The Practical Outworking of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention's Adoption of the Executive Committee's Statement Regarding the BFM 2000
"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."
Adopted by the Messengers of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio, Texas, June 13, 2007.
The above statement, adopted without opposition by the entire Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention this past year, and pulled out of the 2007 Annual Book of Reports for adoption by the entire Southern Baptist Convention, passed by a 58% vote of the voting messengers in San Antonio, Texas.
The trustees of our agencies are elected by the Southern Baptist Convention. The convention cannot 'instruct' autonomous agencies what they can, or cannot do, but I have repeatedly stated that as a trustee of the International Mission Board, I am accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention for my actions on the International Mission Board, for the Southern Baptist Convention elected me, not the board of trustees of the IMB (at least I think: wink). Allow me to review the events of the past year and a half and show how this very important decision by the SBC to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM 2000 has now brought us full circle.
The Beginnings of the Controversy
The controversy at the International Mission Board began in November of 2005, when I questioned the authority of my fellow trustees to implement new doctrinal 'policies' that (1). Rejected Southern Baptist missionaries who possessed a 'private' prayer language, based upon a doctrinal belief that 'tongues' were not a gift given by God to any Christian for private edification, and (2). Rejected Southern Baptist missionary candidates who were baptized in churches, or by individuals, that 'did not believe in eternal security' even though those missionary candidates already were members of a Southern Baptist church that had 'accepted' their baptism, and the candidates themselves were baptized by immersion, trusting Christ alone for salvation.
I asked privately, repeatedly, and eventually publicly the following question:
'Who has given us trustees at the IMB the authority to reject missionary candidates from our cooperating Southern Baptist churches based upon a refusal by those missionary candidates to conform to a specific interpretation of a tertiary doctrinal issue that the only consensus Southern Baptist confession of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, is silent about?
The Tipping Point Is Reached
The post that upset so many people was written in December of 2005, one entitled Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The Battle for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention. The quote that summarizes that post is this two sentence paragraph:
The Southern Baptist Convention, through the trustees of our boards and agencies, is narrowing the parameters of fellowship and cooperation to the point that real, genuine conservatives are being excluded as unfit for service in the SBC.
Our convention hated liberalism twenty years ago and we expelled it from our midst, but at this hour we better hate legalism and Fundamentalism as much as we did the former liberalism or we will find ourselves so fractured and fragmented that we no longer have the ability to cooperate about anything, including missions
Again, the above comment was written a over a year and a half ago, right here on this blog. My feelings have not changed.
A Conservative Foot Soldier Wakes Up From a Ten Year Nap
I was a foot soldier for the conservative resurgence in the early 1980's, driving Paul Pressler around Oklahoma, rallying people to go to Dallas to take back the Bible. I was elected as Chairman of the Denominational Calendar Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1994 and still have framed in my office an original copy of the program of the first Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, in Augusta, Georgia, right beside the 150th Anniversary Program of the 1995 Southern Baptist Convention with Dr. W.A. Criswell, Dr. Herschel Hobbs, and myself on the program. In 1995, I took a decade off from participating in the SBC. My four kids were ages 1 to 8, and I needed to invest time in my family, my church (which was involved in a building program), and my state. During those ten years I served two terms as Vice-President of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and two terms as President. During June, my wife and I would either be on vacation or in Israel, and we only attended the Southern Baptist Convention three times from 1995 to 2005. In other words, I was out of touch with the SBC.
In 2005, when I was contacted to serve as trustee of the International Mission Board, I accepted. I hadn't sought it, but I was honored to serve. During the orientation and first few meetings, I really enjoyed getting to know my fellow trustees and especially the missionaries, but I quickly began to feel like Rip Van Winkle. I had awakened to a convention that in some ways I did not recognize.
The Grand Old Lady Was Being Crippled
For example, I knew that when Dr. Jerry Rankin had been hired as President of the International Mission Board, the fact that he spoke in tongues during his private prayer times, had been raised. However, the chairman of the search committee at the time, Dr. Joel Gregory, had said that Dr. Rankin's private prayer language was not an issue. Dr. Rankin became President of the International Mission Board and quickly became one of the most respected men in our convention.
In 2005, as a new trustee, I was told that it was now deemed best by IMB trustees that Southern Baptist missionaries NOT have a private prayer language. Beside the fact that the sitting President of the IMB would have been rejected as a SBC missionary were the new policies to have been in effect during his interview process years earlier, as an IMB trustee, I felt I needed to know why this new policy prohibiting a private prayer language was needed. I asked for anecdotal evidence that there was a 'charismatic' problem on the field not being properly handled by administration or staff. I asked for the evidence time, after time, after time. I never received it.
Finally, I was told that no anecdotal evidence was needed. This was a DOCTRINAL matter and the board was implementing the policies based upon a doctrinal interpretation that a 'private prayer language' was not Biblical. Of course, I was told that 95% of Southern Baptist churches believed the way the trustees believed, and it was 'our right' to implement whatever doctrinal standard we trustees desired. Of course, now we know, according to an independent survey conducted by Lifeway, over 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believe that a private prayer langauge is a legitimate gift from God.
I affirm every Southern Baptist's right to believe that a private prayer language is not a legitimate gift -- as I do every Southern Baptist's right to believe that a private prayer language is a legitimate gift of the Spirit. What I don't affirm is a board of trustees meeting behind closed doors and adopting a 'doctrinal' policy that exceeds the Baptist Faith and Message, excluding otherwise qualified Southern Baptist missionary candidates from service.
I don't have the time to deal with my problems with the baptism policy except to say it bothered me more than the private prayer language policy. The BFM 2000 is silent on the authority of the baptizer, or the need that the baptism should take place at the hands of one who believes in 'eternal security.' The controversy at the IMB was never about baptism by any method other than immersion, but rather, the demand that the IMB tell churches what was 'an appropriate' baptism in terms of 'who' baptized the church's member. I personally believed the new policy reflected a very strong Landmark tendency - a doctrine that often threatened to divide our Southern Baptist Convention in years past, and wrenched the very important ordinance of Christ from the local church into the hands of a board of trustees of a SBC agency.
