Thread: The New SBC President

Happened moments ago...

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28228

Not good.

Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church Woodstock GA, was elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Southern Baptists pick Woodstock's Johnny Hunt as leader

I attended that church for a couple of years before I was enlightened to the Doctrines of Grace.

From the possible nomination of Al Mohler to Johnny Hunt. Sad indeed.

Could some one flesh out why Johny Hunt will be bad for the SBC? Since I'm not in an SBC church anymore, and because Baptist politics are incredibly difficult for us outsiders to fully grasp, this is interesting, but confusing to interpret.

They think it is bad because Hunt is considered "anti-Calvinist" and has made some straw man statements attacking it over the years. But the outgoing president, Frank Page, had previously published a book against Calvinism and most seem to think that he did a good job. At least one prominent SBC Calvinist, Nathan Finn, publicly endorsed Hunt. The SBC President is sort of the public face of the convention and his power is largely through appointments he can make to various denominational entities.

The one Calvinistic man who ran was problematic on a number of issues, in my view, and I would not have voted for him.

So is the SBC president like R.C. Sproul is in Presbyterianism?

(kidding!)

I'm really not sure how much influence the President actually has in the direction of the Convention, with church autonomy and all. That's why it was hard for me to get too excited about the prospect of Mohler being nominated.

If I gave 3.3 million to the Cooperative Program (which is another thread in itself), I could be president of the SBC...

It is a sad day though..

Originally Posted by govols

Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church Woodstock GA, was elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Southern Baptists pick Woodstock's Johnny Hunt as leader

I attended that church for a couple of years before I was enlightened to the Doctrines of Grace.

Johnny Hunt is a member of this Board, if I am not mistaken.

What you SBC'er are missing is that a move like this can galvanize the Founders Movement. The SBC will never be changed from the top down. Al Mohler knew this.

Maybe this will boost the Founders to jettison the SBC that, for the most part, collective treats them like the red-headed stepchild. And, per Rae above, it really doesn't matter who's president. Nor do "resolutions" at the Convention matter. Why? Because they're just suggestions.

Originally Posted by joshua

Maybe this will boost the Founders to jettison the SBC that, for the most part, collective treats them like the red-headed stepchild. And, per Rae above, it really doesn't matter who's president. Nor do "resolutions" at the Convention matter. Why? Because they're just suggestions.

I should've said "power" rather than "influence" in my post above, now that I think about it . . . because a Convention President likely does have a lot of influence in the denomination, at least among the larger churches. For instance, if he sets a convention-wide goal for baptism numbers, it's likely that quite a few churches will try to hit those goals, just because he said so.

Right. But what I meant was the fact that everything is non-binding.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by govols

Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church Woodstock GA, was elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Southern Baptists pick Woodstock's Johnny Hunt as leader

I attended that church for a couple of years before I was enlightened to the Doctrines of Grace.

Johnny Hunt is a member of this Board, if I am not mistaken.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

What you SBC'er are missing is that a move like this can galvanize the Founders Movement. The SBC will never be changed from the top down. Al Mohler knew this.

Can the SBC be changed and still remain the SBC (given it's organization)? IMO, Founders will eventually have to compromise for the sake of "unity" or be encouraged to look elsewhere for fellowship.

Me thinks so too, Pastor Trey.

Originally Posted by Houston E.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

What you SBC'er are missing is that a move like this can galvanize the Founders Movement. The SBC will never be changed from the top down. Al Mohler knew this.

Can the SBC be changed and still remain the SBC (given it's organization)? IMO, Founders will eventually have to compromise for the sake of "unity" or be encouraged to look elsewhere for fellowship.

Unity? Among Baptists?

Founders churches can be a vocal minority within the SBC. Will there be an exodus of Founders churches from the SBC? I'm not sure. Being a Founders church doesn't equate to being a Reformed Baptist. Most of the Founders churches are still quite dispensational, ala Capital Hill Baptist.

Is this any worse than when the SBC said they didn't want their pastors drinking alcohol (never mind this would have prevented Jesus from pastoring in the SBC)?

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Most of the Founders churches are still quite dispensational, ala Capital Hill Baptist.

Cap Hill?? Really??

SBC Founders churches (some are not SBC) will not be affected one iota by the election of Johnny Hunt. SBC Founders churches seek to be an influence in the SBC. Some may leave the SBC, but I highly doubt it will have anything to do with Hunt. Most will stay and seek to continue to be an influence.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Most of the Founders churches are still quite dispensational, ala Capital Hill Baptist.

Cap Hill?? Really??

