Sectionalism, Fractionalism, and the Separation of Union: A Case Study of What Leads People of Principle to Fight

Alan C. Aimone is the Chief of Special Collections of the United States Military Academy Library, West Point, New York. He researches and writes historical articles, principally on West Point, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and Hudson Valley history. I wrote last week of Alan's kindness toward Rachelle and me as we visited with him at West Point. On the way home from New York I was able to read Alan's lengthy and scholarly article in the December 1991 edition of Blue and Gray Magazine entitled "Much to Sadden and Little to Cheer--The Civil War Years at West Point."

West Point, our nation's premier military academy for army cadets, became filled with tension in the months preceding the Civil War. Plebes (first year students) and cadets found themselves abandoning the traditional harmony of "God and Country" for the sectionalism of "north" and "south." In his article, Alan Aimone writes of the first recorded fist fight on the grounds of West Point over the division arising from principled differences that formed the cause of the Civil War. The fisticuffs between Emory Upton (Class of May 1861) of New York and Wade Hampton Gibbes (Class of 1860) of South Carolina was "the first determined stand by any Northerner against the long, aggressive and unchallenged dictatorship of the South" against those West Point cadets who held to abolitionist principles.

Cadet Upton had attended Oberlin College in Ohio, an institution that was "hated and despised by the South for ... admitting negroes as students." Cadet Gibbes made unflattering comments to his Southern friends regarding Upton's "intimate relationship with Negroes." Battle lines were then drawn and a fight was held behind closed doors in the barracks while a crowd of cadets gathered in the hall to listen to the skirmish. A contemporary of the fight's participants, cadet Morris Schaff, stood in the hallway and later wrote home describing the scene:

From time to time we could hear angry voices, the scuffling of feet, and those other dull sounds which fall so heavily on the ears ... (W)hen the fight was over, I saw Upton's resolute face bleeding. Upton's roommate and his second in the fight, John Isaac Rodgers, stood at the top of the stairs and defied the mob of cadets, yelling, 'If there are any more of you down there who want anything, come right up!' No one accepted his challenge. I am satisfied that the South then and there beheld what iron and steel there was in the Northern blood when once it was up."

This interesting anecdote gives some insight on why people of previous harmony wind up fighting.

(1). When differences in beliefs are not debated with civility, and one side or the other begins to personally denigrate and ridicule the character and personhood of those who believe differently, the beginnings of a fight emerge.

(2). From the group being abused personally--usually those who hold to a minority viewpoint--there arises one who stands firm against those who denigrate and abuse.

(3). When those in control feel  threatened or are challenged, they will attack with ferocity, believing themselves in danger of losing their dominating position.

(4). If the minority leader successfully holds his ground, others who also hold to the same viewpoint are emboldened and begin to rally, eventually feeling safe enough to issue challenges of their own to those who have personally denigrated those with whom they disagree.

(5). Eventually the fight will cease because those who love to bully and attack those with whom they are exposed as lacking the kind of character needed in true leaders.

An illustration of all five principles at play in a modern "fight" among Southern Baptists is forthcoming.

In His Grace,

Wade

Seeing the Best in People: An Illustration From Baylor Unversity's Diamond Jubilee

There are some hidden, historical gems available to all Southern Baptists on the Internet. A Record of the Diamond Jubilee (75th Anniversary) of the Founding of Baylor University makes for some very interesting reading. It is one of the first occasions among Southern Baptists where proceedings were recorded by a modern stenoytpe machine (patented in Ireland in 1913).

During June of 1920, educators from around the country (Yale, Harvard, etc...), national and state politicans, and Southern Baptist leaders gathered on the campus of Baylor University in Waco, Texas to celebrate the school's Diamond Jubilee. Among the speakers at this event were the iconic George W. Truett, pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas; my distant cousin Sydney Albert Burleson, the Postmaster General of the United States and special envoy from President Woodrow Wilson; and Dr. George McDaniel, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Richmond, Virginia. All three men were graduates of Baylor University. The event also happened to be one of the last major public appearances of Georgia Burleson, affectionately called in the proceedings "Aunt Georgia" by Dr. Truett. Georgia was the elderly wife of educator and former Baylor President Rufus S. Burleson (1823-1901), and the woman for whom Burleson Dormitory is named. The proceedings make for some great historical reading. I will highlight one anecdote which will of benefit to all of us who teach or lead others.

