The Ugly Side of Religious Fundamentalism: The SBC Will Die If Not Delivered from It

Last year the Washington Post took me to task for praying during the opening of the Oklahoma Senate that  "only believers in God be leaders in our democracy."  The Post, a paper not known for its conservative moorings, considered me a Christian Fundamentalist. The religion editor falsely opined that I had "disdain" for "atheists and secular humanists." It's not the atheist or humanist that I "disdain," its their principles. It seems that the far left has as difficult of a time distinguishing between principled disagreement with another's beliefs and personal disdain for another's person. True Christians love people, even their enemies, but are fearless when it comes to pointing out unrighteousness. Ironically, the Washington Post editorialized yesterday on the Ergun Caner situation, and it is likely that the editors may have missed the most astonishing aspect of the story. It's not Muslims, atheists, or secular humanists who called Liberty to bring accountablity to the Ergun Caner situation, but conservative, evangelical Christians. The Word of God states "It is time for judgment to begin with the family of God" (I Peter 4:17). For too long, we conservative evangelicals have refused to police ourselves. A new day is dawning, and Christians have taken their rightful place in holding one another accountable to the gospel we preach. What is the gospel? We are all sinners, and Christ grants His grace to those who confess and repent of their sins and trust in Him. "You shall call His name Jesus," the angel said, "for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Christ doesn't save us and leave us in our sins; Christ doesn't save us and call us to cover our sins; Christ delivers us from our sins.

Yesterday, the Southern Baptist Fundamentalists at SBC Today went after any Southern Baptist who has  publicly stated their refusal to believe Ergun Caner has been "exonerated" by Liberty's decision to remove him as President of Liberty Seminary through the Committee's public acknowledgement that Caner gave "factual statements that are self-contradictory." The tactics taken by SBC Today show the  dark and ugly side of religious Fundamentalism. They (the tactics) form an antithesis to the commands of Christ, and unless called out and stopped cold in their tracks, will lead to the total and final destruction of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Tactic Number One: If a Fundamentalist is losing influence, he will lie about his opponent.

James White, a professor at Golden Gate Seminary, is a recipient of such tactics. The leaders of SBC Today publicly declared:  "Dr. James White also accused Dr. Caner of not being a former Muslim." SBC Today gave no citation, no evidence, not one shred of proof for their claim. In fact, the statement about James White was a bald faced lie.  James White has never claimed Ergun. Caner was not a Muslim.  He has only questioned the contradictions in Caner's testimony. James White himself came into the comment stream and asked for evidence that he ever said or wrote such a thing or retract the statement. 
No evidence was provided by SBC Today, but no retraction was made either. And, by the way, a very sagacious comment by James White that irrefutably revealed the illogic of SBC Today's accusation was deleted by SBC Today.

Tactic Number Two: If a Fundamentalist can't answer a question from his opponent, he accuses his opponent of malevolent motives, dishonorable intent, or godless character.
 
For example, Les Puryear claims people questioning Caner have "hatred" in their hearts the way people had hatred in their hearts when they crucified Jesus (see comment #1). Robin Foster calls those who question Dr. Caner's contradictory statements "abusers" (see comment #28). Tim Rogers calls Christians who question Dr. Caner's testimony "godless" and "slanderous" among other things (see comment #35). Craig Deliassio calls Christians who question Caner's embellishments "pathetic heretics" and says he will physically hurt them if he ever meets them (see comment #38).
 
Tactic Number Three: If a Fundamentalist is personally hurt or embarrassed by the words or actions of another, he will invoke God's judgment on the one who brought him hurt.

One of the champion cheerleaders for SBC Today wrote the following comment about those who questioned Ergun Caner's factual statements that are contradictory (I quote verbatim):

"I know God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but right now if one of these unsaved charlatans died I’d have to force myself to remember what I believe about hell and make myself be sorrowful for the fate of their souls."

Tactic Number Four: If a Fundamentalist is losing a debate because of a lack of logical defense, he will invoke the name of a Fundamentalist superstar to end discussion.

To defend his use of the word "exoneration" in describing Liberty's official conclusion regarding Caner, Tim Roger's invokes the name of Norman Geisler (see comment #22). Roger's wrote:

"If you have problems with me using “exonerated” as my choice of words then you have problems with one of the greatest and most respected apologist in the Evangelical world–Dr. Norman Geisler–he has used the same word."

Other names invoked include Jerry Falwell, Jr., Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, etc....

Tactic Number Five: If a Fundamentalist feels like he's losing control of an institution or a hold on the minds of people, it's always the kingdom of Christ that is being damaged.

SBC Today cheerleaders stated in the comment section about those questioning Caner: "These people want to destroy Liberty University!" It can never simply be Christians wanting to hold other Christians accountable for their actions. There must always be some other malevolent intent.

I would encourage every Southern Baptist to read SBC Today's post and comments entitled "To Clear From Accusation or Blame."  It is the best, most visible example of why God must intervene in the Southern Baptist Convention and save it from the philosophy and tactics of Fundamentalism, or the SBC will die a slow, tortuous and angry death.

In His Grace,

Wade

To Break the Chains of Bondage Requires an Understanding of the Real Problem

Over the course of the past four years I have written a few posts about significant leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention, including Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, Al Mohler and others. Recently I spoke at a funeral where a friend of Dr. Patterson's told me he was asked by Paige himself, "Why does Wade Burleson dislike me so much?" This gentleman suggested to me that if I would just spend a little time with Dr. Patterson I would find him a very pleasant person.

I was genuinely puzzled. Anyone who knows me understands that I can get along with anyone personally, and I truly enjoy people of all stripes. Ironically, I've written and phoned Dr. Patterson a handful of times over the years inviting him to lunch (on my dime), but have not had my messages returned. I even drove to Fort Worth to personally meet with him two years ago, but was told his schedule was too busy. I left another handwritten note asking him call me on my personal cell, but he never called. Of course, Dr. Patterson is a busy man, and its his perogative to not call me or meet with me. But since Dr. Patterson feels the freedom to speculate to others regarding my feelings toward him, I thought I would take this opportunity to offer a gentle correction.

I like Dr. Patterson. I think he is a man of integrity. In fact, I admire the way he lives his life based upon what he believes. I know the testimony of hundreds of people is that Dr. Patterson is personal, affable, self-deprecating, and generous. He is a brother in Christ, and I look forward to eternal fellowship with him in heaven. If there is a problem with Dr. Patterson, it is NOT a lack of personality, winsomeness or integrity--it is the radical, Fundamentalist ideology that leads to separation, a lack of cooperation, and a strident "you are wrong and will answer to God" attitude. It's an ideology that hampers a willingness to share a cup of coffee with someone who disagrees.

An Illustration of Ideological Decisions

When Dr. Patterson fired Sheri Klouda from her Hebrew teaching position at Southwestern, it was ideology that drove him. He truly wishes to be "right before God," and he believes a woman teaching Hebrew to "preacher boys" brings God's judgment upon the seminary. The problem with Dr. Patterson is not his character; the problem is his non-biblical, archaic, Old Covenant ideology regarding women. Paige Patterson views women in a completely opposite manner than Jesus views women. That doesn't mean Paige is a bad guy; it just means his ideology is warped. I admire the fact he lives consistent with his ideology, but it would be disturbing to me if Southern Baptists didn't challenge his ideology as the antithesis of the New Covenant. But my feelings about Dr. Patterson's ideology would NEVER preclude me from sharing a meal with him, or having fellowship with him. I love him for who he is, and that love is not thwarted by his interpretive errors regarding women. I am currently writing a forward to Jon Zens new book What's With Paul and Women? Unlocking the Cultural Background on I Timothy 2. Zen's book is a brilliant display of sound exegesis by a conservative inerrantist who understands the equality of men and women in the New Covenant, and it is written as a corrective to conservative evangelicals (like Dr. Patterson) who err in their views of women. The real problem in the SBC is not divergent views on tertiary issues; it is the unwillingness to fellowship brothers in Christ who disagree.

