Honestly, say this with a straight face. What are you waiting for?

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Making a Mound Out of a "Mohl" Hill

This post has been removed. It has not been removed out of fear, by demand, or because I've changed my mind, but because I've decided that I want my blog to focus on other things . . . for now. This topic may come up later, but for now it must bid you adu.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mohler did not bring the "abstract" "back in." The abstract had always been in place at Southern. The Professors had always signed it. Professors simply signed it and did were not honest about believing it.

How exactly will Mohler narrow the parameters farther than the BF&M 2000? Has he stated that he would like the "Abstract" in place for the convention? He had the opportunity to make the BF&M more like the abstract when he was on the committee to revise the BF&M yet he did not do it. Do you honestly believe that Mohler would be able to "Calvinize" the convention in the year he might be President?

he's only chasing safety said...

Last month I chose to change my blog to allow anonymous comments. Since then there have been several, and while I will continue to allow them to appear (since not everyone who reads my blog has a blogger account), I will no longer reply to anonymous comments. Please feel free to attach your name to your comments and I will be happy to discuss this post further.

Double Click said...

Kiel,
While I was not the one who posted the "anonymous" post above, I am nevertheless curious to hear your response to the questions raised by our nameless friend. He (or she) may lack courage, but he certainly doesn't lack insight. In fact, both of you made some pretty good points worth considering.

he's only chasing safety said...

The idea is that in the time before Mohler, although the abstract existed, it was not used as intended. Therefore, Mohler brought it back in so to speak (and rightfully so) when he came to be president.

As far as BF&M parameters, why did Mohler respond as he did to last year's Garner Motion? Does he truly believe that he is "above" the convention? I certainly hope not, but his reaction is more than enough reason for me to believe that he would be more than happy to "narrow parameters" as he sees fit.

I truly admire Al Mohler. And as president of Southern Seminary he can do as he pleases when it comes to applying the Abstract of Principles. But if there's a chance of him bringing this same theology into the Convention, there needs to be serious discussion as to how far we are willing to go beyond the BF&M. And in my opinion, there should be no "going" at all.

Anonymous said...

Those opposed to Mohler's nomination have offered several arguments as to why he should not be President. Perhaps the strongest argument so far has been that it would be a "conflict of interest." This seems to be a bit overblown. The SBC President simply does not have enough appointing power to significantly influence the boards of any given SBC entity.

The SBC President appoints a "committee on committees" who serve a one year term. The "committee on committees" appoints the "committee on nominations" who subsequently appoint the entity boards. The boards of the individual entities rotate ten percent of their members off every year. In short if Mohler were to be elected for two years he would not have a significant impact upon the trustee board of Southern. The argument that this is a great conflict of interest is exaggerated at best. The convention is set up in such a way that one president cannot change the structure or theological stance during his terms.

Your Friend
Dave Kerr (above anonymous poster)

Anonymous said...

Mohler's election would be good for those in the Reformed in the Convention. But not because he is going to push his brand of Calvinism. His election would be good in the sense that he is an intelligent, articulate Calvinist who is also concerned about sharing the Gospel.

I think his election would alleviate much of the fear about Calvinism in the convention. It would "build bridges."
Dk

Dave said...

Sorry to post anonymously the first time I got a blogger account.

he's only chasing safety said...

I'm more than sure that there are other strong Calvinist leaders in our convention that could be just as strong of an influence. It seems to me that Mohler is just the kind of Calvinist that our Armenian brothers love to hate - and I'm not saying that's a bad thing as far as Mohler is concerned.

Besides, I think Calvinism is beside the point. I'm not concerned with our next president "Calvinizing" the convention or even that concerned with making sure that every member of the SBC is "okay" with Calvinism. Like it or not, that's just not going to happen. What we need is a leader who can work with all sides to make sure that among all Southern Baptists, the focus stays the same. If that man turns out to be Mohler, then I apologize in advance. As for now though, I'm convinced that it needs to be someone else.

Dave said...

Do you have any suggestions as to who the next president should be? Why do you think Mohler could not work well with all sides currently in the convention?