Dr. George W. McDaniel, D.D., LL.D. the eloquent and the beloved pastor of the First Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia spoke on the opening day of the Diamond Jubilee. Dr. McDaniel's text was from the gospel of John where Jesus said of Nathaniel, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile." Dr. McDaniel points out that these words of Jesus come immediately after Nathaniel had prejudicely said, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" McDaniel says that some people can never think well, nor speak kindly, of one who has ventured to criticise them adversely. Yet Jesus, even after hearing the words of Nathaniel about people from Jesus' hometown, speaks kindly of Nathaniel. Dr. McDaniel encouraged his listeners to model the character of Christ and see the best in people. He then tells the following story to illustrate how this kind of character applies itself in real life.

"Several years ago a young man whose class standing was high went on his final examination in history. His distinguished father was to deliver the commencement address four days later. Just before entering the examination room the son received a telegram:

"Wire me result of your last examination. Should you fail I shall not fill my engagement. Your Father."

The telegram unnerved the splendid student. His father's apprehension seized him. For the first time in four years he was "rattled" on examination. For one hour his mind was blank. For the second hour it was a confused mass of incoherent, unrelated knowledge. Two hours and a half passed before he began to write. One hour remained for the long examination. Time was up.

Most of his classmates had handed in their papers and gone. He asked for more time. The considerate professor granted thirty minutes. As his less accurate and less scholarly roommate handed in his paper and left the room the professor followed him out.

"What is the trouble with M — ? He knows this subject and should have no difficulty with this examination."

The young man replied, "Yes, he knows it better than any man in the class," and then told the professor about the telegram.

Five minutes before the extra time had expired the professor stepped to M — 's desk. "Mr. M — , wire your father that you have made this subject with distinction."

"No, Professor, I have made a wretched failure and you will never pass me on this paper."

"Pass you! You have already passed. I tell you, wire your father."

We all should be like that teacher. He had a heart and he knew. A few years later the brilliant young man died of tuberculosis in the mountains of the West. He had broken his health in the pursuit of knowledge. But for the intervention of a Christ-like teacher he would have died sooner of a broken heart."

The Ten Commandments for Christian Civility on the Internet

Today I came across an interview with the editor of a new book to which I have contributed as an author. Christian Civility in an Uncivil World is a book that is needed in our day. The chapter I contributed contains what I call "The Ten Commandments for Christian Civility on the Internet." Periodically I check up on how I'm doing in relation to the principles put forth in that chapter. Not all of you may agree with what I've written, but I would be interested in your comments or opinion about the necessity or beneficiality of the commandments as listed in the book. I might also encourage you to purchase the book for the writings of other fine evangelical Christian men and women, including Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary and Jimmy Allen, former President of the SBC (1977-1979).

The Ten Commandments for Christian Civility on the Internet

1. We will seek to glorify God in all we write. “So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31).

Nothing we write, no matter the content, can be called good without God’s glory as the ultimate aim. If a person seeks recognition, his or her own praise, the applause of people, or any other selfish end through what he or she writes on the Internet, it should not be written, nor will it be accounted by God to be a good thing. There are no restrictions upon Paul’s command, “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). The best way to determine if God is glorified is to ask ourselves what God thinks about what we write. Is it God’s will? Does it display God’s attributes? Is it consistent with God’s desires as expressed in the Bible? Does it honor God and God’s people? Whether our words are formed for praise and prayers, concern and correction, exhortation and encouragement, they should glorify God first and foremost.

(2). We will refuse to post anything online that we wouldn’t say face to face. “The north wind brings forth rain, and a backbiting tongue, angry looks” (Prov 25:23).

Unless we are in physical danger for what we would write or say, we will never write anonymously. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are both human rights, and in those instances where governments, societies, or men seek to remove that right by force, we reserve the right to post anonymously. Otherwise, we must be as responsible and civil on the Internet as we are in person. To hide behind anonymity on the Internet is similar to backbiting and gossiping, two serious sins. We will post it, claim it, and stand by it.