I recently received a call from a pastor of a Southern Baptist church where a couple of members are really upset. This married couple holds to a similar ideology to that of Dr. Patterson. They believe the Lord's Supper is being served in an inappropriate manner in their church--it is not a closed Lord's Supper at the church (for church members only), and it is not being served by "ordained" men only (people receive it by coming forward and taking the bread and wine from the table)--and this couple wants to correct the problem in order for their church to be "right with God." Further, this husband and wife is deeply disturbed that the Children's Pastor (a female) is baptizing converts upon their profession of faith in Jesus Christ. The only ones that should be "baptizing," in their minds, are those men with "ordination" credentials from a Southern Baptist church. Their Landmark ideology, prominent among Fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention, is leading them to draw a line in the sand. They wish to either remove current church leadership who view these matters differently than them or change the existing church bylaws to reflect their own ideology. Ironically, the spokesperson for this couple before the pastors was the wife (not the husband), so like many Fundamentalists I've met in the SBC, there is an espousing of an ideology that is not abided by in reality.

But I'm sure this couple is a wonderful, winsome couple. I also am quite confident they are a brother and sister in Christ. The issue that is causing the problem in their church is not one of personality, but one of ideology. Again, that's the problem right now in the SBC. Someone might ask, "Then what is the appropriate ideology for Southern Baptists in this day and age." I will let Jesus Christ answer:

"A new commandment that I give to you, that you love one another, eve as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).

If your love for any particular ideology blocks your ability to love another follower of Jesus Christ who disagrees with it, then your ideology is faulty. If you cannot sit down and fellowship with someone who disagrees with you, share a supper with them, and love them in spite of their differing views on tertiery matters, then your ideology is not the ideology of Christ. If you cannot cooperate with people who believe the Bible, but believe you to be in error when it comes to the Lord's Supper, the status of women in the New Covenant, and other tertiery matters, then you need to realize your ideology is hindering you from fulfilling the New Covenant commandment of Christ. Every other grace that God gives is insignificant to the grace of loving His people. Love never fails; it endures forever.

The problem in our SBC churches is not the lack of integrity or character of its people; the problem is an ideology that does not allow you to return phone calls and sit down at supper with those who disagree with you.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Denouncing Baptist Identity Fundamentalism

Southern Baptist pastor Wiley Drake of California (pictured to the left), is the former Vice-President of the SBC. Drake is quoted by Associated Baptist Press as saying he is glad Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor from Wichita, was murdered last week while attending church. Drake confessed to having been personally praying "imprecatory" Psalms over Dr. Tiller for the last year.

Drake goes on to say that he has been praying "imprecatory" Psalms over President Obama and the same fate awaits Obama that befell Tiller if he does not repent.

My friend, Dwight McKissic, has called on Southern Baptists to repudiate Wiley Drake's words. I join Pastor McKissic in denouncing what Wiley Drake has said. Our Southern Baptist Convention should take official action as well. Drake's words should be a reminder to all of the logical end of Baptist Identity Fundamentalism.

The world should know that Drake's words, nor any other Baptist Identity radical viewpoints, represents the views of the vast majority of Southern Baptists.

(Update; Please note that this post is a denunciation of Wiley Drake's WORDS and not his person, and it is a caution against Baptist Identity ideology, not BI people).

In His Grace,


Wade

On SBC Bullies and How To Deal With Them

One of the ugly truths of modern Southern Baptist politics is the issuance of threats and intimidation against people who happen to disagree with positions held by certain SBC leaders at either the local, state or national level. It is my belief that the only way to root out such ungodly actions is to expose them. Most bullying tactics against Southern Baptists are performed in private, with the perpetrators hoping their intimidation tactics will never see the light of day.

One such example of bullying tactics was made known to me yesterday by Kevin Crowder. Kevin has given me permission to publish his experience, believing as I do, that the best way to stop such bullying tactics is to let Southern Baptists know that they are real. It seems that a Missouri Southern Baptist leader named Kent Cochran read some of Kevin's comments on my blog, comments where Kevin agreed with the premise of my post, and sent Kevin an email expressing his hope that Kevin never be allowed to pastor a Southern Baptist church. Ironically, Kevin and I do not agree on many things, but I really appreciate this young pastor, and am horrified that a Southern Baptist leader in Missiouri would issue what seem to be career threats against Pastor Kevin. Kevin wrote to me:

Wade,

I wanted to pass an email along to you that I received today from a man named Kent Cochran in Republic, MO. I know little about him other than he is part of the Missouri crowd led by Roger Moran. My only goal is to begin and finish seminary at the moment and minister in whatever way the Lord allows. I have already felt negative pressure as a result of my going to Covenant Seminary. This email has sort of hit me hard. For the first time ever I have been confronted with someone who would seek to stop me from ministering solely on the basis of minor doctrine. I only forward this to you as I know you are a walking library of knowledge of such sad affairs and felt it would not be good to simply keep it to myself. I begin seminary in 3.5 weeks and should be less of a pesky presence on grace and truth. :)

For His Glory,

Kevin Crowder
Sullivan, MO

Kevin forwarded to me the following email sent to him from Kent Cochran. The bold emphasis is given by me to highlight what I find most disturbing in what Kent writes to Kevin:

KEVIN:

I read your comments on the Wade Burleson website regarding alcohol(p.104-105).... just as clearly as I can let me share with you that you are wrong ...dead wrong.

What you are promoting is a 'spiritual dead-end'. I pray that you will never be allowed in church leadership or influence with this kind of carnal attitude.

You are letting others influence you away from being obedient and seeking holines and perfection. While we never fully obtain perfection it is God's desire that we always seek it.

You are literally running the other direction...

My hope for you is that you do a 180 degree turn and quit putting your faith in 'methods'...

Let's talk in May 2014 and see how your attitude has changed...

Kent Cochran
Republic, Mo.

Kevin, just a friendly word of advice from one who has learned a great deal over the last few years regarding people who intimidate and threaten.

Expose them and then ignore them. Keep your focus on Christ, and keep doing what you believe is right in your conscience.

Over time, people see through empty threats and real leadership comes into focus for them. I went back and read what you wrote, and frankly, you had some excellent thoughts. You and I have not always seen eye to eye, but know that I am proud to call you a brother in Christ and my prayers will be with you as you enter seminary. If and when you need a recommendation as you seek to enter future SBC pastoral ministry, don't hesitate to put me down as a reference.

I always admire men and women of courage who stand up to bullies.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Measure of Fundamentalism in the SBC

A Southern Baptist named Peter Lumpkins has recently announced the publication of a new book he has written entitled Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence. Peter's position is that total abstinence from alcohol is the only Christian, Baptist and truly biblical position on alcohol. Any believer in Jesus who believes consuming alcohol is not the sin, but rather the sin is the violation of the biblical commandment against "drunkenness," is called a "hedonist" by the book's promotional materials. The men who promote the book are a "who's who" of the Baptist Identity movement, men who have a very specific list of what defines a true "Baptist" - a list which includes a mandatory belief in total abstinence. Lewis Moore, former trustee of the International Mission Board, operates Hannibal Books. Paige Patterson praises the book by saying:

"Abstinence is not merely wisdom, it is obedience to Christ and holiness before God"

Patterson's quote is an example of the problem Fundamentalism causes in the Southern Baptist Convention today. Patterson, like Lumpkins, places abstinence in the non-negotiable category of "obedience to Christ" and "holiness before God." To disagree with their Baptist Identity convictions is to argue with God Himself. This is precisely the reason the SBC is having a hard time in keeping young pastors engaged in Convention matters. The newest generation of evangelicals have more in common with the conservative theologian Gresham Machen who opposed Fundamentalism over fifty years ago because of what he called "the pietistic, perfectionist tendencies which include hang-ups with smoking, drinking alcohol, etc . . . ". I commend Peter Lumpkins on publishing his new book. I also applaud his personal conviction of total abstinence. No Christian should question either Peter's commitment to Christ nor his personal convictions regarding alcohol. However, what Southern Baptists must resist is any attempt by Peter Lumpkins, Paige Patterson, John Sullivan and other Baptist Identity leaders to present total abstinence as the only view of alcohol compatible with "holiness." We all should respect total abstinence as a personal conviction of a brother in Christ, and we all should consider it an essential Christian conviction among those believers who are unable to drink alcohol without getting drunk, but if we allow any Baptist to present total abstinence as the "only" Christian and Baptist view on alcohol we are in danger of succombing to Fundamentalism in the SBC. I would much rather be personally led by the Spirit than by a man who claims his view is law for me. For those who wish to comment regarding this post, please pay close attention to the subject matter. I am not writing about the pros or cons of total abstinence. The point of this post is that all of us must resist the easy temptation of equating our personal beliefs regarding tertiary matters on par with obedience to Christ, and demanding others comply with our views. Only Fundamentalists do that. In His Grace, Wade Burleson

True Baptist Identity Is One of Cooperation

For the past several years some in our Southern Baptist Convention have been leading us down a road of isolationism and separation from the evangelical community at large. For lack of better nomenclature, the Baptist Identity movement has become the name for isolationists and separatists among Southern Baptists. However, the official Baptist Identity movement is not truly Baptist. For centuries Baptists have been known as Christians first, followers of Jesus who would accept no creed but the Bible, and give freedom to others to disagree. The modern Baptist Identity movement, however, has a philosophy that is just the opposite of our Baptist forefathers. Modern Baptist Identity adherents are Baptists first, and if that gets in the way of being Christian, then so be it.

