what I am doing on the IMB until the convention speaks and says 'no more.' My authority flows not from the IMB Board of Trustees; my authority flows from the SBC. My ultimate authority is God and His Word, and if the Convention ever departs from either, then I must leave. But I will not leave until the Convention speaks. The danger is when a man thumbs his nose at the Convention's authority and continues to serve in contradiction to that Convention - all the while receiving funds from the Cooperative Program for his ministry. The tide of Fundamentalism - which washes away gospel cooperation by the perpetual demands to conform on tertiary issues - must be stemmed in the SBC. The very existence and identity of our Convention is at stake.
We also need a President who will focus on the gospel more than politics. We need a President who will focus more on that which unites us than that which separates us. We need a President who serves the Convention rather than a President who controls the Convention. We need a President in 2008 who will lead us into a gospel resurgence.
REASON NUMBER TWO: It is at best unwise, and at worst a conflict of interest, to have an entity President simultaneously serving as President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
It will be argued by some that Paige Patterson served as President of the SBC exactly ten years ago (1998-2000). It is no accident that the committee appointed (not nominated) by President Patterson to revise the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message included relatives and close friends. It is also no accident that a restrictive view of the role of women - a view reflected in the personal philosophy of then President Paige Patterson - eventually found its way into the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. Though no major doctrinal confession in the history of any Baptist body since 1600 contained such a tertiary statement about women, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted this one - in no small part to the powers of appointment of the President.
Now, let's move to a modern example. Two years ago a majority of Southern Baptist seminary Presidents pushed hard for the implementation of an annual "Seminary Offering" similar to The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and The Annie Armstrong Easter Offering. The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, including her Board officers, felt incredible pressure to acquiesce to the desires of the seminary Presidents. In the end, the Executive Committee, through the appointment of appropriate committees who independently studied the proposal, politely said "no" to such an offering.
Now, fastforward to 2008. Suppose Al Mohler is elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He will not only serve as the President of an entity, he will preside over the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. He will have appointment powers - including over any committee he wishes to form to reinvestigate a 'Seminary Offering." This potential conflict of interest is fastidiously avoided - by policy and bylaw - within the secular corporate world, and it SHOULD be banned by any non-profit religious organization, including the SBC.
One of the reasons that the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008 seems to be controlled by the top down, instead of the tried and true historic Baptist grassroots level of governance, is because too many Southern Baptist leaders in the past thirty years have never met a sycophant they would not promote. Truly great leaders gather people with opposing views around them so that their leadership iron will remain sharp by the fires of dissent and challenge. The oligarchy of leadership that has typified the SBC during the Conservative Resurgence must be broken for no other reason than the incestuous control of agencies and boards through the appointment of simple 'yes' men must be broken for the health of our agencies. Demands for absolute conformity in all things among Baptists is like inbreeding within a family. Soon, the children will be unable to think on their own - literally. And, even more tragic, those in charge of the family won't hesitate to remind the children they are too dumb to know what needs done.
REASON NUMBER THREE: The Southern Baptist Convention needs the leadership of a man who sets the example for generous giving through the Cooperative Program.
Mohler is a member of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, where he serves as a "teaching pastor" and a Sunday school teacher. The church contributes 3.3 percent of its $5 million in undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program and nothing to the SBC's two mission offerings according to Baptist Press (UPDATE: It seems that Highland did not accurately report their traditional mission giving to the ACP. See the church's clarification here. We commend Highland for their stated goals for traditional missions giving for 2008). The mission's giving of one's home church is more important than it might seem at first glance, and in the coming months and years I am quite positive that this issue will only grow in importance in the minds of those whom will chose who leads the SBC.
There already has been an announcement that two other men will be running for President. I know both men and believe them to have good motives and the best interest of the SBC at heart. Just like Al, they will do what they feel called to do.
I do believe, however, that there may very well be another candidate for President of the Southern Baptist Convention who will be right man for the right job. He may, or may not, be revealed until May - just a month prior to the SBC. It is even possible that this man will not even announce, and simply let his name be revealed at the SBC Convention. Regardless, Southern Baptists should continue to express their gratefulness for Al Mohler, but should give serious consideration to whether or not he is the right man for the wrong job.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
posted by Wade Burleson | Saturday, January 05, 2008
143 Comments:
Very articulate and pointed post, Wade. While some would, no doubt, debate whether or not Dr. Mohler is actually a fundamentalist, there is no doubt that his election is a conflict of interest. No good thing comes of such a position. Your example of the Seminary Offering is excellent.
As to the CP giving, I am unsure that it is Al Mohler's responsibility to determine the giving in his church, but for one who wishes to be the President of the SBC, nay even draws his livelihood from the offerings given to the CP, I would think that he would not want to partner with a church with such a distant position. That they give nothing to the missions offerings is a serious thing, in my mind.
Very, very well said.
Believe it or not, my mind was changed 180 degrees by simply reading your respectful, clear and articulate post.