Ivan, I should qualify my statement. Based on the information I have received the pretribulational/premillennial position is advocated at Capital Hill.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Most of the Founders churches are still quite dispensational, ala Capital Hill Baptist.

Cap Hill?? Really??

Ivan, I should qualify my statement. Based on the information I have received the pretribulational/premillennial position is advocated at Capital Hill.

And includes the teaching on the Rapture.....

I'm not SBC either, so some of this is pretty tentative. Still,

Hunt has a reputation for being an establishment conservative. That means that the SBC will not likely begin drifting left under his watch. It also means that he is probably somewhat less likely to encourage the Tom Ascol's in the Founder's movement. However, I have never heard that he is an enemy of Calvinism, merely an "establishment" conservative who probably does not want to rock the boat.

As long as the flagship (SBTS) keeps churning out Calvinists in the numbers they have been lately, there is still hope for the denomination. Still, if you associate colonial America with Calvinism, pre-Civil War with Arminianism, and the modern period with liberalism, I'm not sure that the Founder's folks have a great shot at turning the SBC back to its roots.

Originally Posted by joshua

Maybe this will boost the Founders to jettison the SBC that, for the most part, collective treats them like the red-headed stepchild. And, per Rae above, it really doesn't matter who's president. Nor do "resolutions" at the Convention matter. Why? Because they're just suggestions.

It does make a difference who the president is, although of course no president is going to turn the SBC Calvinistic overnight or kick the Calvinists out if that is what people are wondering. The Conservative Resurgence that started in 1979 with the election of Adrian Rogers as president is what has turned the Southern Baptist seminaries as well as the convention as a whole away from liberalism. The plan was to elect a succession of conservative presidents so that they could appoint conservatives to the boards of trustees of the seminaries and other denominational agencies and thus reclaim the convention from the so called "moderates" that had the SBC on a trajectory very similar to mainline churches like the PCUSA or UMC, and that's what happened. They were so successful that "moderates" of the Jimmy Carter mindset essentially withdrew from denominational life in the early 1990's and founded their own seminaries and other entities like the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

I'm not SBC either, so some of this is pretty tentative. Still,

Hunt has a reputation for being an establishment conservative. That means that the SBC will not likely begin drifting left under his watch. It also means that he is probably somewhat less likely to encourage the Tom Ascol's in the Founder's movement. However, I have never heard that he is an enemy of Calvinism, merely an "establishment" conservative who probably does not want to rock the boat.

As long as the flagship (SBTS) keeps churning out Calvinists in the numbers they have been lately, there is still hope for the denomination. Still, if you associate colonial America with Calvinism, pre-Civil War with Arminianism, and the modern period with liberalism, I'm not sure that the Founder's folks have a great shot at turning the SBC back to its roots.

SBTS is not the only seminary that is graduating Calvinistic and Calvinistic leaning men, but it gets the most notice since Mohler is the president, it is the flagship seminary and it has the more prominent faculty.

Your historical associations are probably accurate when it comes to the evangelical scene in general in the USA, but from what I understand (and admittedly I haven't done much in depth research of SBC history) the SBC was more or less Calvinistic until the early decades of the 20th Century.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

I am the president of the SBC!!!!!!!!

At last...

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

I am the president of the SBC!!!!!!!!

At last...

If only it were you.

My church was started by a group of families that left FBCW (Johnny's church) to begin a elder led church that taught the DoG.

Originally Posted by govols

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

I am the president of the SBC!!!!!!!!

At last...

If only it were you.

As I know you, Jonathan, I would praise God if you were president of the SBC!!

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by govols

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

I am the president of the SBC!!!!!!!!

At last...

If only it were you.

As I know you, Jonathan, I would praise God if you were president of the SBC!!

I wouldn't!

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by govols

If only it were you.

As I know you, Jonathan, I would praise God if you were president of the SBC!!

I wouldn't!

I understand! I don't want the position either!!

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Founders churches can be a vocal minority within the SBC. Will there be an exodus of Founders churches from the SBC? I'm not sure. Being a Founders church doesn't equate to being a Reformed Baptist. Most of the Founders churches are still quite dispensational, ala Capital Hill Baptist.

I could be wrong, but I have attended CHBC several times, have one friend who was an intern there, and have another friend who church planted in D.C. with their support. I believe they told me Dever is A-Mill. His NT overview book Promises Kept would probably say definitively.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Most of the Founders churches are still quite dispensational, ala Capital Hill Baptist.

Cap Hill?? Really??

Ivan, I should qualify my statement. Based on the information I have received the pretribulational/premillennial position is advocated at Capital Hill.