Where Were These Demands For Doctrinal Conformity Coming From?
Through various events that I have documented over the last year and a half, including my own election as a trustee of the IMB, I was under the opinion that many of the demands for doctrinal conformity were emanating from our Southern Baptist seminaries, particularly one seminary President who believed that orthodoxy could only be defined by his own personal views on Landmarkism, cessationism, anti-Charismaticism, anti-Calvinism, hyper-dispensationalism, etc . . .
Nothing wrong with these doctrines - unless you begin to demand that every Southern Baptist believes the way you do. My motion to investigate the controversies at the IMB, which was referred back to the IMB by the convention, included requests to investigate the following:
(1). The manipulation of the nominating process of the Southern Baptist Convention during the appointment of trustees for the International Mission Board.
(2). Attempts to influence and/or coerce the IMB trustees, staff, and administration to take a particular course of action by one or more Southern Baptist agency heads other than the President of the International Mission Board.
(3). The appropriate and/or inappropriate use of Forums and Executive Sessions of the International Mission Board as compared to conducting business in full view of the Southern Baptist Convention and the corresponding propriety and/or impropriety of the Chairman of the International Mission Board excluding any individual trustee, without Southern Baptist Convention approval, from participating in meetings where the full International Mission Board is convened.
(4). The legislation of new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. (emphasis mine)
(5). The suppression of dissent by trustees in the minority through various means by those in the majority, and the propriety of any agency forbidding a trustee, by policy, from publicly criticizing a Board approved action
I only point out to you these 2006 recommendations to show that the vote this past Tuesday night at the 2007 SBC was not taken in a vacuum.
What the Adoption of the Executive Committee's Statement on the BFM Means
(1). Any policy or guideline at an agency, that is based upon a doctrinal interpretation that EXCEEDS the Baptist Faith and Message, is not in line with the convention's vote to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM.
Some might argue that the BFM, by the statement itself, is not a COMPLETE statement of faith. As Dr. Mohler said today, it is not sufficient for the hiring of seminary professors.
I agree. There are some agencies, like seminaries, that need tighter, narrower, and more defined confessions - like the Abstract of Principles. The Convention has already approved the Abstract for Southern and Southeastern (not to mention it predates every BFM), but if Southwestern Seminary were to desire to 'tighten' her institutional confession, the proposed doctrinal confession would need to be voted upon by the convention as a whole.
(2). If trustees of any agency, particularly convention wide agencies like the International Mission Board or the North American Mission Board, were to refuse to abide by the convention's wishes of not demanding conformity on doctrinal interpretations not found in the BFM, then those trustees should be answerable to the convention -- since the convention elected them.
This does not mean there cannot be guidelines or policies that are implemented for moral, ethical or pragmatic reasons (weight, homosexuality, adultery, etc . . .), but new 'doctrinal' guidelines that exceed the BFM 2000 cannot be implemented unless there is a convention-wide consensus.
(3). I am in agreement that any trustee or employee who signs the BFM, but makes known any variance or disagreement with the BFM, should make that known publicly and in writing. The convention, then, has the right to remove that trustee, just as they have the right to remove trustees who do not follow their wishes in NOT establishing new doctrinal guidelines or policies that exceed the BFM.
I have made it known, from the very beginning of my service with the IMB, that I have two very minor disageements with the BFM. Since the 2007 SBC convention voted last night that the BFM was not infallible (thank the Lord for that one), I feel quite comfortable with my wholehearted affirmation of the BFM with only these two very minor disagreements over 'closed communion' (I believe in modified open communion as do many other Southern Baptist pastors and churches) and the innocency of infants until they personally sin (I believe the Bible teaches infants are guilty before they actually sin). Actually, there may be only ONE minor disagreement because I keep having professors tell me the BFM doesn't teach infants are innocent before they sin, but I have a hard time seeing their logic.
But, since all Southern Baptists believe the BFM is a consensus CONFESSION and not a mandatory CREED, then minor disagreements should be appropriate. That, in fact, is the nature of the difference between a confession and a creed.
I have also pointed out three other minor wording problems (the 'Spirit baptizing rather than 'Christ,' making every effort to end war, etc . . . ), but those minor disagreements were not my own personally, but written by Sam Storms and used to illustrate a point over 'minor' doctrines vs. 'major' doctrines of the faith.
Nevertheless, if someone believes that someone, similar to me, can't wholeheartedly affirm the BFM 2000, while at the same time expressing disagreement over closed communion and the innocency of infants, well then, that person ought to make a recommendation for my removal from the International Mission Board.
That's consistent. If you wish to ADD to the BFM -- the convention should make the decision. AND, if someone thinks closed communion is a 'major' and 'primary' doctrine, necessary for Southern Baptist missions and ministry service, then by all means, bring that person before the convention and let the convention decide if they should serve.
I think you will find that the convention will make the decision that this is a minor doctrine, one over which Southern Baptists should not divide. I'm very willing to be the guinea pig in order to show, by living example, the difference between a creed and a confession.
In fact, I was hoping that motion would come from the floor at THIS convention. It would serve well as an illustration between essentials and non-essentials, local church autonomy vs. denominational hierarchy, etc . . . I do not believe closed communion defines who is, or who isn't, a true Baptist.
(4). I do believe everyone in the SBC, on both sides of this issue has a good heart. But, I can't understand why anyone in a position of authority within the SBC would take such a flippant, even careless attitude toward the wishes of the entire convention.
My post yesterday was the strongest post I've ever written. I think I was simply taken back by the attitude and the words I heard by a handful of the seminary Presidents in reaction to the convention's vote to adopt the BFM statement. I am hopeful that in time, a more humble and soft attitude will prevail toward the ultimate authority of our convention -- the majority vote of messengers. Authority does not ultimately reside in the President's office, nor even ultimately even in the boards of trustees, but in the people who put the trustees in place.