3. When we are offended, we will connect privately before we respond publicly. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone” (Matt 18:15).

There are times when posting differing philosophies, opinions, and thoughts will cause emotions to escalate. During these times, when offenses between brothers and sisters might occur, we will connect privately with the person with whom we have an offense before we write anything publicly. And we will keep in mind that Christian love covers a multitude of offenses.

4. We will think carefully and pray sincerely, before we post. “Let every person . . . be slow to speak” (Jas 1:19). Before we hit the submit button to publish our post, we will think twice about what we are trying to say and will ask ourselves “Is this how and what I really want to be conveyed?” Next, we will pause and ask God to give us wisdom and discernment, and reread the post for a final time. We will then ask if our words stand the test of eternity, when we shall give an account to God of everything we have said or written. If we prayerfully come to peace that what we have written honors God and advances God’s kingdom, we will hit the submit button and publish our words. We will not allow others to corrupt our writing efforts. “One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil” (Prov 14:16). We are committed to enforce civility.

5. We will not allow others to corrupt our writing efforts. “One who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil” (Prov 14:16).

We will strive for only acceptable content on our website, and we will delete all writing and comments that are unacceptable. We will refrain from allowing to stand (a) comments that are abusive, harassing, or threatening to others. (b) comments we know are libelous and/or false. (c) comments that infringe upon any copyright or trademark. (d) comments that violate any obligation for confidentiality. Though the above guidelines are often subjective, we determine what is unacceptable on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to the above, but could grow as our knowledge and understanding of unacceptable content matures. When a comment or guest post is deleted, a clear explanation will always be given.

6. We will not allow others to comment anonymously. Jesus said, “I have spoken openly. I have said nothing in secret” (John 18:20).

We will require commenters to follow the example of Jesus and supply their real first and last names, or if an alias or pseudonym is used, the commenter will supply to us a valid e-mail address with information about themselves before they can post. The necessity of an alias is only in rare circumstances (safety or security of the commenter), but we will always be able to trace the pseudonym to a real person.

7. We will do no one any intentional harm. “Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up” (1 Thess 5:11).

We will intentionally seek to make the people around us better by writing things that encourage and build up. When times come that call for what we feel to be correction, we will speak the truth in love. We will never seek to destroy a reputation, harm a person’s good name, or disparage a person’s character. Our focus in writing will be on a person’s conduct or actions, thinking or philosophy, but not character. The Spirit of God is able to change the heart, not us, and we will accept our brother or sister in Christ where the Lord has them in life.

8. We will be decisive over what we delete. “Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’ at the same time? Our word to you has not been Yes and No” (2 Cor 1:17-18).

We have already stated the importance of taking responsibility for removing unacceptable material from our website. We retain the right to decide what is unacceptable and will not vacillate back and forth as those whose comments have been deleted argue and debate our decision.

9. We will personally rebuke those who post unacceptable content. “But when Peter came to Antioch, I rebuked him to his face” (Gal 2:11).

When someone is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive in nature, we will tell them privately if at all possible and prove, in writing, the unacceptability of what has been written. We will then ask them to make amends publicly, unless it is considered that doing so will only worsen the situation. Where published comments are considered threatening or libelous, we will involve local law enforcement. If the offensive material breaks no laws, and a private rebuke is not received, we will inform the public of the offense in order to create a civil online society where people feel the uncivilized are called out, just as they are in the real world. Of course, it is of highest importance that we safeguard the ability for people to feel safe in disagreement, and that rebukes never be used to silence dissent. Rebukes are used as a last resort only for those who are uncivilized in their writing.

10. We will promote these commandments for increased online Christian civility. “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” (Rom 16:17).

We appeal to all our Christian brothers who write or read published Internet postings to distribute and promote these commandments for Christian civility on the Internet. Through raising awareness of particular actions that can be taken to ensure civility, we “watch out for those who cause divisions.”

Is It Possible for a Christian with Convictions to be Civil in Conduct?

