Southern Baptist Convention presidential candidate J.D. Greear refuses interview with Louisiana Baptist state paper

What's up with Southern Baptist Convention presidential hopeful, J.D. Greear, refusing an interview with Will Hall, Editor of Louisiana's Baptist Message? According to Hall

Despite making an appointment for a phone interview and after a substantive conversation, J.D. Greear declined to participate in a live question and answer session with the Louisiana Baptist Message about his run for the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention.

James David "J.D." Greear is lead pastor of The Summit Church, a mega-church in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina. Greear also is Visiting Fletcher Professor of Missions at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest.

On March 2, 2016, Baptist Press announced Greear as the first candidate to be nominated for president of the Southern Baptist Convention when it meets in June of this year. A week after Greear's announcement, Baptist Press announced Tennessee pastor, Steve Gaines, would also be nominated (another candidate, Louisiana pastor, David Crosby, more recently became the third and more than likely, only other viable presidential candidate).

Hall went on to explain in part why Greear evidently denied the Baptist Message a formal interview:

Greear expressed displeasure about an article the Message published about a controversy that emerged in social media among SBC leaders, including serving and retired International Mission Board trustees, regarding a campaign video for Greear which featured a two-second clip by IMB President David Platt. 

If I'm understanding correctly, since Greear was disappointed in the way the Baptist Message handled an earlier article which involved Greear, he felt no obligation to submit to an interview.

If so, this speaks volumes, at least to me, whether Greear can handle a volatile, gotcha-moment mainstream media that would love to make the Southern Baptist Convention look like an A-#1-Basketcase denomination any chance it gets. If Greear cannot speak "on camera" so to speak with one of Southern Baptists' oldest and most reputable denominational papers, how can Greear honestly expect Southern Baptists to trust him to speak publicly for them to a rabid, and in many ways, hostile media? 

God offered sobering counsel to His weeping Prophet that might just be especially sobering to Greear. Jeremiah asked why the wicked prospered and the treacherous are so happy:

Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously? (12:1)

YHWH's response is probably not the response Jeremiah expected:

If you have run with the footmen, and they have wearied you, Then how can you contend with horses? (12:5a)

In short, God seemed to be saying, if you think it's bad now, just wait; it's getting worse. If you can't keep up when men sprint, how are you going to keep up when the cavalry arrives?

If Greear can't speak to our denominational papers before he's president of the Southern Baptist Convention--or even worse, can but won't speak to our denominational papers before he's president of the Southern Baptist Convention--why should he expect Southern Baptists to entrust him to speak for them to mainstream media as president of the Southern Baptist Convention?

So far as I am concerned, if Greear can't run with the footmen before he's president, he can't run with the horsemen after he's president.

Better, in my view, to look toward Tennessee or Louisiana than North Carolina for a convention president who respects all Southern Baptists not just those who happen to fully please him, always agree with him, or strangely coddle him.

 

• Read Will Hall's full article: "SBC Presidential Interviews: J.D. Greear"
• Read the Baptist Message article to which Greear objected: "IMB's Platt denies endorsing Greear for president"
• Watch the controversial campaign video featuring several SBC leaders' cameo appearances, one appearance of which is IMB president, David Platt, who denied in writing he knew he was appearing in a video endorsing Greear as president:

  

Comments

[Scott Shaver]

Its Tricky Pete....Its Tricky.

Not really, what a light-weight.

[Mary]

Also I think the question is "what does this say about JD Greer's willingness to reach out to all Southern Baptists - not just those of his "tribe." It actually shows a very small man committing a very petty act. It also shows how certain factions of the SBC are controlling the message - only certain approved questions are to be allowed. Anyone who follows Pravda on a regular basis can see the vitriol hurled at someone like Rick Patrick for asking unapproved questions.

[peter lumpkins]

Good observations ya'll.

Mary: controlling the message is key in networking strategy. That's been a key component in the success of YRR within the SBC. T4G, TGC, Passion, Desiring God, SGM, et al have been masters at it. But as SGM found, there exists a chink in the network armor. Get them outside their protective hull (i.e. network), fear strikes its match...