The best example of the identity crisis of modern Baptist Identity philosophy is seen in this comment from a Southern Baptist Baptist Identity adherent on another blog:

If one ever does come to the place were he must, for conscience sake, no longer be able to affirm the BFM, in its current rendering as approved by the SBC, he should resign from his position of service in the SBC.

In resigning he will retain his personal integrity as a believer. He does not have to be a Southern Baptist to maintain his integrity as a Christian. He does not have to affirm the BFM to have integrity as a Believer. He does have to maintain his integrity to maintain a proper fellowship with the Lord of his life, Jesus Christ. That is far more important than being an employee of the SBC.

Think about that comment for a moment. The writer (unnamed) is saying that one should follow Jesus and leave the SBC than to follow Jesus - disagreeing with the BFM in its current form - and staying in the SBC.

I trust one sees the convoluted nature in the comment above. Baptist Identity adherents put being a Southern Baptist BEFORE being a follower of Jesus. That, in essence, is how cults are formed.

The implications of this Baptist Identity philosophy are far reaching and severe. If a change in the SBC bylaws or a change in the SBC BFM occurs, then the Baptist Identity adherents say you should maintain your Christian convictions and GET OUT of service to the SBC, rather than making other Southern Baptists aware of the problem within your conscience and staying in the SBC. Do you disagree with closed communion? Leave. Do you disagree with the BFM statement on war? Leave. Do you disagree with the statement that nobody is guilty of sin until they actually sin? Leave. Do you disagree with ___________ (fill in the blank)? Leave. That, in essence, is the spirit of Baptist Identity these days.

That is also the kind of spirit we Southern Baptists must resist. We are a Convention of cooperation, not conformity.

The true Southern Baptist, confident in his identity as a Christian first, would stay in the SBC, maintain his integrity as a believer by voicing his disagreement with anything he sees as unbiblical and unchristian, and then letting those brothers and sisters in Christ who see things differently know that the disageement will neither affect his love for, service to, or cooperation with, those Southern Baptists of a different persuasion. That is the true identity we need as Southern Baptists.

In His Grace,

Wade

Baptist Identity People Don't Like Challenges

When I served as a trustee of the International Mission Board, Dr. John Floyd, Chairman of the Board, seemed to dislike anyone questioning him doctrinally. I personally enjoy fellowship with Dr. Floyd and his lovely wife Helen. They are gracious people, but Dr. Floyd's Baptist Identity ideology causes him to dismiss people who disagree with him as irrelevant or not "truly Baptist." Dr. Floyd has told me he is an avowed Landmark Baptist. I know he would be as comfortable in a Baptist Identity church as a duck would on a pond.

I have no objection with Baptist Identity people being a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I can fellowship with them at any time, and on any occasion. But I have discovered that when doctrinal questions come up, or heaven forbid, doctrinal disagreement arises, Baptist Identity adherents have a tendency to ridicule those who disagree. If the ridiculing doesn't stop the challenge, then there are overt attempts to shut down comments. In the IMB committee process while we were attempting to debate whether missionary candidates should be baptized in a "Baptist Identity" church, or whether an SBC missionary candidate could possess real "Baptist Identity" if he or she could never possess a private prayer language. I experienced this kind of tactic first hand. Dr. Floyd refused to allow questions to be asked of the professional IMB staff about their thoughts on the policies, and then he would at times marginalize the ones asking the questions or challenging the "Baptist Idenity" policies.

The worst example of Dr. Floyd's tactics was seen in the letter Dr. Rankin wrote challenging the new Baptist Identity policies of the IMB. When Dr. Floyd eventually got around to giving all trustees Dr. Rankin's letter, only after being forced through parliamentary procedures, it was delivered to trustees with Dr. Floyd's handwritten notes and scribbles all over the letter. Dr. Floyd wrote words like "ridiculous," "unscriptural," "illogical," all over Dr. Rankin's letter as he commented on Dr. Rankin's objections to the policies. Dr. Floyd has rightfully been excoriated for his conduct, but the effect upon Baptist Identity people being vigorously challenged by Southern Baptists for both their beliefs and tactics is far reaching.

They shut down the ability for others to either comment upon or, heaven forbid, criticize their actions.

Now, the premier Baptist Identity blog, SBC Today, has chosen to terminate all comments. They may have found it difficult to biblically defend their Baptist Identity positions or they could have possibly felt embarrassed for one their own being exposed in his attempts to marginalize and ridicule challengers through using a false identity, but regardless of their motives, they have shut down comments. Again, I have found that on the whole, it is difficult for Baptist Identity adherents to graciously argue points or positions. It usually denigrates into name calling. One of these days Southern Baptists will awake to the fact that Christian unity and cooperation in the midst of debate and disagreement is a sign of health. But for some reason, Baptist Identity folks don't like being challenged.

Shame on them. The late President Truman once said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." It seems that when our Baptist Identity friends can't stand the heat, they refuse to get out of the kitchen because they want to keep cooking, so they just bar Southern Baptists from the table of fellowship. Jim Champion, a frequent blog commenter with an excellent spirit and sharp mind, wrote this about SBC Today's decision to shut down comments:

I have thought of them (SBC Today) as the best Baptist Identity blog going. I enjoy their posts and the interaction. However, if they refuse to defend their arguments they are nothing more than a print editorial that happens to be on line.

Once upon a time Jeremy Green allowed comments, but because he got slaughtered by his commenters - and could not adequately defend his stances he stopped taking comments. I essentially stopped going to his "blog". Peter, Wade, Volfie, SBC Impact, Tim Guthrie and Tom Ascoll stand behind their blogs. I may or may not agree with any of them on one particular issue or another, but I will keep going back to them because they have the courage to take the hits.

If I want editorials I'll go to print media.

Well stated Jim. I made known to my Baptist Identity friends my intentions to call them out on shutting down the comment section last week. I expect them to open them up soon. If not, we should follow the example of Jim and simply read print media for the editorial comments.


In His Grace,


Wade

The Big Picture: Resisting Separatist Ideology

This past week in the blog world has not been a particularly pleasant one. Sometimes it helps to back up and try to show the big picture. I remind Southern Baptists that it is possible to disagree with an ideology or a particular point of theology and not attack the character of the person with whom you disagree. To fundamentally disagree with the separatism of a person who adheres to Landmark ecclesiology and tries to creedally enforce every Southern Baptist Church to practice closed communion is not the same thing as disliking the Landmarker. To publicly express disagreement with the ideology of Fundamentalism that urges separation from other evangelicals is not the same thing as attacking the character of the Fundamentalist. To make it known that you abhor any ideology that would compel the termination of a Southern Baptist who disagrees over the extent of the atonement is not the same thing as abhorring the person who is seeking the terminations.

To publicly reveal that Paige Patterson is voicing his desire not to have faculty members at SWBTS who hold to classical Calvinism is not to attack Dr. Patterson's character. As I have said on numerous occasions before, I believe Dr. Patterson is a brother in Christ and is due all the love and respect every follower of Jesus should be given. In addition, to call the ideology of Paige Patterson a narrow, Fundamentalist, Landmark and separatist ideology is not to attack the Christian character of Paige Patterson. Thousands of people can individually attest to Dr. and Mrs Paige Patterson's personal civility and kindness. It is not Christian character that is being exposed and questioned, but rather it is the separatist ideology of some in the Southern Baptist Convention that is being identified and resisted. It is their ideology that compels them to separate from other Southern Baptist Christians who disagree.