Lutheran theologian Martin Marty made the observation in his 1982 book By Way of Response that people who are civil often do not have strong convictions. Likewise, wrote Dr. Marty, people with strong convictions often aren't very civil. He suggested the world needs people with "convicted civility." Dr. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, read Dr. Marty's words and was inspired to write a classic work on Christian civility called Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World. Dr. Mouw writes of the reason why he wrote his book in an essay that has recently been published, along with a collection of other essays on Christian Civility, in a book entitled Christian Civility in an Uncivil World, edited by Mitch Carnell. Dr. Mouw writes:

"I designed my book to counteract the incivility of people who, like myself, operate with strong religious convictions."

He goes on to give a descriptive definition of Christian civility and an anecdote that illustrates the power of practicing the art of civility in an uncivil world. He writes:

"We can think of civility as a form of hospitality. It is making room for other people, for their hopes and fears; it is a willingness to create a space in our minds for their ideas and experiences, for showing empathy for what is going on in their lives, even when strictly speaking we are not obligated to do so.

Jesus showed a literal hospitality to people whose lifestyles and ideas he strongly opposed. This is what got him into trouble with the religious leaders of his day: "The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, 'Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" (luke 5:30). I can understand something of the concerns of those religious leaders. A genuine vulnerability often comes with a hospitable spirit. The same holds for a willingness to "make room" for the ideas and experiences of those with whom we disagree on serious matters. But we need to take the risk.

Once I gave a talk to a good sized audience on a large university campus. I spoke on the subject of civility . . . Afterwards, the leaders of one of the evangelical campus groups came up to talk with me. They told me how they had run ads in the campus newspaper stating the evanglical understanding of sexual fidelity, with some mention of their opposition to same-sex relationships. One of the gay-lesbian groups had countered with an angry published response, and htey had gone back and forth a bit, trading letters to the editor. "It has gotten a bit out of hand," the leaders said. "Realistically, from your point of view, how should we have handled it diferently?"

I told them that I thought they should have asked for a private meeting with the gay-lesbian leaders at the outset. They should have shown them the ads and said, "We know that you will disagree with our position, but we do want you to see this ahead of time. And if there is anything in here that you think seriously misrepresents your point of view, we want to know aobut it. We want to say what we believe, but we do not want to be needlessly offensive in doing so."

The evangelical leaders thanked me for the advice, and they told me they wished they had done the kind of thing I proposed.

Several weeks later, I received a note from one of them. "After we talked with you," they said, "we met with the leaders of the gay-lesbian group-we invited them to lunch, and they accepted," he reported. "We told them that we wish we had contacted them privately before running our ad. We apologized for how we have typically gone about making our views known, and we asked for their forgiveness. It started off awkward, but by the end of the conversation we were talking about other stuff, and then they said we should meet again, and the next time lunch was on them. I think we are on a new path--not compromising, but making our case in a kinder way!"

This group was taking some important risks in cultivating civility. I was proud of them fow what they had done. They were learning good manners!"

Then, Dr. Mouw concludes his essay by making an observation as to why we Christians are so reluctant to reach out to people with whom we disagree, particularly fellow Christians with whom we have much more in common than those who are lost in this world. He writes:

The answer I keep coming back to is that it is a failure of spirituality. We have not seen public manners, the cultivating of civility, as an important element in our spiritual formation.

Dr. Mouw suggests that cultivating good manners and hospitality is as important to spiritual development as prayer, reflection, Bible reading, etc...

The Christian, even that Christian with very strong convictions, who does not work as hard on good manners, is as unspiritual as the person who doesn't pray or read his Bible.

Amen, Dr. Mouw, amen.

In His Grace,


Wade

Both Civility and Cooperation Needed in the SBC

One of the clearest and most concise explanations of the important issues we face in the immediate future of the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as an accurate overview of the past two year's events in the SBC, is provided by James Galyon, Ph.D., in his December 2, 2007 blog post entitled "Civility and Calvinism (Part II).

Go give Dr. Galyon a visit. It's nice to see someone have such a solid grasp of the issues in the SBC.

