“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.
Well, I think you need to take up this matter with your fellow Baptists then. They clearly seem to think he “leads” them, that’s how they described it when discussing the matter to the media. There was no talk of them electing a meaningless, powerless figurehead with a title for an organization that merely “coordinates missions and seminaries”. Numerous articles on the election of the SBC President say he was elected over 2 or 3 other prominent pastors that were nominated for the job, and that he would focus on growing the SBC nationally. Their website gives him his own page and clearly highlights the President’s personal views and opinions on all sorts of matters — very odd decision if they feel he should not represent the denomination more than any other pastor, and would be completely out of place by doing so.
If you disagree with how the President was chosen and what his role should be, you might indeed consider being a delegate next year. They seem to have a very different vision than you.
Also surprised you claim to have no knowledge of who the SBC President ever was until I mentioned it. I had to google the current guy, but the last one was the first black President in the entire history of the SBC, so it received lots of news coverage. I didn’t comment on the matter at the time because I’m not a fan of sneering at the choice of other religious denominations and telling them how much their leader sucks. Perhaps I should rethink that policy.