(5). Finally, prior to 1979 our convention cooperated for the purpose of missions. Since 1979 the focus has become an attempt at bringing doctrinal purity to our convention. It is now time to refocus on the very reason we became a cooperating convention -- missions!
I am hopeful that the next year will help us refocus.
This post shall be my last one until the weekend.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
posted by Wade Burleson | Thursday, June 14, 2007
210 Comments:
Wade, thanks for standing firm in the midst of ad hominems and other personal attacks from those who stand with the political power players of the SBC.
In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb
Sorry I edited this after your response.
Wade, you said,
“This does not mean there cannot be guidelines or policies that are implemented for moral, ethical or pragmatic reasons (weight, homosexuality, adultery, etc . . .), but new 'doctrinal' guidelines that exceed the BFM 2000 cannot be implemented unless there is a convention wide consensus.”
The present IMB policy is that divorced people cannot be appointed as career missionaries. This policy involves a doctrinal issue (not just a moral issue) that is not covered by the BF&M. (Some SBC churches and individuals believe it is okay for divorced people to serve as pastors, deacons, and career missionaries.) How would you deal with this issue? Would you ask for a convention vote on whether the IMB should appoint divorced people as IMB missionaries?
My understanding is that the old IMB policy on tongues was that those who spoke publicly in tongues could not serve as missionaries. This policy involved a doctrinal issue that was not covered by the BF&M. I know that you do not like the new IMB policy on tongues, but apparently the old IMB policy would now be unacceptable to you as well. Would you ask for a convention vote on whether the IMB should appoint public tongue speakers as IMB missionaries?
The EC statement on the BF&M says that it is both incomplete and sufficient. My interpretation of the EC statement is that the BF&M is sufficient to guide in what it addresses but insufficient to guide in what it doesn’t address. Your position seems to be that the BF&M is sufficient to guide even in what it doesn’t address; in other words, if it doesn’t address a particular doctrine, then that doctrine should not be addressed at all, unless the convention approves it. Am I understanding you correctly?
Bro. Wade, on the other thread you said you would answer definitively the question "Would you say that the BFM tells us that a Southern Baptist is one who observes closed communion?"
I understand your answer is "I do not believe closed communion defines who is, or who isn't, a true Baptist."
How does that jive with your statement "Don't try to tell us who is Southern Baptist and who isn't, the BFM does that."
You write, "I do not believe closed communion defines who is, or who isn't, a true Baptist." But the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention tells us that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper (close/closed communion).
This kind of comes across the same as you describe the seminary presidents -- "thumbing your nose," saying I don't agree with your statement, and if you don't like it then vote me out of office. Will you agree with the seminaries when they make policies with a "if you don't like it, then you can vote..."? If this is not basically the same, please explain why? Thanks.
Wade...I will say this...you are very good at political spin.
Would you please answer one question for me...Why have you yet to discuss the election of Jim Richards as 1st Vice President? Would we expect such silence from you if David Rogers had of won?
I still contend that all the BFM resolution did today was create more confusion surrounding this issue.
Wade said:
"Finally, prior to 1979 our convention cooperated for the purpose of missions. Since 1979 the focus has become an attempt at bringing doctrinal purity to our convention. It is now time to refocus on the very reason we became a cooperating convention -- missions!"
No offense, but a Southern Baptist liberal from the 1980s couldn't have said it any better.
You can't have effective missions without doctrinal purity! And our Convention is far from having doctrinal purity in place.
Wade, you said,
“I am saying you don't EXCLUDE, by policy, on the basis of new DOCTRINAL guidelines.”
I want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. You would include divorce and public tongue policy under new doctrinal guidelines not covered by the BF&M. So you would not exclude by policy a divorced person or public tongue speaker from serving as a career missionary unless those guidelines on divorce and public tongue speaking are approved by a vote of the convention. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?
Tripp:
As one of those "liberals" (theologically speaking), yes Wade sounds a lot like us. This is not because Wade is a liberal, but because he is opposing the same type of process which drove so many of us liberals out of the Convention during the 1980s. But that war is over, the conservatives (including Wade) won, and those of us liberals left are definitely on the fringe of things. So be it. I expect I will be forced to join some other denomination some time, but I choose to stick it out as long as I can: My home SBC church is my family, and I will not leave without a fight.
But the current debate is not about liberalism, contrary to Dr. Patterson's presentation yesterday. It is about issues such as Calvinism, Landmarkism and soteriology, matters which have never been matters upon which all Southern Baptists agreed. The fact that the different seminaries take differing views on these subjects should be all that is required to admit this point.
The question, therefore, is do we adopt a top-down approach to theology, or do we hold to the traditional Baptist beliefs of the priesthood of the individual and the autonomous local church?
Closely related to this debate is the issue of church-state relations. Since the Conservative resurgence, there has been the temptation to associate the Convention in partisan politics. Whatever one's view of the current political landscape, I think it fair to say that involvement in politics has compromised the integrity of the SBC, with no noticeable improvement in the surrounding culture. Yes, we must attempt to change the world, but becoming a slave to one political party is hardly the way to accomplish it. (By the way, I encourage all Baptists to be active in politics; I am merely suggesting that such action as a Convention is counterproductive).
Famously, revolutions eat their own. I am hopeful that Southern Baptists can focus their attention on reaching the lost, not on battling over the definition of a "true Baptist." Frankly a true Baptist is any Baptist preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Liberals such as myself can do that, and I think that far more important than what I don't do (or believe).
Peace and may the blessings of God be yours.
What continues to astound me is that so many know what I and most all other Baptists believe. How can they know? Where do they get their assumptions?
Since I must assume as Protestants we all believe in the Priesthood of the Believer, how without a survey know can anyone know what Baptists believe?
The recent Lifeway Survey shows how wrong those assumptions can be.
