You pointed out that historic Virginia Baptists (myself included) were beginning to question whether they should continue to send money to the SBC if they are denied participation. Page's reply to your query struck a welcome chord when he replied, “It's not fair. I would feel the same way. I will make sure that people from both Virginia conventions and both Texas conventions are included.”
But then the responsive chord turned into a sour note when he told you that only those who hold to “scriptural inerrancy” would be considered for appointment to the Executive Committee or nominated to serve as convention board and agency trustees! And he really went off key when he affirmed that persons who do not support the restrictive 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement (which excludes women from ordination) would be excluded from consideration on that basis.
The foregoing interview excerpts seem to give the lie to his expressed desire that his presidency would result in “… strongly broadening the participation—a significant number of new faces in SBC leadership male and female from large churches and small.” So I am sorely disappointed in the prospects for expanding the Baptist tent under Page's leadership. I well remember that Jim Henry, when elected SBC president several years ago, expressed the desire to be an influence for bringing us together—didn't happen!
Let me close on a positive note. I appreciated Page's response to your query about his willingness to work with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. While he did not reply directly, I applaud his statement that “… anybody who is trying to truly reach others for Christ is a brother. I will not be a part of disparaging other believers.” Are you listening, Paige Patterson?
Daniel A. Polk Richmond