Like Art, I'm not sure everyone will agree with your assessment of Al's Fundamentalism, but I hope they hear what I do when I read your writings - you are not CONDEMNING him for his Fundamentalism. You are simply CHALLENGING him in it.
True statemanship. True leadership. You ought to be the pastor nominated.
Thanks for the very interesting post that was articulate and directed. You speak of another candidate as if you have knowledge, just as you did with David Rogers last year...that will surely pique the interests of many.
I'll be completely honest when I say that I think it's a shame that you so quickly have labeled Al Mohler as a fundamentalist. I think it was a shame in the eighties when many moderates were labeled as liberals in order to discredit them. Mohler may be more fundamentalist in some regards than you are, but as you know the label fundamentalist is extremely negative and often unnecessary. I believe this is one of those situations where it is unnecessary.
While making a case against Mohler's "fundamentalism" you make a good point. You say of Mohler, "when one man - or an oligarchy of men - refuses to follow the Convention's authority, the Convention no longer exists as an autonomous body." I completely agree with this statement, and Mohler's seminary "report" was very discouraging on a number of levels. Congregational polity is at the very heart of being a Baptist, and as such a true Baptist leader should follow the direction of the congregation even if they personally disagree.
With that said, congregational authority is why I disagree with your latter point in regards to Mohler and the CP giving at Highview Baptist Church. The BF&M says of the church that, "each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes." As a member of a Baptist church holding to congregational polity, Mohler only has one vote and their decisions in no way are representative of his personal support or lack of support for the cooperative program.
Even if Mohler was the pastor he would only be able to lead and set an example of giving, but ultimately the decision to give or not to give lies in the hands of the congregation. You set a wonderful example of giving at Emmanuel, and your church has followed your lead with strong giving to the cooperative program. It would be wrong for us to say that the congregation at Emmanuel only gives because of your leadership, and as such it would be wrong to say that Highland doesn't give because of a lack or leadership on the part of Mohler.
Hi Wade, I'm a long-time reader, first-time poster.
Although I am not a Southern Baptist, I have read a good deal of Mohler's work, and I do not think that your contention that he is a fundamentalist holds up. Fundamentalists do not engage the culture (or at least not in a courteous fashion); Mohler does. I do not agree that his statement concerning children in marriage was evidence of fundamentalism. One may disagree with it, but I believe that it can be derived from Scripture without too much trouble. Certainly it should not be a matter of church discipline, but I don't think that Mohler was implying that it should.
Mohler may well not be the right man for the job; however, I have seen some rather brutal attacks against him in Southern Baptist blogs that are very inappropriate. You have always been courteous and reasonable (well, not always, but usually)--please don't stop now. I know that in a convention such as the SBC intra-denominational politics can get very nasty, but do you really want to contribute to this rather un-Christlike state of affairs?
Wade,
Have you spoken with anyone at Highview Baptist Church regarding their missions giving?
Ben,
You make an excellent point that I do concede. I thank the Lord for the way Al does engage the culture.
My point is simiply that when he engages the culture that he does so on the teachings of the sufficient Scriptures and not pricniples that go beyond it.
Legalism may be a better word than Fundamentalism. It is all in the definitions.
By the way, Pastor Steve got it right above. I love Fundamentalists. I simply wish to challenge the extra biblicism. And NOT for them personally - for when they impose it universally.
In His Grace,
Wade
Bart,
I read this (six sentence from the bottom of the article), with the source attributed to Baptist Press.
All those words make for a very inefficient way of saying "No." :-)
Wade,
Your comments disappoint me. Obviously you are free to support whomever you want but I don't see this post as very gracious, especially after I read in the ABP article, "Burleson said he does not oppose Mohler personally. "I appreciate what he has done for evangelicalism," Burleson said. "I have nothing negative to say about Al Mohler."
Yet in a derogatory tone you deemed him a Fundamentalist and in a comment you said legalist might be a better term. In both instances you have changed the definition of the words.
In the post you also imply that Mohler is a sycophant (or would appoint them), is a yes man (or would appoint them), would seek to control instead of serve the SBC, and would be more focused on politics than the gospel. Are there any other non-negative comments you want to make?
I'll be releasing a post later today giving a thorough analysis of missions giving at Highview Baptist Church, Louisville. It will include source material directly from the church. It will also include analysis of their historical ACP data.
Do you think it would be helpful for me to include Emmanuel Enid's data for comparison's sake? From what I can tell, the approach of the two churches has been strikingly similar.
Bart:
You also know how to access ACP info of the SBC's congregations online. When you do so and view Highview's self-posted info for 2006, you will read "0" entered in the spaces marked for the AAEO and the LMCO (your congregation gave to each). The congregation's ACP entry for the same year for Total Mission Expenditures reads "$726,185"--14.29% of undesignated gifts of $5.08 million (the figure for your congregation is 16.71% of total undesignated offerings which are 1/10 of that of Highview's).