Mr. Vaughn,
I am saying I am more than willing to submit to the convention on this issue.
If I need to be removed as a trustee over this issue, I will go. In fact I WANT the convention to speak on this issue. I WANT the convention to decide if a person can be Southern Baptist and believe in modified open communion.
It will illustrate the definition of a confession that is found in the statement that was adopted.
I believe this is the one area where the BFM is fallible -- but it is a minor area of disagreement.
If the convention disagrees - so be it.
I am a Christian first, Southern Baptist second. And my Southern Baptist Church will have no problem cooperating with other Baptist conventions if we need to do so.
My point is this -- the convention should have the final say on this matter, and I will humbly and graciously submit to their desires.
Kehrsam,
Well said.
Baptist Theologue,
Let me be as clear as I know how. The board of trustees of the IMB have the authority to hire missionaries. On doctrinal matters that exceed the BFM 2000, DO NOT MAKE A POLICY UNLESS APPROVED BY THE SBC AS A WHOLE.
But the board should hire whomever they please.
I will be traveling tomorrow and unavailable to answer any questions.
Rex Ray said…
Tripp,
When Jesus came, did the Jews have “doctrinal purity” with their 600 plus legalistic laws? Did God make men any smarter today as then?
The Jews had God’s laws, but they taught as doctrine the commands of men. (Matthew 15:9)
Don’t you think men do the same today? No? Why do you think Jesus said, “Beware of the teachers of religion.” (Mark 12:38 Luke 20:46)
The commands of men say only men can be pastors, but where is that taught in the Great Commission or a quote from the Bible?
You might say, ‘Oh, that is the way we interpret Scripture”, but is that not exactly what the Jews did?
How is the Bible our doctrinal guideline, when men have made the BFM 2000 our doctrinal guideline?
Is NOT the BFM the commands of men? When something is hard to understand, a guideline makes it clear, and thus it becomes higher/more important, than the original.
Just as religious leaders broaden the hem on their robes, if pride had weight the making of guidelines over Scripture would require wheelbarrows for egos.
Tripp, you say, “You can’t have effective missions without doctrinal purity!”
Can you prove that? Can you prove that Judson didn’t have effective missions because there was no BFM, no IMB, etc. All he had was the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide him.
If Baptists get so tangled up in “doctrinal purity”, that we lose sight of MISSIONS, God may say we’re neither hot nor cold…you know the rest.
I for one am glad that you woke up. Unfortunately, there are others still out there in la la land still sleeping. They are also involved in their little worlds at this time. Too busy to worry about cooperating for missions.
Going through the 'signing of the BF&M2K' and loosing a huge amount of M experience woke me up a long time ago. Some signed and never read the thing. Why? Because they had respect and trusted authority over them. These leaders had yet to fail them, why worry. I am sure this happens to some degree today. Those that didn't sign were very much awake and saw what was on the horizon that you and others have been seeing in the last 2 years. Thank you for stepping up and being a voice for those that can't. Other leaders need to take heed and really, really, care about our mission efforts and start speaking up. I DO NOT BELIEVE that Paige, Al, Jerry, et all are the majority view of our people who support our missionary force. We need those voices to speak up and be heard.
When the BF&M signings ceremonies were brought into the Chapel services at our seminaries for the professors to sign, I thought it disrepectful to God and the time set aside for corporate worship. It's interesting that, something brought into that setting for signing, is now no longer sufficent.
I watched Dr. Mohler via streaming from the other side of the globe. I don't know him personally, never met him, really didn't know where he or the seminary stood on things. I did know that he served in some capacity on the BF&M2K committee. I saw the same thing Wade did, but through different glasses. The man appeared angry and defiant. Rather that was the message he meant to portray, I don't know. But that was how it appeared to me. If this is the model of leadership I need to follow, I need to go somewhere else. PLEASE, someone else lead and get us back on track of sharing and bringing people all over the world into GOD'S Kingdom. We cooperate because of MISSIONS.
I also find it interesting that the only article/blog that I can find at the moment on those that spoke of missions is in The Baptist Standard. Did anyone hear Dr. Rankin? Did anyone hear Dr. Garrison? It seemed that they had to WORK at getting a response from the messengers when they spoke of God intervening and bringing someone into His kingdom. Yet, when Dr. Mohler went on his 'whatever that was", people just clapped and responded greatly. IT'S NOT ABOUT DOCTRINE. IT'S ABOUT THE LOST!!!!!
M with YOUR organization
The talk about 'doctrinal purity' irritates me. God uses us in spite of our foolishness. We all quote Martin Luther and acknowledge that God used him to change the world but no Southern Baptist agrees with half of his theology. No, this talk of doctinal purity is just works righteousness in a poor disguise. I strive to understand the Word and my Lord better so I can serve Him better. I love Jesus and I don't want to think wrong thoughts about Him. But if I do misunderstand- and I am sure that I don't understand Him perfectly- I know that He will continue to lead me into all truth and use me for His glory. But here is the thing: I have found that He leads me into truth as I go on mission with Him. If I stay home and write up doctinal statements this has little benefit to me. As I go out with Him he reshapes me and makes me to be more and more His. This is one of the West's chief discipleship problems. We sit in a class and do a study and think that we are transformed when what transforms us is our obedience. No friends, doctrinal purity will not save the SBC. In fact, we will only find anything close to it when we act in obedience and go on mission with Him.
This reminds me that I was disappointed that no blogger I have found has said anything about the IMB report. Proof that missions are not what we care about? I hope not.
Isn't the resolution a monumental change?
I understand that BFM 2000 takes no stand on errancy and inerrancy. Under it, you can believe in errancy and still be a Southern Baptist. Thus, Huckabee, in the recent Republican debate, could say he didn't know if God created the world in 6-days or not and remain in good standing as a Southern Baptist.