The Ideology of Separatism

After a ten year absence from personal participation in Southern Baptist Convention ministry at a national level, I began serving as a trustee for the International Mission Board in 2005. In the almost four years since that time my eyes have been opened to the effects of the separatist ideology held by many in strategic positions of power in the SBC. I have stated before that I believe with all my heart that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God. I have no problem confessing my belief in the veracity of the Bible.

But separatist ideology goes way beyond a commitment to the veracity of Scripture itself. Separatists have a hard time comprehending that interpreting the Word of God and teaching people what the Bible says is not the same thing as affirming the Word of God and telling people what the Bible is. It is because there are differences of interpretation among Southern Baptists regarding what the sacred text says that all of us who are Christ-loving, Bible-believing Southern Baptists must learn to cooperate with each other rather than separate from one another.

For lack of a better nomenclature, those Southern Baptists who adhere to "separatist" ideology are sometimes called Baptist Identity people. These separatists have trouble believing that Christ-loving, Bible-believing, Southern Baptists can actually disagree over what the Bible is saying and still cooperate in missions and ministry in the SBC. In fact, when they come across a Christ-loving, Bible-believing Southern Baptist who disagrees with them, they implement plans to attempt to forcibly remove them from ministry or service (i.e. "separate").

Examples of Separation

(1). This is precisely what happened to missionaries who believed, contrary to the beliefs of Baptist Identity people, that spiritual gifts (i.e. a private prayer language) still exists. Baptist Identity people, compelled by their ideology of separatism, successfully implemented policies to remove these missionaries from future service in the SBC.

(2). This is precisely what happened to missionaries who were not baptized "in a church that holds to eternal security," which Baptist Identity people believe is the only proper description of biblical baptism. Baptist Identity people successfully implemented policies to remove these missionaries from future service in the SBC.

(3). This is precisely what happened to female professors who taught Hebrew and history at Southwestern Theological Seminary, contrary to a specific interpretation of the Bible by Baptist Idenity people that "a woman shall not teach a man," at any time, in any spiritual manner. Baptist Identity people successfully removed these women from their ministries.

(4). This is precisely what is happening to autonomous Southern Baptist churches that make decisions that are contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and Baptist Identity leaders - Baptist Identity people are seeking to disfellowship that church.

A few years ago I defended First Baptist Church, Holdenville, Oklahoma from excommunication from the South Canadian Association because the church practiced open communion and receiving into membership people who had not been baptized in a Baptist church. The Baptist Identity leaders who brought the recommendation for disfellowship were all Landmark, Fundamentalist, separatists, including the Director of Missions. I successfully defended the church and the motion to disfellowship from FBC Holdenville failed at the annual meeting.

(5). This is precisely what is happening at Southwestern Theological Seminary in relation to classical Calvinists on faculty, both now and in the future.

We Must Resist Ideological Separation

Some are very angry with my two posts last week that called out the ideology of SWBTS administrators that compels them to separate from classical Calvinists at SWBTS. I would suggest that we should not be surprised with any attempts to separate from classical Calvinists at SWBTS. It is consistent with the separatist ideology held by the President and administration. Let the words of Dr Paige Patterson and Dr. David Allen, Dean of the School of Theology, speak for themselves:

"Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS, February 5, 2009

“A consistent five-point Calvinist cannot look a congregation in the eyes or even a single sinner in the eye and say: “Christ died for you.” What they have to say to be consistent with their own theology is “Christ died for sinners.” Since Christ did not die for the non-elect, and since the five-point Calvinist does not know who the elect are, it is simply not possible in a preaching or witnessing situation to say to them directly “Christ died for you.” Dr. David Allen, Dean of SWBTS School of Theology, SWBTS Center for Theological Research, November 2008

The above, my friends, is the latest example of the reason why separatist ideology, the core feature of the so called Baptist Identity movement, must be resisted with all hands on deck. Southern Baptists have historically disagreed over the extent of the atonement. Some Southern Baptists have believed that Christ died as the Substition for every sinner, even those who will ultimately be punished in hell for their sins. Other Southern Baptists have believed, namely the Calvinists among us, that Christ died as a Substition for only those sinners God chose to deliver from their sins, sinners the Bible calls "the elect," "His people," "the Bride of Christ," etc . . .

This issue has never been one over which Southern Baptists have divided, nor should it be. I am not resisting Paige Patterson the man. I am resisting the ideology that compels Paige Patterson to separate from Southern Baptists who disagree with him. I would say the same thing to any Calvinist who had a similar separatist theology.

That, in my opinion, is the big picture.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Self-Imposed Break Over: "Baptist Identity," the New IMB Doctrinal Policies, and the SBC

The self-imposed blog sabbatical regarding Southern Baptist Convention issues is over. I have accomplished the goals I established when it began last spring, and I will blog on Convention issues as the need arises.

Baptist Identity

There is a movement within the Southern Baptist Convention called "Baptist Identity" (sometimes the synonym "Baptist Distinctives" is used) that is pushing for a doctrinal conformity among all Southern Baptist on doctrines not addressed by the 2000 BFM. This doctrinal "Identity," at least from the perspective of its proponents, defines who it is that is a 'true' Southern Baptist and can thus mandate who it is that can serve the Convention as missionaries, trustees, and denominational leaders. Initially, the 2000 BFM was used as the club of accountability, and missionaries who entered Southern Baptist service by signing the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message and refused, on matters of principle, to sign the 2000 BFM, were dismissed from missionary service for not being "one of us." Unfortunately, the club of accountability is now being carried by well-placed trustees who are arbitrarily deciding who is, and who is not, a genuine Southern Baptist.

This "Baptist Identity" movement within the Southern Baptist Convention is similarly patterned in leadership (not theology) after the Christian Identity movement, working as a loose network of extremely conservative Christian churches and religious organizations that revolve around the writings or speeches of well known national leaders. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Professor Malcolm Yarnell, Professor Keith Eitel, the Caner brothers, and a handful of others form the face of the theological leaders and spokesmen of this Baptist Identity movement. All of these men are gospel-believing, conservative, Southern Baptist Christian men. The problem is that they are articulating a Baptist Identity and postulating Baptist Distinctives that go well beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. If you disagree with Baptist Identity leaders on closed communion, praying privately in tongues, elders, the qualifications of the baptizer, the recipients of the Great Commission, moderation, eschatology, and the like, you are labeled as either liberal, psuedo-Baptist, or the catch all "not one of us" (as in the nomination speech for SBC Vice-President Jim Richards where it was repeatedly stated, "He's one of us!"). And, Baptist Identity leaders have successfully vetted SBC trustees to ensure that the vast majority of new trustees think like they do.

An Illustration of Baptist Identity Among SBC Trustees

When the trustees of International Mission Board adopted new doctrinal policies that exceeded the Baptist Faith and Message on November 15, 2005 (the day Adrian Rogers died), the Baptist Identity movement had successfully excluded from the mission field hundreds of otherwise qualified Southern Baptists that they did not consider being "one of us." The outcry across the Convention against the trustees adoption of these policies, including the passage of the 2007 Garner Motion, did little to stifle the attempts of Baptist Identity advocates to continue to push for doctrinal conformity on things that exceed the Baptist Faith and Message.

As an IMB trustee between 2005-2008, I asked repeatedly for the "rationale" behind the new doctrinal policies. I had not been given one single piece of paper, not one shred of evidence that the adoption of the new doctrinal policies would help our cooperative mission work. On the contrary, the President of the International Mission Board, the administrative staff of the IMB, and the Candidate Consultants of the IMB, and the Regional Leaders of the IMB all told me our cooperative mission work would be harmed by the adoption of these new doctrinal policies by ripping the fabric of cooperation. Eventually, trustee John Floyd told me that trustees had the right to establish any doctrinal parameters of cooperation they desired - particularly if it involved Baptist Identity, regardless of whether or not the new doctrinal policies exceeded the 2000 BFM. Then, six months after the new policies were adopted, Hatley and trustee leaders issued a paper giving, for the first time, the rationale for the new "doctrinal" policies - Baptist Identity.