My point: Wade is correct, even if his source is a secondary one.
I have a nephew at Southern. Thirty years ago, I would have been horrified by that, fearing that the false teachings of my college professors (Southern grads) would influence him to abandon truth.
Now, largely because of the influence of Al Mohler, I can rejoice that he is in a solid conservative seminary.
However, I have two specific reasons for not supporting his candidacy.
1) His response to the Garner motion last summer told me he has come to believe he is bigger than the convention. SBC employees need to be in submission to the expressed will of the SBC.
2) It is an unacceptable conflict of interest for a denominational agency head (or any other employee) to be president. My state convention would not allow it. I wish the SBC wouldn't.
So, while I appreciate Al Mohler, I would not vote for him.
Hmmm. Interesting.
I note that you said you had four reasons, but I only see three. Did I miss something?
I had to laugh out when I read
Demands for absolute conformity in all things among Baptists is like inbreeding within a family. Soon, the children will be unable to think on their own - literally.
What do you mean, "soon?" We've been at that point for a long time, and frankly, it's worst with those who've been Southern Baptists for a long time. Try teaching a Sunday School class full of older adults and asking anything but multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank questions these days. I hate to say it, but by and large, they don't want to think, they just want to regurgitate what they've heard for decades, and then be congratulated on how well they did it.
Bart:
Saved you the effort.
Emmanuel-Enid:
Total Reciepts: $2.7 million
Undesignated: $2.1 million
Total Mission Expenditures: $573,614
Cooperative Program: $105,000
AAEO and LMCO: gave to both
Congregational Debt: $438,000
Average Worship/SS Attendance: 1245/831
Total Baptisms: 97 (other additions: 58)
NOTE: my congregation gives annually as it does to the CP as a part of our "good neighbor" commitment to other churches affilating with the SBC. We don't love the SBC--we love our fellow-believers who are the SBC, and we USE the resources we are providing to ourselves via our CP contributions through the SBC to be more effectively on-mission with the Lord Jesus Christ in this world (sentimentally attached to folks like you, and NOT to the religious non-profit organization given the name "Southern Baptist Convention"). I guess there is a point at which any SBC congregation can be considered "less 'good neighbor'" than other affiliating churches; to date, it appears that the smaller congregations among us--your included--are making greater "good neighbor" sacrifices than the bigger ones are (cf. widow's mite).
What would SBC life be like if all affiliating churches made like sacrifices in terms of percentage of undesignated reciepts and blood-sweat-tears? Just asking.
It's Saturday. There must be something better to do than this today . . .
Dan,
Typo. Thanks for the correction.
Dan. Thanks for the posting of the information.
Bart. I am not the one running for President of the SBC. I believe our church's five percent giving to the Cooperative Program disqualifies me.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wade,
I`m definitely not in favor of "inbreeding", "dumb children" and "sycophants"
straws...grasping...
comments . . . unnecessary . . . contributing little . . . what else you got?
Wade,
Thanks for the disclosure, as far as it went, of Emmanuel Enid's figures. Before any level of CP giving would disqualify someone from running for SBC President, I would think that it would disqualify someone from criticizing someone else's level of CP giving, especially without performing any prior investigation of what and how they actually gave.
Personally, I believe that any candidate's personal beliefs about CP giving are fair game for consideration while choosing how to vote in Indianapolis. Do you know what would make a really good post? Somebody ought to contact Highview's pastor, interview him about his church's CP giving, and then ask him about Dr. Mohler's views of the CP and and actions Mohler has taken within the church to influence the church's CP giving. THAT would be a relevant, accurate, and well-researched post.
Any takers out there?
As for proper Saturday activities, I ought to be out there working toward that 97 conversion number. Well done.
The issue for me: the conflict-of-interest part which Wade mentions in today's posting. That one shouldn't be hard for any of us to understand. It would seem that if Dr. Mohler is as bright as is suggested (and I'm sure that he is), then he understands this as well--and wouldn't permit his nomination for that reason. Again, there are--what?--something like 4 million other individuals attending SBC churches who are equally-qualified or better? This is not so hard . . .
Dr. Mohler should speak for himself regarding his personal views of CP giving, and why he chooses to affiliate with a congregation with a track record like the one he attends and serves. His pastor can be asked about Dr. Mohler's influence on the congregation, including any efforts to raise or lower the church's CP giving.
Maybe Dr. Mohler has spoken for himself (he maintains a blog, right?), and maybe his pastor already has described Dr. Mohler's influence (he keeps him employed as a teaching pastor, right?).
It is unfortunate that we are throwing the "F" word around so soon.
I think Mohler's work with Together for the Gospel is highly commendable and should exempt him from such a label. Good grief, he had C.J. Mahaney preach from Southern pulpit.
As to the example given of his "fundamentalism". Quite frankly, everyone has strong opinions about some topic that they dont' have a pefect 1 verse justification for.