However, I further understand that the Patterson crowd says that you have to believe in inerrancy. They say, as I understand it, that tradition, following the conservative takeover in the 80s, requires inerrancy, even if BFM 2000 doesn't. Errancy is thus heresy. As I understand them, they take the Roman Catholic position that tradition is a source of authority.
The resolution would seem to reject any argument about another source of authority requiring inerrancy. As I would read the resolution, it says you can believe in errancy like Huckabee and still be a good Southern Baptist.
I believe Mr. Huckabee would welcome this resolution.
Isn't this a major change of direction in the SBC? Isn't it almost inviting the liberals back in?
Has anyone read the Global Warming resolution?
It might not be obvious to everyone, but the language in that resolution, especially the part about no limits on CO2 emissions, just happens to track the lines long taken by the ExxonMobil propaganda machine.
Reports,
http://www.pr-inside.com/southern-baptists-question-human-role-r152792.htm
allege that Barrett Duke, Vice President for Public Policy and research with the SBC's Washington-based Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission helped write the resolution. The ERIC office is not far away from the ExxonMobil propaganda headquarters in downtown Washington.
ERIC and Land rose to world prominence for making the Southen Baptists the only major religious denomination supporting Bush's war in Iraq and inspiring people around the world to ask why God told the Southern Baptists one thing and the Pope the opposite.
The line about hurting the poor is a standard DC propaganda line. It rose to prominence when Rupert Murdock used it fighting some changes Nielson wanted to make to its TV rating system that might have negatively impacted Fox. Every PR firm in DC has used it since then.
Was this resolution a public relations coup planned by ExxonMobil aided by Duke and Land and ERIC? Has the SBC been unwittingly used for corporate political propaganda purposes?
I wouldn't doubt that ExxonMobil would take care of Duke and Land for their efforts. I have heard that it is paying $10,000 just for op-ed pieces in regional papers.
This resolution and the involvement of Duke, Land, and ERIC smell like an ExxonMobil refinery all the way back here in DC.
Wade...oh...you are the master of spin...will you please answer this one question...it seems like you avoid it at all costs...
please explain to all us simpletons why you refuse to discuss the price of tea in China?
your silence on this is deafening.
enjoy your breakfast, lunch AND dinner.
Wade,
You wrote:
"The BFM 2000 is silent on the authority of the baptizer, or the need that the baptism should take place at the hands of one who believes in 'eternal security."
I strongly disagree with you here and believe the BFM 2000 teaches that alien immersion should be rejected. Consider the following:
1. The BFM says that baptism is "a church ordinance". It is obvious this is referring to the local church. Baptism is to be administered by a local church and under the authority of a local church.
2. The BFM defines a N.T. church as "an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel." Only Baptist / baptistic churches fit this definition.
If baptism is an ordinance of the local church and only Baptist / baptistic churches fit the definition of New Testament churches, then it follows that alien immersions should be rejected.
Tripp said:
No offense, but a Southern Baptist liberal from the 1980s couldn't have said it any better.
You can't have effective missions without doctrinal purity! And our Convention is far from having doctrinal purity in place.
You're kidding, right?
Who defines what "doctrinal purity" is, or decides when we have achieved it?
Southern Baptists have never attempted to achieved doctrinal purity, and in this life, we never will. The basis of our cooperative mission efforts isn't lining up behind someone's interpretation of doctrinal purity, it's lining up behind the great commission. It always has been.
If doctrinal purity is required for effective missions, then you have to explain why baptisms have been declining and churches all across the SBC are plateaued or declining during the past 27 year emphasis on achieving doctrinal purity. It would seem to me, in view of the evidence, that focusing on doctrinal purity, which is really just focusing on someone's idea of doctrinal purity, is counterproductive to missions.
Ben Stratton,
Welcome, again, my friend. :)
I consider you one of the more polite Landmark Baptists and enjoy our conversations together.
It is because of statements like yours above I am willing to stick my neck out for our convention.
I do not want to be a part of a Landmark Baptist Convention.
And I promise you, I am doing everything in my power to prevent it from happening.
On the way out the door of the hotel. Everyone have a nice weekend.
Wade
P.S. Thanks for the humor Fox.
NOTE TO ALL:
Wade has spun again and refused to deal with my question...oh he is slick...
I mentioned to my wife in 1991, that once all the so-called "liberals" were driven from the SBC, the different brands of "conservatives" would turn on each other like dogs. There were and have been "too many cooks in the kitchen" for many years. It was bound to happen. Here it is.
It continues to amaze me how some always use the battle cry of "liberalism" and wave it in the faces of those who do not conform to their every belief and tactic. Indeed, if what one person who has commented on this blog has stated is true, then the SBC will limp along, battling over every definition of "doctrinal purity" to the detriment of its own mission efforts. As long as legalism prevails under the guise of doctrinal purity, that's all this denomination will ever be known for --its fights and not its mission. Because indeed, its need to have every "t" crossed, and every "i" dotted will be its mission. Welcome to the world of irrelevance. While you battle on over your disputes of doctrinal purity, other Bible-believing, focused upon the essentials, God-fearing, passionate followers of Christ are out there on the battle lines beating with the passion and heart-beat of God. The focus is upon the redemption of mankind. So, have at it! Surely it's worth it to battle over these things for the rest of your days.
Wade, in your reply to me concerning closed communion/art. vii, you stated, "I believe this is the one area where the BFM is fallible -- but it is a minor area of disagreement."
I'd like to ask you to clarify. I understand you disagree with Art. VII, but to say this is "the one area where the BFM is fallible" is confusing. I would say that all of it is fallible (liable to err), seeing it is written by unspired men, however sound, good and sincere they may be.
I personally would never sign the BFM, but I also am not seeking a position in the SBC. Also to sign with caveats while claiming wholehearted agreement seems very strange to me. What is your definition of wholehearted?
IF I CAN BE SERIOUS FOR A MOMENT...
you "haters" (a slang word used by that young generation under 50...) are too much!