When IMB trustee chairman Tom Hatley released to the press the rationale for the passage of the new doctrinal policies at the IMB, a rationale distributed only after a Convention uproar over the new policies, the very phrase "Baptist Identity" was used as the reason for the passage of the new doctrinal policies. The May 20, 2006, paper entitled Rationale for Guidelines Regarding Tongues and Prayer Language stated, "The heart of these issues (the new doctrinal policies) is the candidate qualification known as Southern "Baptist Identity." There are two key phrases that speak directly to Southern Baptist Identity: "The majority of Southern Baptist churches" . . . and "the majority of Southern Baptists." The (new doctrinal) policies . . . reflect the practice of the vast majority of Southern Baptists.

IMB trustee leadership's Baptist Identity rationale for the new policies is defective in logic on at least three fronts:

(1). The only consensus doctrinal statement is the 2000 BFM and the new "doctrinal" policies do not reflect a consensus opinion. In fact, a Lifeway survey released in 2007 showed over 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believed the praying in tongues was a legitimate spiritual gift. Regardless,
(2). The new policies exceed the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, and thus, the demand for cooperating Southern Baptist churches to conform to the ideology of a select group of "Baptist Identity" IMB trustees rips the fabric of Southern Baptist cooperative mission work.
(3). If our Baptist forefathers would have ever been told by people claiming to be Baptist that the test of "orthodoxy" would have been "majority opinion," they would have assuredly told those claimants they themselves were disqualified from being considered "true" Baptists. Throughout history, Baptists have been known as "dissenters," which by definition means, dissenting from "the majority." To reach a point in the 21st Century that some actually believe Baptists must "conform" to a majority opinion, rather than cooperate with dissenters, is to deny our Baptist heritage.

The Baptist Identity Movement Must Be Overcome by Gospel Cooperation

Giving to the Cooperative Program in 2008 is down. Receipts for the 2007 Lottie Moon Christmas Offering were $15 million dollars short of the goal. The trustees of the International Mission Board voted at their last meeting to tap $3 million dollars of reserve money just to meet the annual budget. Young Southern Baptists are searching elsewhere for gospel missions cooperation and conservative values.

There is much at stake. If the Baptist Identity movement is allowed to define who we are as Southern Baptists, we will eventually be so split and fragmented that the number of Southern Baptists will resemble the numbers in membership at the local Landmark, Fundamental, Pre-Millenial, Closed-Communion, KJV, Cessationist, Male Leadership Only, Culture Hating, independent Baptist Church down the street.

At some point there will be Southern Baptist leaders who will arise and courageously stop the Baptist Identity train by leading our Southern Baptist Convention into a gospel resurgence through personally resisting the forces that would lead our Convention into separatist oblivion by demanding doctrinal conformity in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ and everything to do with their narrow, ideological views of what it means to be a Baptist. I just hope our Convention can survive until that happens.

In His Grace,


Wade

Unmasking Baptist Identity

The new Baptist Identity initiative in the Southern Baptist Convention is an attempt by some to redefine what it means to be a Southern Baptist. Whereas I believe with all my heart there is room in the SBC for those who wed themselves to the new bedrock convictions of Baptist Identity, there is real danger for the end of broad cooperation within the Convention if Baptist Identity is allowed to be presented as 'mainstream' to what it means to be a Southern Baptist church.

Though the non-negotiable principles of Baptist Identity are apt to multiply over time like dandelions in a spring lawn, there are certain 'bedrock convictions' of the new Baptist Identity movement that reveal the movement is neither historically Baptist nor mainstream Southern Baptist in identity. The three main problems associated with the new Baptist Identity iniative include:

(1). A Top-Down Ecclesiology

Baptist Identity people within the Southern Baptist Convention act as if the highest authority in the convention is a document the convention produces (the Baptist Faith and Message), an agency the Convention creates (the IMB, the NAMB, Seminaries, etc . . .) or a person the Convention anoints. The first is creedalism, the second is hierarchialism, and the latter is authoritianism. These three isms typify Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and though there are many Christians within the Roman Catholic church, Baptists have historically resisted the tendencies of Roman Catholic ecclesiology - but not the new Baptist Identity movement. This top down ecclesiology of Baptist Identity people manifests itself in various ways in our convention.

First, the sending out of missionaries. The Southern Baptist Convention historically recognizes that the local church sends out missionaries, NOT THE INTERNATIONAL MISSION BOARD. The IMB was created to facilitate churches sending THEIR missionaries. Recently, that dynamic has changed. Now we have the absurd practice of a local Southern Baptist church approving the baptism and sending of a missionary, only to then have the IMB ordering that autonomous church to 'rebaptize' the prospective missionary because the IMB says the administrator of the missionary's baptism was not a qualified administrator. I say this reverently; For God's sake, and in honor of His Word, will someone please show how it is historically Baptist for an agency to supercede the authority of a local church and order a church to 'rebaptize' someone that the church has already accepted into membership, determining their baptism to be biblical (by immersion, after coming to faith in Christ)?

Second, Baptist Identity people wish to use the BFM as a 'tool of accountability.' They have forgotten that confessions of faith are confessions, not creeds. The historic Baptist practice is for the local church to establish her beliefs and lay them out in local church confessions. Periodically, Baptists would gather together to write a common consensus of faith, called in the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist Faith and Message. Historically, these broad convention confessions were not intended to lay out anything that went beyond "the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament." Let me say that again. The Baptist Faith and Message was initially, and I quote, "not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament." The local church was the place doctrine was narrowed as the church saw fit. The convention was built on cooperation among diverse churches, not conformity among identical churches. Yet, over time, the BFM has been used to narrow the doctrinal parameters of cooperation beyond the simple conditions of salvation. Every time the BFM is narrowed to include more doctrines of a tertiary nature, cooperation among diverse churches within the SBC ends. And, Baptist Identity people applaud this end to cooperation by setting forth tertiary doctrines that go way beyond the fundamentals of the gospel, and then demanding conformity to these tertiary issues by calling them 'bedrock convictions.' Then, the Baptist Identity advocates make extreme statements like:

Cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised.

The Baptist Identity movement has now pushed to to narrow the parameters of cooperation by using backdoor policies at SBC agencies. They claim that the Convention had no idea what it was doing when the Garner Motion was passed in 2007, and the BFM is only a minimal standard of doctrine to which churches must conform. Other policies that exceed the BFM are needed to keep everyone in doctrinal shape. It ought to be a requirement for everyone with an affinity to the Baptist Identity movement to memorize the preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message (emphasis mine) and what Southern Baptists have historically believed about the doctrines contained within our convention confessions:

1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.

(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.

This top-down ecclesiology is the first huge problem with the Baptist Identity initiative.

(2). A Loss of Church Autonomy

A natural result of a hierchial, authoritarian, creedal ecclesiology within the Southern Baptist Convention is the loss of local church autonomy. The Baptist Identity movement wishes to exclude from cooperation any church that dares to do it differently than they do. The Baptist Identity advocates use labels in order to attempt to marginalize or neutralize those who disagree with them.

Yet, any study of history would lead people to recognize that true Baptist identity is found in churches that practiced autonomy, that dared to go against religious establishments, and sought to follow Scripture alone as their guide. Of course, humility has been the key component of Baptists over the centuries. A soul that recognizes no authority but Christ is humble enough to acknowledge that he is neither Christ nor His vicar. Therefore, a true Baptist will judge no man until it is time for Christ to judge the heart.

Most Baptist Identity advocates pastor small churches or preside over declining ministries. The attitude that leads to demands for absolute conformity, authoritian control over one's belief system, and separation from those who disagree leads to isolationalism and a declining membership. Avowals that 'I have the truth, and you don't' turn people away. When it comes to the fundamentals of the gospel, we don't mind that people turn away. But it is the demands for conformity on tertiary issues that is harming our convention. It is time for Southern Baptists to realize that Baptist Identity is a fringe movement of the SBC, and displays neither the mainstream spirit or theology of the majority of the people within our convention.

Let me repeat something that all Southern Baptist need to remember: The Southern Baptist Convention was built on cooperation among diverse churches, not conformity among identical churches. We need a restoration of understanding of what local church autonomy means.

(3). An Extra-Biblical Theology

The Apostle Paul put it succinctly in I Corinthians 4:6:

Let us not go beyond what is written.