I live in Louisville and have always found Mohler's choice for a church home very strange. Highview is not Calvinist but it is the only Baptist 'mega' church in town.(But not nearly as big as the 'Christian mega church in town')
They have "satellite" churches and
are are growing by adding these campuses. I think Ezell is still the pastor of all the churches and downlinks his sermons. For a while he was driving to two locations every Sunday.
One church, a small church, on the wrong side of the tracks, was added a few years ago by offering to take it over. Many were against it but when the vote came, members had to be there so many showed up from hospital beds and nursing homes to vote! Highview won by a 12 vote margin. Those voting against went to a dying church down the road and it is now thriving. The Rick Warren style Hawaiian shirt guys came in and took over replacing the over 50's who were working in the church with the 20 year olds.
Such are the tactics to expand. I have heard that Highview is leaning toward 'elder rule' but right now it is pretty much pastor lead. It is to big to be congregation lead because of the sattilite churches. There is not really a Body of Christ feel to it.
One high level staffer at Highview, a well known former county judge,was on the University of Louisville Board when it voted to have same sex health benefits for employees. this person did not resign over the vote which was secret but passed.
Like I said, strange choice for a church when there are growing but smaller Calvinist churches in town. Highview is basically a 'seeker church' in the style of Willow Creek or Saddleback.
The point of this is-Mohler is not a fundamentalist when it comes to his choice of home church. He has gone seeker, Arminian, church growth movement.
Though Mohler has a teaching role at Highview, I disagree that his church's giving is a legitimate issue. When a man is the pastor of a church, he has much more influence over missions giving. The senior pastor of a church, if running for SBC President, deserves to have his church's mission giving examined. Not a Sunday School teacher.
This blog post is nothing but a hit piece. You give reasons why he "may not be" elected, but in reality you are giving reasons why "I don't want him to be" elected. I expect more transparency out of this blog.
Theory:
My church runs over 300 on a very good Sunday morning (have hit 325 or so). We have a budget of nearly 400k. We give 12.5% to the cooperative program and give pretty well to Lottie and Annie.
Fact: Smaller and medium sized churches tend to give higher percentages to CP. Mega churches often give significant AMOUNTS, but lower percentages.
The Theory - churches like mine do not have enough money to do other significant acts with our missions giving, so we put all our eggs in the CP basket.
The CP lets a smaller Iowa church participate in a huge worldwide missions programs.
Bigger churches have enough money to do projects of their own, and tend to put resources into those. They can decide to support a missionary on their own or fund projects independently.
If my church doubled in size and budget, we might be tempted to start using some of our missions money to carry out projects we are led to do by ourselves.
The SBC tends to select mega-church pastors as its presidents, but very few of them will have a great track record of PERCENTAGE giving to CP.
I state this as a theory. It is based on a lifetime of observation, but is wholly without scientific research.
Dave Miller:
Your smaller congregation can contribute the same smallish CP percentage to the SBC but get the same big opportunities/access to resources that the bigger churches get--save for your congregation's conscience in regard to the matter, I suppose. Maybe your congregation--and all of ours--should make the mega-church choice: contribute less, demand more. Of course, then where would the SBC be--where it's actually headed anyway? Interesting dilemma we're creating for ourselves in the future by our CP choices now . . . The SBC's next president probably ought to understand that and do something about it, huh?
Brent:
How about "dialog piece" instead of "hit piece" until some actually "hitting" takes place? Otherwise, you are guilty of the same charges you toss around or lay on Wade.
Anonymous Dave,
Since some of the comments here don`t meet up to your lofty expectations, why not start up your own BLOG instead?
Then, you could come out of the closet, identify yourself and manage your BLOG the way you like it, instead of whining here.
I don't think your reasons are the most likely explanation for why Mohler could lose (though I doubt he will).
IMHO, it is more plausible that he "might" lose because of a coalition of
(1) anti-establishment folks and
(2) establishment folks who credit mohler with the rise of calvinism which they DESPISE.
David in Florida:
I didn't realize that this blog has 2 moderators--the owner of it and you. Interesting. Maybe I can start another blog as you suggest and it could be the third site that you moderate.
Or, you can add helpful information to the discussions at this site. Which option do you think would be easier on everyone all around? I vote for staying the current course here if Wade permits. But you can go back to your blogsite if you want, brother, where no whining--or probably much reading--takes place.
Wade,
You made some good arguements concerning Mohler and why you feel he is not the man for the job of SBC President.
I have one issue with one of your assertions however, you said:
"Mohler is a member of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, where he serves as a "teaching pastor" and a Sunday school teacher. The church contributes 3.3 percent of its $5 million in undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program and nothing to the SBC's two mission offerings according to Baptist Press."
Does membership in an organization that has a contrarian policy of one sort or another reflect negatively the individual or the organization?