1. it is clear that all you do is sift through every word Wade writes...carefully looking for ANY inconsistency...sheesh! I bet Wade has contradicted himself to one degree or another. I bet he has...so what? He is not the Bible guys! Geez! And Wade doesn't have it all figured out...who could stand 100% consistent with people like you sifting through every single word he has ever written? He is a husband, father and pastor AND HE BLOGS ON THE SIDE...good grief...you guys remind me of the Pharisees looking for anything Jesus said to catch Him in a contradiction...um...Wade isn' Jesus. That doesn't make him a full blown, sneaky, slick...hypocrite. STOP TRYING TO "CATCH" WADE...it's getting ridiculous...I honestly think it is an obsession for some of you to find ANYTHING to bring to the comment section with "AH HA! GOT YOU!!!" You supposed contradictions are usually taken out of context…or Wade perhaps miswrote or wasn’t clear enough…and at that even those supposed inconsistencies are rare…give it up…he does this on the side guys…
2. Wade has been clear, concise and easy to understand. Those of you who continue to say that you can't follow his reasoning are either LIARS or STUPID. Just because you don’t agree with him does not mean he is not being clear. That is an aggravating, silly, debate tactic that I get from Roman Catholics all the time.
3. This is WADE'S blog...it works like the Rush Limbaugh show it seems...it's about what WADE is interested in blogging about! You guys that come in here and insist that Wade comment on this or that have some real gall! That's why I made my satirical comment about him refusing to comment about the price of tea in China. This is WADE's blog about what WADE is interested in and about what WADE has something to say about! There are probably 15,000 issues that Wade could comment on...that doesn't mean he has to do so. Ask him questions about his posts...stop coming into the comment section and challenging him to answer questions that he is not discussing.
There is part of me that really hopes that Wade removes this comment section...you guys are making this a real joke. Looking for ANYTHING the guy ever wrote to use as a charge, continuing to insist...over and over and over...that he is not making sense (when in reality he is and you just don't agree with him...those two things are not the same)...and bombarding him with questions about things he is not even addressing is getting VERY old.
I don’t know why Wade puts up with it.
Wade-
You said: "I am hopeful that in time, a more humble and soft attitude will prevail toward the ultimate authority of our convention -- the majority vote of messengers."
Okay, Rip, I think you've gone back to sleep. Dude! Wake up! These people think they ARE the authority in the SBC! They always have!
Go, FOX!!
I agree; when we (You, me, or....heaven forbid, even Wade) have nothing better to do than sift through others writings to fine any POSSIBLE contradiction, for the sole purpose of making those who disagree with use out to be liars or hypocrites, then we have truly lost our minds (and certainly have lost our way from God's purposes).
Just diagree. Argue your points, disagree with Wade, or whomever else you choose. Quit nitpicking!
Charles
Ooops! In that last post I have AT LEAST three typos.
Someone will probably archive that and bring it to my doctoral dissertation defense as evidence of lack of intellectual acumen, I'm afraid!
lol
Charles
Dear Irreverend Fox,
You write: "I bet Wade has contradicted himself to one degree or another. I bet he has..." Then, you write: "You[r] supposed contradictions are usually taken out of context…or Wade perhaps miswrote or wasn’t clear enough…"
You're contradicting yourself. Toward a better day,
With that, I am...
Peter
Wade, I appreciate you explaining your position with more clarity today.
Couple of things:
I'm having difficulty distinguishing between creeds and confessions in this discussion. I've often heard the language of creeds being "prescriptive" and confessions being "descriptive," but if the BFM is descriptive, it is getting more specific than any "prescriptive" creed I've ever seen. In other words, it seems the BFM is prescriptive, particularly for anyone wanting to be in a leadership position.
Other thought: the focus on doctrinal purity, while necessary, has drained the SBC...missions is the way to re-energize.
IFox-Amen and Amen. By the way, I also like your screen name. If I understand the etymology of Reverend it indicates one who is worthy of reverence. Only one man has ever been worthy of reverence, and He is not here physically anymore.
To the fox,
First of all I am under 50 and I don't see all the problems that Wade sees. I was for the Conservative Resurgence and still believe there are theological problems within the convention, but I agree that it is much better than before the 1980s.
Yes, there are Pharisees within our convention who seek to narrow the standards. But there are still moderates who don't believe we EVER had theological problems. Let me quote one, "My home SBC church is my family, and I will not leave without a fight." That is one of the problems, moderates are still fighting and stirring up trouble.
What I don't understand is why you and others feel like you have to defend Wade at every little point. He has a blog site that is public and he is subject to criticism. Fair and unfair. Wade is not infallible and some of the criticism in my estimation is warranted. Besides, good healthy debate never hurt anyone, right?
Jim Pasley:
I am not fighting and stirring up trouble, thank you very much. The only fight I am involved in is the right to stay in fellowship with my home SBC church and the Convention as a whole.
We are not saved by doctrine but by the grace of God the Father and the mercy of Jesus Christ. When we meet in heaven we can then laugh about my heresies, as we shall know the Truth.
I think some responses are in order from me.
1) I stand by my claim that in order to perform missions, you need doctrinal purity. How can you expect to witness to individuals about Jesus Christ and engage them in a discussion of Christian principles when everyone believes something different? If I believe Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father...and you reject that...how can we effectively engage in missions together. It is pointless to engage in missions if the agency performing the mission has no clue what it stands for and believes.
2) Rex Ray...I don't seperate Jesus Christ from the word of God. I believe the word of God is very clear on some of the issues you raised, i.e. women being Pastors. The word of God is not "man made" commandments. We should base all of our doctrinal beliefs on what God's word says. Once again, this discussion has already taken place in the SBC. The mere fact that we have to address this again among supporters of Wade Burleson should make it very clear to all the dangers of what Wade is advocating.