Extra-biblical convictions, extra-biblical doctines, and extra-biblical traditions are fine when they remain personal. But when you include us, you violate Scripture.

One of our member's family has been raising prized herefords since the Land Run of 1893. He took me on a tour of his large operation recently and explained the process of keeping a growing, healthy herd of cattle.

He said that over time, inbreeding causes mutations and deformities that lead to a sick herd of cattle. He has to travel to North Dakota, Michigan, and other far reaches of the United States to find bulls that are different to breed with his cows. It is the introduction of differences within the herd that keep the herd healthy.

I'm convinced that the Baptist Identity movement is going the opposite direction of my rancher. The proponents of Baptist Identity are taking out any bulls and any cows within the Southern Baptist herd that look different, and are erecting fences to keep different cattle out. If we don't identify the problem and learn to 'cherish' differences then we are going to mutate into a convention that our forefathers would have not been able to recognize.


In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Mere Replacement of One Set of Bureacrats

Dr. Timothy George once wrote:

The mere replacement of one set of bureaucrats with another doth not a reformation make!

A new group of Baptist Identity adherents have formed The Association of Convictional Baptists, and will be presenting a Resolution on Regenerate Church Membership, written by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, at the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention in Indianoplois, Indiana. The resolution is good in what it says, but very revealing in what it does not say.

Dr. Tom Ascol has for years proposed that our convention adopt his own Resolution on Church Membership; a request our convention has denied on several occasions. According to former SWBTS adjunct professor Bart Barber, the organizer for the push to adopt the new resolution, Dr. Ascol intends to offer his resolution again at the 2008 Indianopolis Southern Baptist Convention. In essence, we will have TWO resolutions submitted on Regenerate Church Membership. Bart Barber writes of the two resolutions:

The similarities between the two resolutions outweigh the differences, although I prefer our resolution.

.
What Are The Differences?

A brief reading of both proposed resolutions reveals that Dr. Malcolm Yarnell's resolution, endorsed by The Association of Convictional Baptists, removes any reference to the years of our denomination reporting to the secular press inflated denominational membership statistics through the Annual Church Profile, and also removes any call for repentance by denominational and church leaders for boasting about the number of members within the Southern Baptist Convention - numbers that we Southern Baptists have known for years are deceptive.

I would hope that one of the convictions of the new Association of Convictional Baptists is a conviction to tell the truth. It is hard to understand the reasoning for not including repentance for any deception that has occurred. Unless changes are made and the two resolutions can be blended into one, we have the very real possibility of a debate over two regenerate church membership resolutions revolving around whether or not we wish to admit our sins of the past - or cover them up. A rather interesting debate considering we confess to believe the Bible and it clearly says, "Whosoever covereth his sin shall not prosper" (Proverbs 28:13).

Interestingly, the email debate between fifty of the initial sponsors of the Association of Convictional Baptists included suggestions that the statements calling upon Ascol's statements regarding denominational accountability be included, and thus, there could be a wide bipartisian support of a single resolution, with Dr. Ascol not needing to offer his.

Both Danny Akin and Mark Dever expressed their support for these additions, and Nathan Finn of Southeastern Seminary was particularly articulate in his argument for the inclusion of Ascol's statements that called for denominational accountability and repentance. Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, took Nathan Finn to task for advocating these additions, and with the two proponents of the new resolution - Malcolm Yarnell and Bart Barber - possessing fiduciary and personal loyalty to Southwestern Seminary and Paige Patterson, one can now understand why there are now TWO regenerate church membership resolutions - instead of one.

Repeating the Mistakes of the 1970's and 1980's

During the 1970's those in control of the Southern Baptist Convention and her agencies did not like information that caused the convention to be perceived in a negative light. Some were justifiably upset at the lack of transparency and accountability on the denominational level, including the illustration Dr. George gives in his article, regarding the support of abortion rights by the Southern Baptist Convention's Christian Life Commission in the 1970's.

We who serve in the 21st Century as Southern Baptist pastors and employees need to learn from our past mistakes. We must resist acting in our own self-interest or self-preservation by seeking favor through flattering influential people, and we must be Christian men and women who do the right thing because of principle.

Here's hoping that The Associational of Convictional Baptists will see the error of not addressing the language proposed by Dr. Tom Ascol before it is too late and there is an embarrassing debate, reported on by the secular press, over the reasons for the exclusions of denominational accountability.

In His Grace,

Wade

Baptist Identity and Ad Hominem Variants

Malcolm Yarnell, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Southwestern Theological Seminary and the Editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology is one of the proponents of the new Baptist Identity initiative within the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Yarnell was asked to write a guest article on a Baptist Identity blog where he gave seven doctrines of baptism which "speak much to Baptist Identity."

David Rogers, missionary for the International Mission Board and son of the late Adrian Rogers, wrote the first comment in response to Dr. Yarnell's article, articulating his personal disagreements with doctrines 4, 5 and 7. David then asked Malcolm Yarnell several questions including the following:

If I am unable to unequivocably embrace your 4th, 5th and 7th major points . . . does that mean that I am not truly a Baptist?

I chuckled when I read David's question. When a blue-blood Southern Baptist like David feels compelled to ask such a question, then the Baptist Identity initiative is definitely a fringe movement. Before Malcolm could respond to David Rogers' questions, I followed up with on of my own regarding the 4th doctrine of Baptist Identity which Dr. Yarnell defined as follows:

Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.

Dr. Yarnell called this doctrine, and the other six Baptist Identity doctrines he posits, 'bedrock convictions,' and he wrote that "cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised." Dr. Yarnell and Mr. Lumpkin (the owner of the blog), both believe that cooperation should end with anybody who disagrees with them on these so called 'bedrock convictions.' Though shocked at such extremism, I politely wrote the following in response to such thinking:

Believing David Rogers' questions to be very pertinent, I do not wish to distract from the time required to answer them. However, if I might add a couple of simple questions to his.

You wrote: "Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership."

My questions: Into which local church was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized? Into which local church were the 3,000 at Pentecost baptized - having come to Jerusalem from all over the known world?

And, if you are unable to identify the local churches, is it possible that our early Baptist fathers were correct that baptism does not admit anyone into the local church? One such early Baptist wrote:

Baptism does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it. John Gill

In light of your statements here, that the principles you put forth, including 'baptism involves local church membership,' are 'bedrock fundamentals' of Baptist Identity, will you at least admit that one of the principles you call bedrock is a departure from historic Baptist belief, and that if this is the case, then the new Baptist Identity movement, which is making tertiary issues 'bedrock fundamentals' is a movement that will ultimately separate, isolate, and disintegrate all cooperation - even among Baptists?

Just wondering.

Malcolm Yarnell responded to my question with the following words:

Thank you so kindly for your enquiry, but because of recent history with regard to Southwestern Seminary and the International Mission Board, you probably understand if I choose not to interact with your queries regarding the membership of the first church of Jerusalem, or the use of a peculiar High Calvinist to construct Baptist ecclesiology or missiology . . .

Huh?

I called Malcolm and left a message for him to call me on my cell regarding his response. He did not call me back. Malcolm's use of ad hominem variants, is precisely what happened at Southwestern Seminary and the International Mission Board. In other words, he illustrates the attitude of past trustee leadership at the IMB and current administration of SWBTS.

Let me illustrate:

When Dr. Klouda was removed from her position I made a trip to Fort Worth to privately speak to the administrators involved, including Dr. Patterson himself. I waited for three hours but was told he was unavailable to speak with me because of previous engagements. I left my cell phone number and forwarded a list of questions that I had regarding her removal. I emailed again, requesting a response to my questions. Nobody from SWBTS ever called me. Nobody from SWBTS answered my questions regarding Dr. Klouda's removal. Days later I published my post on Dr. Klouda. Rather than answer questions, those in charge at SWBTS have resorted to the ad hominem (attack the person) approach.

The same thing happened on the International Mission Board. When the new policies were proposed, I asked several questions, behind closed doors, and requested answers. Why are these policies needed? What precipitated the process to change the policies? Is there anecdotal field evidence that these policies are needed? How does our IMB administration feel about the policies? Nobody in trustee leadership would, or could, answer my questions. But several brought all kinds of personal attacks against me. It was only after six months of repeated refusals to answer my questions as a trustee that I posted Crusading Conservatives versus Cooperating Conservatives.