Let's spin it this way. You are a trustee of the IMB and it has developed divisive guidelines and policies over the last couple of years. Do these actions reflect negatively on you as an individual trustee? You have been very vocal in your opposition to these policies, guidelines and decisions. You are still, however, as stated in this post, a trustee appointed by the convention. But then again you are a member of the IMB. So are you part of the solution or the problem? I know your answer would be that you are part of the solution.
You assertion would only be valid if it is known that Dr. Mohler is the one responsible for boycotting the LMCO and AAEO. Could it be that he is a staff member of a church that voted to not participate in the offerings?
So that we can be certain, you under no circumstance will be running for the President of the SBC? A yes or no answer will suffice :-) There is no buttermilk or cornbread required.
Bill Scott
Whether or not Al Mohler was a Fundamentalist five minutes before the pivotal 1979 vote at the SBC meeting, I understand that he volunteered himself as same when the CR began gathering stovewood to burn Roy Honeycutt and Hershel Hobbs. If he lined up with the Fundamentalists then, let him be proud of being one now.
At San Antonio, it sure looked like he wanted himself to be spoken of in the same breath as Dr. Paige Patterson. He's obviously proud of finding jobs for his Fundamentalist acolytes, just like Dr. P.
Wade,
Its been a while, and I hope your family enjoyed a great holiday!
Like you, I have great admiration for Al Mohler; probably more so, given he was my seminary president, and like annonymous above, I have a great appreciation for the work he did in bringing Southern back to its roots. That said, I appreciate how you have expressed your reticence to a Mohler SBC presidency with much grace.
Personally, I'm simply not sure how I will vote this coming June, primarily because I have no idea who else will be a candidate, but I would like to respond to the points you make against Mohler:
1. Fundamentalism; I think he's "guilty as charged" and, just as I, would be proud to wear the label. I also believe you should look at some of his positions more closely. For example, I happen to personally agree with his position regarding "intentional childlessness," not based on a series of proof-texts, but rather, based upon what he and I both believe to be clear Scriptural principles that would lead one to conclude that Mohler is right on this point. I also believe you and others have the right to disagree (after all, this isn't in the BFM), but there is a difference between making a strong argument about something in which you passionately believe (which Mohler has done in regard to this issue) and claiming that those who disagree can't be a part of the SBC (which he hasn't done, at least not on this issue). That said, I would say his theological positions alone are not reason to deny him the Presidency. I disagree strongly with Frank Page's view of Calvinism, which he strongly states in his book of a few years ago, but he still got my vote.
2. View of Authority; You may have something here, although I will leave room for the possibility that he wasn't "thumbing his nose" at the churches, but instead, interpreting the Garner motion in a different way than you and I did.
3. Conflict of Interest; You nailed it, and I must admit that there is absolutely no way of escaping this one. Should I decide on another candidate, this would probably be the most compelling reason to do so. Plus, since we are a "convention of churches," I'm always more comfortable with a local church guy at the helm.
4. CP Giving; I'm not sure we should hold an individual church member responsible for the percentage his church gives to the CP. When I served two years ago appointing the committee on nominations, we were strongly encouraged by our committee chairman to select candidates whose church reached a base "threshhold" of at least 3%, and Highview is just above that mark. In the end, I'm not sure how much of a difference that will make. Personally, I think there is much more to this issue than simply how much money went to the CP. At the same time, $0 to Lottie and Annie is troubling, although again, I'm not so much troubled by Mohler in regard to this as I am by the church as a whole.
Since you know two others will be nominated, any idea on when the rest of us might know who they are? :)
Questions:
If a Southern Baptist congregation does not make any special emphasis on the LMCO or AAEO, but an individual member of the church is aware of those offerings, could not that individual designate a gift to either offering? And if that individual did so, wouldn't the church pass it along, and the church's giving report would then indicate the amount of that gift?
Is it possible for an individual to contribute to either offering directly, rather than through their local congregation? If so, would there be any record of that individual's gift?
Bill Scott,
Yes.
Joel,
Well stated. Blessings to you and your family as well.
I agree with you to a point. My issue is not that Al believes that intentional childlessness is rebellion to God for himself and his wife - that is his God-given and soul-driven rightful conclusion to which he and Mary have arrived.
My issue with Al (and possibly you) is that Al or you would tell me - or my church member - or my sister - or my brother - or any other child of God that IF they were to choose to be intentionally childless that they would be in moral rebellion to God. The issue quite simply is that I resist anyone pronouncing something for another Christian that the Scripture does not clearly spell out as sin - and you would be hardpressed to identify intenional childlessness as sin for other people (again, if it is your conviction, for your life, then I affirm it as sin for you). This is fundamentally the difference between commandments from God and convictions of men. We fellowship around conformity to commandments from God, but division and separation arises when men demand conformity to their personal convictions by all others. Those who desire to do this will constantly seek to change the BFM and SBC agency policies to bring about such conformity.
If you wish to continue to press the issue of intentional childlessness on others - where do you stop?
If a young couple intends to be intentionally childless for five years and then the wife has cancer and unintentionally can't have kids in the later years of marriage, did she sin in the first five years?