3) Regarding the priesthood of the believer...this ideal is not to be used to supersede Scripture. One does not have a right as a Christian to believe something contrary to God's word. So often, I have observed, many Baptists use the priesthood of the believer to justify their OWN opinions on biblical issues and doctrines. Once again, on these issues, it is not about OUR opinion. It is about what Scripture says. The priesthood of the believer does not give anyone the right to ignore Scripture.
4) I am going to be very frank abou this. I am new to blogging...but since I have been reading Southern Baptist blogs, I have observed that the Burleson "coalition" enjoys inflicting conflict upon the SBC.
They enjoy having people "doubt" what "real" Baptists believe...they enjoy setting up supposed contradictions among Baptist documents...in essence, they seem to enjoy creating confusion. On top of that, the anger directed at the leadership of the SBC is not only shocking, but it also represents a quality that should not be present in those calling for "unity".
I may have not answered all the concerns raised against me, but I will say this. When I come to this blog, I feel like I have gone back in time to 1980. It seems to me that a lot of the issues being discussed currently on this comment thread has to do with issues that the SBC dealt with long ago. It worries me greatly that many want to continue to bring these issues up. In my humble opinion, it appears that the Wade Burleson coalition is nothing but a front for a return to theological relativism.
Still waiting on Wade to address Jim Richard's election.
It appears I could be waiting till the cows come home....
I ask you, would we have had such silence from Wade if Rogers had of won?
At the end of the Southern Seminary report, there was an interesting question. The following may not be exact wording, but I believe it's fairly accurate. The video can be watched at SBC.net.
Question From A Messenger:
I was concerned that the motion on BF&M passed last night.
My fear is that this could lead to gutting our historical baptist polity. It could lead to turning the BF&M into a 100 page document. However, do you feel that what happened last night with the BF&M will tie the hands of SBTS
trustees when dealing with issues outside of the BF&M such as
glosalalia?
Dr. Mohler:
I will gladly take my stand, share my position, and the position
of Southern Seminary.
We will gladly embrace the BF&M as a "guide" but we must ask questions...about issues not addressed there.
For example, there's nothing in the words of the BF&M that speak to the practice of speaking in tongues as being an ongoing part
of baptist worship, but I don't believe that this is the kind of
professor that that our convention would have our seminaries to hire."
-----
So the only way that statement stands is that if cessationish theology is the position of Southern Seminary and the position of all it's professors.
I'm not arguing this point, nor would I would be troubled with it. There should be room within this convention for some diversity not only among our churches but even our seminaries; for example, the difference in reformed theological training at Southern against Southwestern. I just want to be clear in my understanding.
Thanks,
Darren Casper
I have enjoyed reading your convention comments. I find it most interesting as to your historical comments. Having been in SBC since late 1960's, I find it very interesting how you missed what was really happing to so many good people over these last years. The attendance at convention continues to reaveal the lack of interest of so many. I used to never miss, but what is the use!! It is evident now that the folks remaing will be turning more and more on each other. Who else is left? The percentages are breaking down like before when there were 40,000 in attendance. If money was not plentiful in this country, the SBC would be about gone....thanks again for your blogs filled with interesting observations and comments. You are stirrring the base. I am glad ou have good relationship with your church...Wayne, of Alabama
The SBC is not in trouble of "dieing".
The SBC's best days lie ahead. Just look at enrollment numbers at SBTS. The future looks very bright.
Rex Ray said…
Irreverend Fox,
Ah, long time no comment to each other, but you opened the door before I knocked. I’m glad you’re stepping in for Wade because he is far too busy to do justice to all the comments coming his way.
Wade once said, “An honest question deserves an honest answer”, but we all (including Wade) avoid answering questions when we have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
First of all, I’d like for you to get a mental picture of what I think will happen at the next SBC. Messengers will be given 1,001 voting cards to handle the cases presented to the SBC to be answered. It’ll be worse than Moses trying to give judgment on complaints of the people. Of course this won’t happen because it would take weeks to hear both sides of all the cases.
The IMB and others operating outside the BFM was a ‘can of worms’. Morris Chapman’s Executive Committee statement had the goal of burying the can, but in doing so; it will open up a bigger ‘can of worms’. So the SBC will vote to go back to the same oh same oh.
The fundamentalist SBC will grow in finger pointing, arguing, conflict, quarrelling, and on and on with disagreement. Meanwhile, less and less time will be spent on Missions, and more and more people will miss heaven. Leading the pack will be Jim Richards who has had plenty of experience on the state level since he said, “Theological agreement will be the FIRST foundation of the new Convention.” (SBTC) He ought to fit right in with ‘like thinkers’ in joining ‘one of us’ on the national level.
Well, Fox, do you have any predictions while you’re on the “Serious Side”?
I for one believe when fundamentalists finish dissolving one another, there’ll be plenty of moderates (true conservatives) to pick up the pieces and once again the glue that holds Baptists together will be MISSIONS in reaching the world for Christ.
BTW, do you know why the ‘reformers’ want to change ‘doctrinal glue’ to ‘cooperation glue’? They can’t use ‘mission glue’ because that was what the old convention had and the CBF still has.
Peter...
note that I prefaced with the word "usually"...no contradiction there...
it's ok...I forgive you...no really Peter...it's ok...I forgive you...it's water under the bridge...
Pastor Wade,
Tripp says " I believe the word of God is very clear on some of the issues you raised "
There is the problem. That is why I believe that this blog exists. People who demand that their "clear views" of second and third tier issues must be followed by all or else.
The only doctrinal purity is Jesus Christ. Everything else isn`t...
Dear Wade,
I have been commenting on this blog since around August 2006, if my memory serves me adequately. To date, I have not noticed an observable out-of-control thread. Today's post makes history.
One who has followed your posts cannot help but wonder where all your defenders have run. You appear to be abandoned, holding an empty bag. Shame on them, except, of course, the Fox and Mr. Webb.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
hey Rex!
I am not sure about what you are asking me friend. My point is that I think, even in the last few weeks, the craziness of these comments have come to a fever pitch...it's wild the way Wade is being disrespected and accused. It's like he is being treated like a wolf in sheep’s clothing...
