I’m not up for another Conservative Resurgence kind of denominational war where the lines are drawn, candidates are classified, willing nominees are prearranged, and votes are sought for “our guy” and not the other guy.

I’m not up for a system where there is a Calvinist candidate and a Traditionalist candidate and no other candidate who is not pigeonholed as one or the other.

I’m not up for a fight over every nomination where there is a Calvinist nominee and a Traditionalist nominee for and where success is judged by getting “our” trustees confirmed.

My view is that there are rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, church-destroying, denominationally toxic Calvinists that ought not to be hired, called, elected, appointed, and sometimes even listened to.

My view is that there are rigid, crusading, myopic Traditionalists that ought not to be hired, elected, appointed and sometimes even listened to.

I had thought that recent elections were mostly non-partisan but if there is any signal that we are in a denominational war again, and maybe I’m too naive to have not concluded this already, the issue might be what is stated here:

My understanding is that the Trustee appointments made by Steve Gaines did not at all continue the trend of installing those friendly toward Calvinism. However, this matter of influencing the Trustee Boards requires Presidential control for a number of consecutive years. We will need to elect another strong Traditionalist like Steve Gaines, and then another, and then another, and then another, in order to turn this ship around.

This is, not surprisingly, Trad point man Rick Patrick whom I like but with whom I often disagree. Surely there is some denominational future envisioned where Cal or Trad is not the simple, mindless binary choice.

Have past trustee appointments exhibited a deliberate trend towards being friendly to Calvinists and, conversely, unfriendly towards Traditionalists? I don’t recall seeing Cal/Trad scorecards for trustees.

The warm fuzziness and goodwill of Christmas is past so let’s contemplate potential rancor for the 2018 Annual Meeting in Dallas.

If J. D. Greear is willing to be nominated, I’d certainly vote for him. No one has earned a first refusal of the SBC presidency and I am weary of megapastors but his action of 2016 was a splendid example of what we need in the SBC. Just in case, have the militant Trads already recruited some prominent Dallas-area or Texas megapastor who is a Traditionalist because the denominational ship needs not just a few degrees change in heading but an 180 degree turnaround?

Well, I hope not but if words have meaning, I don’t know why we all shouldn’t expect it. (One caveat: words haven’t always had meaning when written by my old Alabama friend leaving one with hopes that the paragraph above is just mindless blather.)

Is it to be, “here we go again,” or merely, “we have our preferences but let’s work together for the Lord.”

Guess we will see.

Share this: Email

Twitter

Facebook

WhatsApp



Like this: Like Loading...