Does that mean that anyone who intentionally prohibits the insemenation of his wife through the use of contraception is in moral rebellion against God?
Are contraceptions considered as evil and sinful as abortion?
If I desired to be Roman Catholic and submit to papal bulls based upon the opinions of someone who thought his convictions were on par with Scripture I would not be a Southern Baptist. The issue for me is that we do not need anyone in leadership who looks for ways to demand Convention conformity to his personal convictions
Thanks for writing Joel. I do wish you the best.
In His Grace,
Wade
Justa Believer:
Yes. If Al Mohler had given one plug nickel to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering through his local church, that church is bound to forward that nickel the IMB. In such an instance, there would be a reported $.05 gift to the LMCO on the ACP.
Apparently no member of Highview Baptist Church contributed to the LMCO through the church's offering. Either that, or Highview's ACP is inaccurate.
If Al Mohler has given a gift directly to the LMCO by either forwarding it to the IMB in Richmond or the ExComm in Nashville directly, then there would be a record of that gift. Of course, such a record would not be a PUBLIC record unless Al Mohler chose to publicize his LMCO giving record.
BSC
One more thing...
Robert Jeffress assures us that Al Mohler is able to "motivate Southern Baptists to unite around cooperation for global missions and evangelism."
I am confident that Al Mohler's personal commitment to missions and evangelism can be easily demonstrated by his giving record to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering.
I hope Al Mohler will put this issue to rest once and for all and disclose this pertinent information so that Southern Baptists don't have to listen to the dubious conjectures of anti-Mohlerites who go about fearmongering over his Calvinism.
Years ago, in 1989, SBC President Jerry Vines required that all entity leaders include a personal testimony of soul-winning in their reports to the annual convention. I hope Al Mohler will soon testify about how the Lord has burned a soulwinner's passion into the fabric of his own ministry.
BSC
Thanks for the reply Wade.
Regarding intentional childlessness, the points Mohler has made, as I have heard them, don't relate to wisely planning your family, and thus, the couple who waited five years in your illustration above, are not the "targets" of his position.
Also, my own practice in this regard would be to counsel a couple considering marriage, and challenge them concerning this issue if I discovered that either or both had no desire for children. Personally, I would not make this a public issue, or point out people individually. At least, that has been my practice. At the same time, children are a gift from the Lord, and I am compelled to ask why a couple would not desire one of God's greatest gifts.
Furthermore, in our own cultural context, this issue has more, I think, to do with materialism than anything else. My experience in ministry has been that couples who are reticent to have children are so because they would rather drive a nicer car and take exotic vacations than stay home with a baby. It is this attitude that I think needs confronting, albeit in a humble and confidential way.
Since your post doesn't relate to this, I'll shut up about it. But I just wanted to clarify where I'm coming from. I would never approve of a measure that would barr potential missionaries from service over this issue.
But again, I'm one of those "extremists" who thinks the BFM2000 is enough, and will subsequently help lead the SBC into radical charismatic and liberal eccumenical days! :)
Have a good weekend.
Thanks Joel.
You too.
Wade,
Although I'm finished talking about the issue here because the post needs to stay on point, I think we'd all have a lot of fun if you would write a post on this issue so everybody can chime in.
What fun that would be. :)
I'd be happy to do a point, counterpoint with you at some time - though after your clarifications in this stream I think we may find ourselves making the same points.
:)
Ben said,
"I am confident that Al Mohler's personal commitment to missions and evangelism can be easily demonstrated by his giving record to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering."
Ben, you have got to be kidding. An individuals personal commitment to missions and EV can be easily demonstrated by his giving to LM and AA? Sounds extrabiblical to me. Surely you and Wade do not really mean that--or do you?
Mike
Imagine my lack of surprise when quoting self disclosed financial statements doesn't meet Bart Barber's level of acceptability. Imagine my further lack of astonishment when Bart postulates that a similar personal situation would disqualify Wade from even speaking about Al Mohler's church relationship and their giving or lack thereof - even though Wade is not running for President. Imagine my lack of perplexion as Bart focuses only on this issue, as if it were everything, and completely ignores the conflict of interest issue.
The conflict of interest issue is enough. It is inappropriate to be in a position to influence the appointment of your own Board. It is inappropriate to be in a position to influence for your own betterment the organization that you are supposed to serve, e.g. the Seminary Offering.
It is a fallacy to say, however, that the critique of Mohler's association with a church that gives in a particular way is disallowed because of any personal position of the one offering the critique. The truth of the statement is inherent, and not based on anything to do with Wade.
My church gives over 15% (CP+Association+LMCO/AAEO+church efforts). Am I allowed to critique the issue?
I can imagine that Bart will not be shocked to learn that I don't care whether he thinks I can or can't (or Wade can or can't).
As to the issue of intentional childlessness, I don't want to belabor a point that Wade seems ready to put to bed, but is not a good wife a gift from God as well? Many Scriptures reveal the value of a good and godly wife. Is it therefore a sin not to marry?