If you don't agree with Wade then respectfully disagree. If he answers your question and you still don't like it agree to disagree and move on...or just move on. GO AWAY. Vote against him and what he stands for...vote for men who believe like you...but just go away...that is what I feel like telling people who come in here just to pick on, accuse, second guess and hassle Wade. GO AWAY.
And no Rex...I'm not talking about you...I don't think you're a jerk. But I think there are some real, honest to goodness jerks around here lately...just looking to nit-pick Wade...and it's even worse than that...what is being more and more loudly implied is that Wade has wrong motives...that he is trying to overturn the resurgence he worked for...that he is a liberal...or not a Christian...
It's too much for me...agree to disagree...and voice that...that's fine...BUT IF YOU ARE AGAINST WADE THEN GO AWAY.
If you are against this man...if you don't respect him...if you don't love him...if you don't trust him...THEN GO AWAY. You can disagree and trust him...you can disagree and respect him...you can be for this man and not agree with him...IF YOU ARE AGAINST WADE GO AWAY.
with that...I am tired...have a nice lunch...
um Rex...what was your question again? lol
Peter,
Could it just be that everyone is sick of arguing about this stuff with people who will not listen? I know that I am. I don't see what good it does. But, if you really enjoy it, by all means, keep it up!
Tripp, So you are CERTAIN that every one of your interpretations of scripture with regard to ALL doctrines is THE correct interpretation? If so, the rest of us just need to quit and make you POPE.
Doctrinal purity requires uniformity on issues about which Christians have been studying and arguing for hundreds of years (e.g., 5 points or less than 5 points). I can almost be certain that you hold a position on some doctrinal issue that is not the majority position of the SBC (this is based on the fact that I don't know anyone whose positions are all majority positions or I don't know what the majority position is). In this case maintaining doctrinal purity means you have to leave. Sorry, we'll miss you.
Peter, Wrong again. Wade's supporters are here, but most are too wise to be sucked in by your inflammatory and obnoxious comments. However, I have always had a weakness for calling the bluff of bullies, so I just can't resist.
By the way you mentioned that you participated in some type of ministry effort with people from a variety of other churches, yet you criticize Wade for associating with another Baptist (J Carter). Duplicity! Inconsistency! I cannot understand what any of your comments are saying!
davidinflorida said:
"There is the problem. That is why I believe that this blog exists. People who demand that their "clear views" of second and third tier issues must be followed by all or else."
Let me make it clear...I don't mind a division between first, second and third tier doctrines. I also don't mind working with other Baptists who differ with me on THIRD tier issues.
However, my only concern with these divisions is who decides what doctrinal issue goes where.
As I have said before, I know many Baptists who place speaking in tongues in the secondary tier, not the third. Wade has expressed his view that it belongs in the third tier. Who is right? How do we decide? IMO...the messengers of the Convention should have a stated policy on this issue as well as other issues that may blur the line between the second and third tier.
What I truly worry about is the tendency from some who are defending Wade to regress into arguments about our view of Scripture, etc....issues that the SBC settled a long time ago.
I also worry about the personal attacks directed at Godly men such as Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler. I don't see much "compromise" coming from many associated with Wade Burleson.
Did it require the woman at the well to have every doctrinal issue worked out in order to go back into town and say, "Come, see a man who told me everthing I ever did?" Did Peter have everything worked out and did the apostles come to some agreement on doctrinal purity in Acts 2 before he addressed the crowd and "about three thousand were added to their number that day?" You see, having been an IMB missionary, I can say from experience that we were conveying the Gospel. So many things that we find to be important here in the good 'ole USA, in the SBC, and that we find ourselves in disputes over were rarely things that we ever thought about, much less discussed on the mission field. So, no, it doesn't require that we come to some consensus on doctrinal purity in regards to those things, which are not addressed in the BF&M. We knew who we were as believers--who had the call of God on our lives.
Stephen...once again...doctrinal purity on FIRST and SECOND tier issues. I don't mind disagreement on third tier issues.
From where I sit though...the Convention has yet to accomplish doctrinal purity regarding secondary tier doctrines. We must do that in order to be effective.
Rex Ray said…
Fox,
Thanks for not calling me a jerk. I thought it was too good to be true—you being serious and all that.
I remember long ago when everyone on the blog was ready to hang you because you were making fun of Wade. You had me fooled also, as I thought you were serious with your comments.
Now if you made everyone go away that disagreed with Wade, you’d take all the fun out.
Don’t you know Baptists had rather fuss than witness? Hey! I just shot myself in the foot.
Tripp, It seems to me that Wade's view (and my view, for what it's worth) is very clear. Let the convention decide which are 2nd and 3rd tier issues. By the way, I prefer Essentials and Baptist Distinctives (rather than 2nd tier), which would be doctrinal issues about which one must agree to participate (and there would not be a huge number of them, if I was in charge-which is a frightening thought in and of itself-me being in charge that is). Then there would be many less important doctrinal matters on which the SBC might offer a consensus interpretation but which would not be used to prohibit participation or employment. I think Wade has been very clear, especially in recent posts, that the annual meeting is the place to make these decisions.
Wouldn't you say this would be better than having them made by 70 people or less depending on the size of the Board. They all may be great folks, but group dynamics get involved and dominant personalities sometimes exert undue and unwarranted influence. That is less likely to occur with all the messengers present and everyone having equal time to present their case.
As far as people who support Wade not being interested in compromise.... It is not Wade or his supporters who favor excluding conservative Baptists from service on the basis of 3rd tier doctrinal issues. It is not us who favor an absolutist affirmation of the B F & M with no hint of a reservation allowed on any issue (even 3rd tier ones). If the B F & M was enforced absolutely my pastor would have to give up his position as a trustee at SBTS, because our church allows "born again believers" to participate in the Lord's supper. Probably substantial portions of every board would be gone over this issue or another one. Is that really what we want?