Advocated by the elders including Dever?

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Founders churches can be a vocal minority within the SBC. Will there be an exodus of Founders churches from the SBC? I'm not sure. Being a Founders church doesn't equate to being a Reformed Baptist. Most of the Founders churches are still quite dispensational, ala Capital Hill Baptist.

I could be wrong, but I have attended CHBC several times, have one friend who was an intern there, and have another friend who church planted in D.C. with their support. I believe they told me Dever is A-Mill. His NT overview book Promises Kept would probably say definitively.

Charlie, I pray I'm wrong. I had to amend my post to say that this is what I've heard. If anyone can provide clarification I would be appreciative.

I would say that the "Founders churches" tend to be all over the map on eschatology. The more "Reformed" ones in the sense of subscribing to the 1689 will tend to be amil. Others may be dispensational while others may be historic premil. It's possible that a handful of pastors may even be postmil, although this position is quite rare among Baptists today.

Remember that all that is required to be listed in the Founders directory is a desire to be listed and someone submitting the information. Subscription to the 1689 is not required on the part of individuals or churches. In some cases the pastor and his immediate family may be the only ones who know about the listing and who know about the pastor being a "Calvinist" etc. I'm pretty sure that's how it was with a church that was about 25 miles from where I used to live.

As someone on the outside looking in on this,

realizing the Southern Baptist denomination plays a large and important part in the body of Christ,

Can someone clarify whether the new president will set a tone:

1) more or less in the direction of Scripture
2) more or less in the direction of the (Reformed) doctrines
3) more or less in the direction of evangelism

From the Capitol Hill Baptist core seminar on eschatology:

I think it would be safe to say that our church leaders fall somewhere on or between amillennialism and classic premillennialism.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I would say that the "Founders churches" tend to be all over the map on eschatology. The more "Reformed" ones in the sense of subscribing to the 1689 will tend to be amil. Others may be dispensational while others may be historic premil. It's possible that a handful of pastors may even be postmil, although this position is quite rare among Baptists today.

Remember that all that is required to be listed in the Founders directory is a desire to be listed and someone submitting the information. Subscription to the 1689 is not required on the part of individuals or churches. In some cases the pastor and his immediate family may be the only ones who know about the listing and who know about the pastor being a "Calvinist" etc. I'm pretty sure that's how it was with a church that was about 25 miles from where I used to live.

Originally Posted by Scott1

As someone on the outside looking in on this,

realizing the Southern Baptist denomination plays a large and important part in the body of Christ,

Can someone clarify whether the new president will set a tone:

1) more or less in the direction of Scripture
2) more or less in the direction of the (Reformed) doctrines
3) more or less in the direction of evangelism

1) less, due to the whole "we changed the method but not the message" approach. The method should be scriptural as well as the message.

2) less, Johnny Hunt is not a fan of Calvinists

3) more emphasis, but only in regards to numbers. SBC numbers are way down.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I would say that the "Founders churches" tend to be all over the map on eschatology. The more "Reformed" ones in the sense of subscribing to the 1689 will tend to be amil. Others may be dispensational while others may be historic premil. It's possible that a handful of pastors may even be postmil, although this position is quite rare among Baptists today.

Remember that all that is required to be listed in the Founders directory is a desire to be listed and someone submitting the information. Subscription to the 1689 is not required on the part of individuals or churches. In some cases the pastor and his immediate family may be the only ones who know about the listing and who know about the pastor being a "Calvinist" etc. I'm pretty sure that's how it was with a church that was about 25 miles from where I used to live.

Actually, to be listed with the Founders a church has to have, at a minimum, a pastor who agrees with one of 4 historic confessions listed there.

Originally Posted by mshingler

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I would say that the "Founders churches" tend to be all over the map on eschatology. The more "Reformed" ones in the sense of subscribing to the 1689 will tend to be amil. Others may be dispensational while others may be historic premil. It's possible that a handful of pastors may even be postmil, although this position is quite rare among Baptists today.

Remember that all that is required to be listed in the Founders directory is a desire to be listed and someone submitting the information. Subscription to the 1689 is not required on the part of individuals or churches. In some cases the pastor and his immediate family may be the only ones who know about the listing and who know about the pastor being a "Calvinist" etc. I'm pretty sure that's how it was with a church that was about 25 miles from where I used to live.

Actually, to be listed with the Founders a church has to have, at a minimum, a pastor who agrees with one of 4 historic confessions listed there.

That's true. They are the 1st and 2nd London Baptist Confessions, the New Hampshire Confession and the Abstract of Principles.