This is a relevant point. If it is a sin to be intentionally childless because we are standing in the way of raising God's children, then we are immediately taken to the point that to prohibit conception at anytime is sinful, because we stand in the way of raising the potential child of God. We are immediately at the Roman Catholic position on contraception.
Which is fine if that is where you are, but to proclaim such as the head of the SBC is considerably problematic for many reasons. I'll leave them all for another time, as I think most of the pertinent ones are obvious.
Mike:
You must have recently stumbled across my writing style. Leaving people wondering what I mean is not a frequent indictment raised against my comments. So I'll let you linger and wrestle through what I meant.
I will, however, amplify my thoughts on this issue.
Of course you cannot tell if a man is concerned for missions and evangelism by the dollar amount of his gift to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Neither can you tell much about a man's commitment to evangelism by the passionate plea for soulwinning he makes on conference platforms or the endless "testimonies" he offers of leading some airplane passenger in the Sinner's Prayer.
I am of a mind that all such "standards" for adjudicating the suitability of any candidate for convention office are artificial and unproductive.
I'll take it one step further.
If I thought that electing another president to promote "missions and evangelism" was needed, I suppose I would propose that Al Mohler pledget to paint a tour bus and travel the country on a Million Baptism campaign, blowing shofarim all the way.
Whether or not Al Mohler has led one person to faith in Christ in the last twenty years, or twenty persons in the last one year is of no consequence to me. It is undeniable that Al Mohler is a great -- and I mean truly great -- seminary president.
Whether or not Al Mohler has given ten dollars or ten thousand dollars to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering doesn't matter to me either.
Whether or not Al Mohler has ever purchased a condom, spanked his children, drank a glass of wine, smoked a cigar, yelled at his wife, driven above the posted speed limit, flared his temper at professors, watched an R-rated movie, overeaten, or gossiped about his fellow denominational leaders is of no consequence to me in deciding how I shall vote in Indianapolis.
Mohler is a sinner who probably understands the nature and effect of sin better than those who would accuse him. If there are substantive reasons to deny Mohler the office to which he aspires, they will arise in time. If his ideological commitments are inconsistent with the direction of Southern Baptists, we shall know come June. He's written millions of words and spoken millions more. Most of them are available for public consumption. It doesn't appear that he's hiding much, though I readily confess that many of those charged with the responsibility to elect our next SBC president have little chance of understanding what Mohler says or the implications thereof.
Nevertheless, I am not convinced that electing Al Mohler would be harmful to the Southern Baptist Convention. Neither am I convinced that electing him would be helpful.
Lump me in with the mass of Southern Baptists who are watching and waiting, pondering and praying.
As for your statement about Wade's and my not believing something....
I wasn't aware that Wade had said anything at all about Mohler's giving to the LMCO? We do not, as you may know, always see things from the same perspective or share a resolve to address issues the same way.
BSC
While I disagree with your conclusions, I think it is legitimate to discuss points two and three. I believe, however, there are significant arguments to be made that will answer these objections. Your first point, however, is a complete mischaracterization of Mohler. While he does not need my defense, here are a few counter-points.
1. Mohler is not on a crusade against intentional childlessness, he has spoken and blogged a few times about it. His opinion may or may not be correct, but is neither extra-biblical nor fundamentalist. From reading his article “ Theological Triage,”* I surmise he would place this as a third level issue.
2. Mohler has proved himself as a bridge-builder both within the Convention and without. As merely two examples, his role in finding common ground in missions and evangelism between Calvinist and non-Calvinist Southern Baptists and his close friendship and co-founding of Together for the Gospel with Presbyterian Ligon Duncan and charismatic C.J. Mahaney (as well as Mark Dever) demonstrate his commitment toward both cooperation and evangelism.
3. Mohler is committed to both theological orthodoxy and Great Commission zeal. Any student at Southern can attest to this. In my favorite quote from his two inaugural addresses** is “To those of us on the faculty [of SBTS], if we are not driven to lead our students into evangelism, then we must teach somewhere else. Students, if you think evangelism is something you are called to do at some point in the future, rather than the present—or something that someone else is called to do—go study somewhere else. And beloved, if your theology does not issue a determination to see the glory of God in the salvation of the lost, and see that responsibility as a sacred privilege, then take your theology somewhere else.”
4. The Garner motion, to beat a long dead horse, was inherently flawed. While many who voted for the motion understood it the way it was framed in the debate, the language of the motion does not accomplish what you want. However anyone who voted understood it, the intended meaning of the motion is not explicit in its actual wording. Mohler’s report at the Convention was not a nose thumbing, but a statement (and to some, a reassurance) or how he would apply the motion.
5. Mohler consistently demonstrates graciousness and integrity. I aspire to be like him in this way.
6. Your final statement tells it all:
“We also need a President who will focus on the gospel more than politics. We need a President who will focus more on that which unites us than that which separates us. We need a President who serves the Convention rather than a President who controls the Convention. We need a President in 2008 who will lead us into a gospel resurgence.”