Dr. Yarnell seems to imply that the fault for problems at SWBTS and the IMB is me. I respectfully disagree. The fault for problems at both institutions lies at the feet of those in leadership who are either unwilling or incapable of answering legitimate, honest questions by fellow Southern Baptists and resort to ad hominem attacks to discredit or marginalize those who question them.

If proponents in the new Baptist Identity initiative of the Southern Baptist Convention wish to convince others that their beliefs are 'bedrock convictions' that should define cooperation among Baptists, then it would serve their purposes better to answer questions rather than attack the questioner.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Those Who Make the BFM Say What It Doesn't

H.G. Wells once said, "I write as straight as I can, just as I walk as straight as I can, because that is the best way to get there." The best way to get to an understanding of the role of women in the SBC should be the straighforward wording of the Southern Baptist Convention's Confession of Faith. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message makes the following statement about women under Article VI entitled The Church:

"While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

This statement is clear. Whether or not one agrees with the premise, it should be granted that the 2000 BFM prohibits women from serving in the office of pastor ; which is defined in Article VI as an office within a church. There is no prohibition regarding women serving as Hebrew professors at our seminaries; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Vice-Presidents or even Presidents of our Southern Baptist agencies; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Strategy Cordinators with the International Mission Board; there is no prohibition regarding women teaching men; and as and there is no prohibition regarding women serving as chaplains. The only confessional prohibition is that women cannot serve in the 'office of pastor.'

The 2000 BFM Committee also used clear language to express their belief in the possible fallibility (error) of their interpretations of the sacred text. The 2000 BFM Committee displayed the same humble approach that the 1925 and 1963 Committees exhibited in acknowledging their ability to err in interpretating biblical doctrines - while at the same time believing the Bible itself is without error. This acknowledgment is spelled out in in their report to the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention:

As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time. Any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so. The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

If this generation of Southern Baptists does not understand the significance of such humble language and experience heartfelt gratitude for it, there will one day arise another generation who will express appreciation that their Southern Baptist forefathers had such wisdom. All Southern Baptists readily concede that unless the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is revised, women are officially prohibited from serving in the 'office of pastor' within a church that wishes to cooperate with other Southern Baptists churches or be identified with the Southern Baptist Convention. My goal is neither to revise or amend the 2000 BFM; I desire to show Southern Baptists how the phrase 'office of pastor' has now been taken by hard-line complementarians in the Southern Baptist Convention and used as the basis for the removal of women from performing any Christian function or ministry that involves men. These ministries from which Southern Baptist women have been prohibited include, but are not limited to, the 'indulgence' of exegeting Scripture in the presence of men, participating in any public leadership or administration of the ordinances with men present, and serving in Southern Baptist positions or jobs that require supervision of men. Integrity demands that we Southern Baptist should say what we mean. The intentional and clear phrase 'office of pastor' means what it says. To now use it to justify the complete removal of Southern Baptist women from any ministry involving men is both deceptive and unacceptable.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Southern Baptists, including Dorothy Patterson, Al Mohler, Danny Akin and others, serve on the Board of Directors of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. There are some fine men and women across the evangelical spectrum who serve on the board of directors, council and board of reference of CBMW. They write some excellent articles and materials from a complementarian perspective, and I have profited from them. I am grateful for Christians like those who serve on the Council, including the Southern Baptists named above, because they think seriously about such issues as manhood and womanhood and write for the profit of others. There are as many other conservative, evangelical men and women who write for Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization that holds to egalitarianism, and I have profited from their scholarly approach to biblical manhood and womanhood as well. Contrary what some assert, not only is it possible for a conservative, Bible-believing Christian to hold to egalitarianism. thousands of inerrantists do.

It is interesting to me, however, that complementarians often seem to lack either consensus or precision related to the question of whether or not it is only the senior pastor position that is banned for women. Hard-line complementarians on the CBMW have not reached a consensus with softer complementarians on whether or not women can lead worship, serve on pastoral staffs, teach men in the academic setting, etc . . . Unfortunately, it seems as if those advocating the hard-line complementarian position, which limits women far beyond the role of 'pastor' or 'elder,' may be currently winning the day at CBMW. I would love to be proven wrong by the CBMW revealing publicly which ministries they believe to be barred to women, with clear biblical warrants given. Otherwise, the kingdom is harmed by a kind of blanket discouragement for women to think of themselves as being able to minister according to their gifts, or to pursue ministry positions within the church other than the 'office of pastor.'

It is time that we Southern Baptists recognized that there may be a few people in leadership positions within our Convention who would seek to force upon the convention things regarding women that we have never offically adopted - like prohibitions on missionaries possessing a private prayer language, or prohibitions on women teaching Hebrew in our seminaries, or prohibitions on women serving as chaplains, etc . . . In my next post (I'm still researching for it) I will tell you the story of Regimental Army Chaplain, Major Paige Heard, who is now stationed at historic West Point Military Academy. Major Heard is a life-long Southern Baptist, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, New Orleans Seminary, and has faithfully served Christ as an endorsed chaplain of the Southern Baptist Convention. Paige is a conservative. She believes the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and sufficient. Yet, she is now only one of five female Southern Baptist chaplains left in the Army. In 2004 the trustees of the North American Misson Board voted to stop endorsing female chaplains. Major Heard had been endorsed prior to the 2004 prohibition and was 'grandfathered' in.

Ironically, the North American Mission Board in 2003 had initially said they would not 'ordain' women. But when they learned that the Army did not require ordination for a woman to serve as Chaplain, just an endorsement from NAMB, the trustees scrambled to stop the endorsements in 2004. In explaining why the trustees would no longer endorse 'women' to be chaplains for the Army, the NAMB Chairman of the Trustee Board said, "we will not endorse a woman where where the role and function of the chaplain would be seen the same as that of a pastor."

Do you notice the difference in language? The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message prohibits a woman from 'the office of pastor' in the local church. Somebody, somewhere, drove the NAMB trustees in 2004 to change the prohibition from 'office' to 'function' or 'ministry.' Now, a Southern Baptist woman, according to those who wish to force this narrow view on the rest of us, cannot minister or serve in any manner that might smack of what a pastor might do. As in . . .

(1). Indulging in the exposition of Scripture with men present.
(2). Having 'authority' over men in ministry.
(3). Leading men to faith in Jesus Christ.
(4). Leading in the observing of the ordinances in the presence of men.
(5). Leading worship in a worship service with men present.
(6). Teaching Christian history to men who will be pastors.
(7). Teaching anything spiritual to a boy over the age of twelve.

At the rate we are going to have some leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention who may very well take this prohibition of women holding the 'office of pastor' and do something ridiculous like establish a homemaking program at a seminary to teach women to sew, cook, clean, iron, etc . . . since they are prohibited from doing anything else in terms of ministry. Oh, wait, that's already happening.

More Monday.

Wade Burleson

The Contaminated Pulpit and Other Weird Things

Prior to the vote for adoption of the BFM 2000 I had written a couple of open letters that were published in our state Baptist paper.

The letters articulated my feelings that the proposed confession contained a couple of tertiary, non-essential doctrines - including the prohibition of women 'Senior Pastors' - that should never have been placed there by the BFM committee in the first place.

I explained that the Baptist Faith and Message, the only statement of doctrinal consensus that defined the parameters of our missionary cooperation, should only focus on the essentials of our faith and Baptist identity.

There is no position of "Senior Pastor" mentioned in the Bible. There are hundreds of Baptist women who teach, shepherd, and disciple both men and women, particularly in overseas cultures where Christian leadership is all about humble service and giftings and not gender. The Bible does not prohibit women from teaching men the Scriptures.

The BFM 2000 prohibition against "women serving as Senior Pastors" seemed to me to be very Western (cultural) and extra-biblical requirement. Nevertheless, when it came time to vote for the 2000 BFM I voted for its adoption, believing that the prohibition statement was really not that big of a deal.

Little did I realize at the time that there was a movement beginning in the far right of the SBC to exclude women from ALL ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Some Southern Baptists leaders like Paige Patterson believe that any ministry conducted by women that involves 'teaching' men (over the age of 12) or having 'authority over men' should be universally prohibited.

 The BFM 2000 was used as the basis for this removal of women from their God-called, Spirit-led ministries, even though the BFM only prevented women from serving as 'Senior Pastors'.

