Well, here's their comment on his election as President:
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological seminary, had praised the Arkansas pastor, whom he nominated, as "dependable" and "faithful" and someone who will "lead all Southern Baptists and lead them well," during his nomination address to messengers prior to the voting.
If has zero power to lead them and "just another pastor", they don't seem to think so when they nominated him. Take it up with Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. It seems they go through a lot of trouble to give someone a meaningless figurehead title of "President" in the SBC. The Catholic Church has meaningless figurehead titles, but none of them are "President" of the Catholic Church.
He was also completely unopposed when he was up for a 2nd term. If his far-left pro-illegal views aren't shared by most SBC pastors, you'd think at least ONE of them would have challenged him for the title of "President" since he doesn't represent the majority viewpoint of his denomination. Why would you want to honor someone with the title of President who doesn't represent how the SBC feels? Even if it was a figurehead title, I'd choose the person I think best represents the SBC's theological beliefs as a whole:
http://www.bpnews.net/44954/ronnie-floyd-unopposed-as-sbc-president
>> Ronnie Floyd doesn’t speak for Southern Baptists. He can’t. He has ZERO authority over southern baptists. And as I said - he does not and cannot speak for the SBC <<
If that the case, then the SBC really ought to consider removing the "President's page" from their website that highlights HIS beliefs for the national organization. He certainly gets more attention than the other pastors. It seems to imply he speaks for the SBC as a whole. At the very least, if he was "just another pastor", you'd think they'd have a "Pastoral Highlights" on their page featuring a different pastor every week, instead of focusing on the President when his views are irrelevant and don't matter:
http://www.sbc.net/presidentspage/
I also think you're being a bit disingenuous by claiming he's "just another pastor". There are thousands of baptist pastors in this country, I doubt the unknown ones stand much of a chance of being elected President. Floyd is a very well known, prominent baptist pastor (he heads an Arkansas megachurch and is the Duggar family's pastor), which is probably why he was nominated for President. I'm sure "in theory" any ordinary Baptist pastor could be elected President, just as "in theory" any Catholic can be elected Pope, but we know the actual pool of candidates is pretty small when they meet to elect someone.
>> If I meet Floyd, I can and will tell him he’s full of horse poop, and that he’s reading his stupid politics into twisting the Bible and that he ought to be ashamed of himself. <<
Interesting. I agree there, he seems to be even further left than Francis on immigration. I'd probably tell him he's wrong as well. If I met Pope Francis, I'd also likely tell him in person that I don't agree with him that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, and he should consider other viewpoints on the matter because his conclusion is wrong. And if I met Benjamin Netanyahu in person, I'd tell him I'm utterly appalled that his "conservative" government just passed an abortion policy that is further left than the most pro-abortion Democrats in the United States, and he ought to be ashamed they're killing so many Jewish babies when he's coming here talking about preserving Israel for future generations.
That being said, if Floyd was speaking before Congress to blah blah blah about some liberal topic, I'd be respectful for the event and I wouldn't made snide remarks about his denomination or his character, or attack his relationship with God. I'd do the same for the Pope and Netanayu. That's the Christian thing to do in public. See how this works?
“If has zero power to lead them and “just another pastor”, they don’t seem to think so when they nominated him.”
Sorry. The President of the SBC has ZERO authority. That is just the way it is. The SBC exists to coordinate spending for missions and seminaries. Nothing else. It is probably hard for someone used to a rigid church hierarchy to understand having none.
“If his far-left pro-illegal views aren’t shared by most SBC pastors, you’d think at least ONE of them would have challenged him for the title of “President” since he doesn’t represent the majority viewpoint of his denomination.”
Again, you totally misunderstand what the SBC does. There is no authority in being part of the SBC leadership. It exists to coordinate missions and seminaries. The President of the SBC can believe whatever he wants politically. It means NOTHING to member churches or their congregations.
” Even if it was a figurehead title, I’d choose the person I think best represents the SBC’s theological beliefs as a whole”
The theological beliefs of the SBC are set forth here - but no member church has to subscribe to them. Many do, many do not. Some use one of the previous versions:
http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp
Here is what it says about church structure:
” A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. “
Also here:
“Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.”
Please notice: “Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches.”
I’ve been a baptist for over 30 years. I haven’t known the name of the President of the SBC during ANY of those years. I had no idea who held the office this year until you told me. It simply is not relevant to anyone I’ve met. I doubt any of our members could tell you his name.
“we know the actual pool of candidates is pretty small when they meet to elect someone”
WE know no such thing. The vote is done during the Convention. Any delegate gets to vote. I could be a delegate next year IF I wished to go. I’ve never gone and I’ve never cared who was President. He doesn’t speak for anyone besides himself.