[Scott Shaver]

I don't know Lydia, from what I can see, SBC Today has just taken on similar characteristics to PRAVDA as these SBC family conversations heat up. They,re banning, moderating and marginalizing certain content over there now. CR in the context of current struggle is a very sore spot for em right now.

[Scott Shaver]

Greear is touted by his admirers and Platt (aka: didn't know I was doing a political schtick) as the stereotype of a new SB missiology I suppose.

Along with a reduced work force abroad, One wonders how many of 1000 returning missionaries who are led to continue their work will be doing it outside funding and networking with their former SB colleagues?

It is indeed....."tricky"?

[Scott Shaver]

Sorry..previous "Pravda" comment to Mary, not Lydia.

[Mary]

Scott, you're still posting over there aren't you? I didn't really follow the thread where you and was it Tom were rehashing the CR. I'm not up on all that history but from what I know I'm pretty much on the "conservative" side I would bet. I do know in re to current events that the Calvinists thought the whole reason/need for a CR was because the SBC strayed from Calvinism and so the CR was just the beginning of taking back the Convention for Calvinism. That's where the whole Founder's Movement began. It's always funny to me that these young Calvinists who weren't even born yet think that the resurgence of Calvinism is just some natural organic thing because people started reading the Bible.

[Lydia]

J.D. Greear does not need to an interview with them so that is all there is to it. That movement does not think in terms of modeling proper behavior or representing the SBC. I think it is naive to expect to do the right things. They have redefined them. I think Pete is right about their protective hull. I call it the bubble. As long as the money flows and they have adoring fans who hand over money and write rap songs for them, what is the motivation to represent Jesus Christ to people? They have redefined Him, too.

If the money dries up, they will find a stage somewhere.

[Scott Shaver]

No Mary, I've been banned I assume from SBC Today, can't even access the site unless I were to dance around on various ISPs. Locked out, LOL and probably to my spiritual betterment.

Discussing the CR was was got me tossed. Don't know about Tom and KA.

Rick Patrick, Connect 316 and SBC Today post this "About Us" (them).

"We do realize our ideas will often clash with the ideas of others just as certainly as their clash with ours. For this we make no apology for it is good when Christians share what we believe and engage in discussion. On PRINCIPLE, we reject any suggestion that unity can only be fostered if we PRESS THE MUTE BUTTON, muzzle our conversation or simply go away...It is not our desire to DRIVE ANYONE FROM THE FAMILY, but to make certain that we ourselves have a place at the dinner table"

WHAT A CROCK. We don't want to drive anyone away unless they disagree with both us and our Calvinist detractors about the CR and its causes/effects.

"Today and Pravda"....apparently two sides of same Oreo cookie struggling with one another over the creme filling.

And that's how the cookie crumbles.

[Scott Shaver]

Mary, no disrespect but just exactly what was the "conservative" side of that issue? (the CR)

I'm as "conservative" as they come but I don't see a whole lot of "conservation" going on in SBC circles since the CR.

[Scott Shaver]

Certainly didn't see any SBC "conservation" occurring when I was pastoring in the midst of the CR.

I saw the two sides struggling now against each other "In the Name of God" and "For the Bible" struggling at that time against a previous group of baptist brothers and sisters who've long since been symbolically defrocked and marginalized by the two WWF stars still in the ring.

If that makes me "moderate", "liberal", "heretic" whatever....I just think God has a better way. Thought so then (during CR) and still think that way.

[Scott Shaver]

My perspective on the CR in a nutshell, Mary, is simple. Can articulate it without the use of baptist "labels".

The very concept of the CR itself flew in the face of a basic baptist belief in "soul freedom/competency. Regardless of their views and concerns about seminaries or various issues of "theological liberalism", Some men (mostly independents) decided they would become the Holy Spirit for the SBC by utilizing the machinery of politics and yellow journalism.

Here's a little more polish, Mary, on your understanding that Calvinists thought the CR was to bring back the theology of Broaddus/Boyce et al....Their allies knew that about them when they formed the partnership after being warned specifically by a large constituency of SBs at that time that the ultimate dividing line would be Calvinism.

The SBC "CR" continues today with two instead of three baptist players. Only questions remaining to be answered is which one of the two remaining players wins the title belts of "The Gospel", "Christianity", "Inerrancy" and all else good and decent? And, who's gonna pick up the tab for the new reigning champion.