If we are to follow your advice here, then we should elect Mohler.
:-)
* http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-05-20
** http://www.albertmohler.com/documents/TwoInauguralAddresses.pdf
"As to the issue of intentional childlessness, I don't want to belabor a point that Wade seems ready to put to bed, but is not a good wife a gift from God as well? Many Scriptures reveal the value of a good and godly wife. Is it therefore a sin not to marry?"
Excellent point.
This piece by Mohler has been a big topic of conversation in many venues. One question that came up was that Mohler never states in the article if he is talking about Christians specifically or just the population in general. I would think the distinction would have been important to him.
but stating that people are not having children because they want nice cars and exotic vacations is painting with a very broad brush and insulting. I have missionary friends serving in a very dangerous country who have decided not to have children and plan to stay there planting churches in a very dangerous environment. I cannot even write them letters! I guess one could tell them they are in sin...but I agree with Wade that view is extra biblical.
This is where I think Mohler does us a disservice by warring with the popular culture too much. He does sound more like a Pope in these articles sometimes than a humble Christian servant. IMHO.
Joel:
The one former SBTS prof--a single-never-married person with no children--I know who apparently was present when similar comments were made by Dr. Mohler and who has spoken regarding them took the comments made by Al as both unbiblical and unnecessary. As that prof has like credentials and himself heard Dr. Mohler's statements, I have no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.
Dr. Mohler surely reads this blog. Might he chime in to clarify and set all of us straight? I'm willing to hear from him. His defenders here could do all of us a favor and request Dr. Mohler's reply at this site.
As for Dr. Jeffress: I have the utmost respect for him and feel certain he has good reasons for being willing to nominate Dr. Mohler--though I disagree with those reasons.
I think those who supported the Garner motion "understood" the motion in a more "specific" way that taking it for what it literally said. Personally, I am in total agreement with the "intended spirit" of the Garner motion. The problem is that the Garner motion did not really come out and say what its proponents understood it to say.
I think making any type of case regarding Mohler vis. a vis. the Garner motion is weak.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Wade,
Would you please comment on how you see congregational authority as a reason one should not support Mohler for president (due to his disregard of conventional authority in regards to the Garner motion), yet you seemingly disregard congregational authority when discussing the CP giving at Highland and Emmanuel (because you said that you do not consider yourself qualified because your church only gives 5% to the CP)?
I'm with you in saying that Mohler, as an elected official, should submit to the congregational authority of the convention, just as you, as an elected official, have to submit to the trustees. Of course, as you have so eloquently written before, you are both free to have dissenting opinions in your words, yet your actions need to submit to the respective bodies that elected you, and ultimately to the churches that make up the convention that elected you as they submit to the authority of Christ.
With that said, you are a servant of Christ serving at Emmanuel; Mohler is a servant of Christ, serving at SBTS and Highland. As such, you may both be ardent supporters of CP giving and the LMCO, and yet be a leader in a church who does not give a high percentage to either. That's simply how congregational autority works, and why I do not personally believe that congregational CP giving should be the litmus test for the presidency of the SBC.
It's clear from things you have said in the past that you are a strong supporter of CP giving, despite your church only giving 5% to the CP. Couldn't the same be true of Mohler, and shouldn't we stop trying to hold individuals responsible for something that is not their individual responsibility?
On another note, as for those who are asking for Mohler to release all accounts of his personal giving to the LMCO, I think when we give, it's to be done in secret (as much as is possible) and the left hand shouldn't know what the right hand is doing. Therefore, to ask Mohler to lay before the world his record of giving would be asking too much.
By the way,
I'm not a Mohler supporter, and my arguments about congregational authority and CP giving are not because I am supporting him for SBC president.
I personally do not think any entity head should be president due to the obvious conflicts of interest. If Mohler were to step down from SBTS, then I would consider him to be a strong candidate for the position, but as the situation currently stands I would hope that the messengers from my church would not vote for him due to the conflict of interest.
Ranger,
You make a good point.
However, I stand by what I am saying. My church is EXTREMELY mission minded. We just happen to do it through traditional means (5%) and NON-traditional means.
I personally believe a man who has served the SBC, set an example of leading his church to give through traditional means (the CP), should have the honor of guiding the institution we call SBC.
By the way, I AM under congregational authority as a pastor. I am also one of the trustees who has authority OVER the IMB - but the authority is GIVEN to me by the SBC - and cannot be taken away without SBC approval, so it is incorrect to say I am under trustee authority. I am UNDER convention authority as a trustee. The Southern Baptist Convention elected me - not my fellow trustees. The Convention is my highest authority in terms of my trusteeship - and that is a bylaw principle of both the IMB and the SBC.
In His Grace,
Wade
And still, no one makes a reasonable argument as to why Dr. Mohler should be put into a position tha