Illustrations of the Effects of the SBC Move Against Women

In 2004 Dr. Karen Bullock, a conservative scholar and an acclaimed author, was removed from her position as Professor of Church History at Southwestern Theological Seminary.

At the time, Dr. Bullock, a member of the SWBTS faculty since 1994, was one of the more popular Southwestern professors and also served as the Assistant Dean of the School of Theology. Dr. Bullock was removed from her position only because she was female. It is widely believed that Dr. Bullock delivered one of the greatest chapel talks (i.e. 'sermons') in the history of Southwestern Theological Seminary. The tape has since been removed from Southwestern's archives, but we intend to post the audio in the next few weeks.

Here's where it get's bizarre.

The pulpit from behind which Dr. Bullock spoke was eventually removed from Southwestern's chapel under orders of the new President of SWBTS, Dr. Paige Patterson.

Dr. Patterson explained to those he had to remove it because "it had been contaminated by a woman preaching behind it." 

Though the rumor persisted that the historic pulpit had been taken out and burned, the truth is far less dramatic. It remains hidden behind stacks of supplies in a closet at the seminary's library, never having seen the light of day since its removal.

The forced exit of Dr. Bullock had been preceded in 2001 by the removal of Dr. David Crutchley from his position as the Dean of the School of Theology. Crutchley was the man that had recommended the trustees hire Dr. Bullock.

In addition, Dr. Kenneth Hemphill, President of Southwestern Theological Seminary, was eventually forced out when he saw the handwriting on the wall. A Tenure Review Committee, formed by SWBTS trustees and VP Craig Blaising, opposed Dr. Hemphill's Presidential recommendation that Dr. Karen Bullock should be given tenure.

Though Dr. Hemphill called his eventual departure an 'early retirement', it is obvious through his correspondence to the Tenure Review Committee that there was a sharp disagreement over the denial of tenure to Dr. Karen Bullock, and of course, Dr. Hemphill went to work for the Executive Committee in Nashville making for a very short 'early' retirement.

When Dr. Paige Patterson was hired to replace Dr. Hemphill one of his first acts was to hire David Allen (who just happened to be the SWBTS trustee who chaired the board meeting at which Patterson was hired).

The chairman of the search committee, Dr. Denny Autrey, was also elevated to a top post in the Patterson administration.

Of course, it is now a matter of sworn testimony that Dr. Patterson also orchestrated the removal of Dr. Sheri Klouda, the Professor of Hebrew in the School of Theology at SWBTS, solely because of her gender. Dr. Patterson says he believed he was simply fulfilling the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention and the BFM 2000 'prohibition' of women pastors by removing Dr. Klouda.

To believe this, you must overlook the fact that Southwestern itself trained Klouda in the Hebrew language, awarding her the Ph.D.. And for you to accept her removal as justified, you must agree with the statement that her being hired to teach Hebrew was 'a momentary lapse of parameters'.

The real issue is that men who are now in charge at Southwestern don't want women around.

As recently as the fall of 2006, a professor at SWBTS refused to allow three female Master of Divinity students to 'preach' with males present. All male Master of Divinity students were told not to come to the class the day the females were to 'preach,' and even the professor himself sent his wife to 'listen' to the women 'indulge in the exposition' of Scripture.

It has long been known that there have been attempts by trustees at the International Mission Board to remove any woman from a 'position of authority' within the organization. It is a known fact that there is not one female Regional Leader and that there are less than a handful of Strategy Coordinators at the International Mission Board who are female - and their positions are in jeopardy. In addition, there is no female on the Executive Team at the Administration Offices - except the secretary who is there to take notes.

Not all IMB trustees have been involved with the effort to minimize roles, and maybe IMB Executive Staff should share the responsibility for the reduced role of women within the IMB, but I find it hard to fault them because of their fear of reprisal for going against trustee leadership desires.

In early 2006 I confronted a small group of male trustees led by Bill Sutton, the hunting friend of Paige Patterson, and Bob Pearle, the pastor of Paige Patterson, who were discussing how to remove the woman who was the acting Vice-President of the International Mission Board. I overheard a late night meeting between these men and another eight to ten trustees in the lobby of the hotel where we IMB trustees were being housed.

This 'informal' caucus of men was discussing how to remove the Vice-President from her position and the steps needed to accomplish their goal. The sentiment was expressed that a woman had no place being in this particular position of authority. After listening to just a minute or two of their discussion I went upstairs to get a couple of friends to act as witnesses. I then came back down to the lobby and confronted the trustees. I let them know, in no uncertain terms, that not only was their meeting a violation of our 'Blue Book' which stated that during regularly scheduled IMB trustee meetings no trustees shall meet in 'caucus' sessions, either formal or informal, to discuss IMB business and that the opinions I had overheard expressed in that caucus meeting about women were a violation of Christian charity, not to mention Scripture.

The morning after the late night confrontation, I went to the female Vice-President and Dr. Rankin and told them that there might be a move designed to either publicly humiliate or remove the Vice-President from her 'acting' position.

I told them both that if it came in the plenary session, as I had heard discussed, to not worry - I would not let her be mistreated. It was in that particular January trustee meeting in 2006 that the motion came to move into Executive Session (closed doors). I was seated on the front row and asked the Chairman, Tom Hatley, why we were moving into Executive Session.

He did not answer me, and so I turned to my friend Rick Thompson, pastor of Council Road Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, and said, "Rick, get ready, they are going after Wendy. I'm not going to let them. This could get heated.".

Once the doors were closed I heard the motion . . . "I move that Wade Burleson be removed from the International Mission Board for . . .". Rick and I looked at each other in disbelief and shock.

Then I knew.

The system established years ago for the appointment of trustees enabled our boards and agencies to be filled with only like-minded Southern Baptists who would elect trustee leaders that had a particular ideology. I don't know if it should be called 'Fundamentalism'...maybe not.

One thing is for sure; in this closed system, no dissent or questioning is allowed. We must find some way as Southern Baptists to end our narrowness on certain issues or we are going to lose the blessing of experiencing the gifts and talents of the women in our convention who are filled with the love of Christ.

The Issue Is Not About Women Senior Pastors

In a convention where a macho President can carry shotguns onto the lawn of one of our seminaries and fire rounds at squirrels in trees (as happened last Friday), and in a convention that often resembles the soap opera 'Dallas' where gas wells are being drilled in the old RV parking lot to supplement seminary income (as it is at SWBTS), and in a convention where the indoctrination of future pastors includes the teaching that the only rightful place of women is in the home as a homemaker, and in a convention that continues to fund degrees in homemaking for women at institutions that used to be known for great classical, pastoral training, and in a convention that sometimes seems really scared to simply let the sisters function, it is time we took a very hard look at the direction we are heading. And, it has nothing to do with 'Senior Pastors' being women.

For a long while, I have justified my participation in the Conservative Resurgence as a desire to keep our convention committed to the sacred, infallible word of God. I really did believe we were battling for the Bible. And though I could not see in the Bible where there was any direct 'prohibition' against women pastors, I was willing to let that slide because I am not personally bothered by the prohibition.

To me, there were more important matters, and I was not interested in making the removal of this prohibition an issue. However, now that I have seen that the SBC is moving further and further to the right by trustees adding ADDITIONAL restrictions and ADDITIONAL prohibitions THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, I now know that something needs to be done and I cannot be silent. If it seems to you that I am advocating women pastors, you are dead wrong. I am speaking out because I am seeing the prohibition against women pastors as a smoke screen for other activities within the SBC that are both unjustifiable and illogical.

Women are being removed as SBC professors.
Women are being removed from the SBC classrooms.
Women are being removed from serving as SBC administrators.
Women are being removed as SBC strategic coordinators on the mission field.

All this under the justification that the BFM says women shall not be 'Senior Pastors'. What? How do the above positions fall under the category of 'Senior Pastor'? The BFM doesn't say women can't serve in these areas!

I have an observation: to remove women from being SBC professors, students, missionaries, and administrators, all because the BFM 2000 says they can't serve in those positions is as dishonest as someone acting as if the BFM 2000, the only consensus doctrinal statement of the SBC, prohibits people from serving as missionaries who pray in a private prayer language. Oh, wait, that's already being done.

Wake up, people.