In His Grace,


Wade

Christian Civility in an Uncivil World: A New Book

A group of Christian men and women have been brought together by Mitch Carnell, Editor, to publish a book on the subject of Christian civility. I have been asked to write a chapter about Christian civility on the Internet.

One of the contributors to this new book is Dr. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, and the author of a twelve-year-old book entitled: Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World

On Amazon.com there are four reviews of Dr. Mouw's book. One reviewer, Daniel B. Clendenin, Ph.D., writes:

Mouw shows how and why Christians should not only be people of conviction, but people of compassion and civility. We are, he reminds us, to "pursue peace with everyone" (Hebrews 12:14), and to "show every courtesy to everyone" (Titus 3:2). Civility does not mean we have to like everyone we meet, forfeit our convictions to a relativistic perspective, or befriend people as a manipulative ploy to evangelize them. Rather, it means caring deeply about our civitas and its public life, because God so cares. After defining the nature and parameters of Christian civility, Mouw investigates its implications for our speech, attitudes, pluralistic society, sexual mores, other religions, and leadership in a fallen world. He explores the limits of civility, when there is no "on the other hand." His chapter on hell asks whether we can believe in hell and still be civil. In his final two chapters he cautions against out tendencies to triumphalism, and trying to usher in the kingdom of God right now, as opposed to appreciating the ways and means of a patient, slow-moving God who loves His creation deeply and longs to redeem it.

Well said.

I would like your thoughts on Christian civility, particularly as it applies to interaction with people on the internet. I have plenty examples of what Christian civility is not on the internet, but I would like your thoughts, comments, anecdotes, and suggestions on what Christian civility on the internet should look like.

In His Grace,

Wade

The Good in a Brother Who Has Become a Bother

In preparing for Sunday morning's exposition of Genesis 25 I came across an interesting observation about Ishmael from the pen of John Gill. Gill, in his Exposition of the Scriptures, comments on the names of three of Ishmael's sons, 'Mishma, Duman, and Massa' (25:14):

Of Mishma and Massa, and of their posterity, there is not anything said elsewhere, unless the Masani, Ptolemy {p} places near Arabia Felix, came from Massa. Dumah seems to be the same Isaiah speaks of in Ge 21:11; and in Arabia Deserta, where some of Ishmael's posterity settled, is a place called Dumaetha, by Ptolemy {q}, which perhaps had its name from this son of his. The Targum of Jonathan translates these three names,

"hearing, silence, and patience;''

which the Jews use as a proverb, when they would signify that 'there are some things to be heard and not spoken of, and to be patiently borne.' If Ishmael had in view to teach such lessons by the names he gave his children, he will seem to be a better man than he is usually thought to be (emphasis mine).

It was that last phrase that caught my attention. "He would seem to be a better man than he is usually thought to be." I think that could be said of all our brothers or sisters in Christ within the SBC. We may not all agree, and we may not like everything that our brothers in Christ say or do, but it would be intersting to see the transformation that would come to the SBC if we could intentionally focus on the good in that brother who has become a bother.


In His Grace,


Wade

The Worst Criticism Can Bring Out the Best in Us

My Oklahoma internet friend, Roger Simpson, drew my attention to the Daily Bread article dated August 22, 2007. His email was timely as I gleaned a wonderful lesson on handling criticism from the life of one of my theological heroes - Jonathan Edwards.

How do we react to hostile criticism? If it causes us to strike back angrily at our critics, we need to learn from colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758).

Regarded by scholars as an insightful philosopher, Edwards was vindictively attacked by the ruling body of his churh in Northampton, Massachusetts. They felt he was wrong to teach that a person needed to be born again before taking part in the Lord's Supper.

Although he was dismissed from his church, Edwards still maintained a loving and forgiving attitude. One supportive member wrote of him, "I never saw the least symptoms of displeasure in his countenance . . ., but he appeared like a man of God, whose happiness was out of reach of his enemies."

Edwards was simply copying the example of the Lord Jesus. When the Savior was insulted, He did not repay with an insult. When He was falsely denounced, He remained silent, "as a sheep before its shearers is silent" (Isa. 53:7).

Do you have an inner peace even when criticized? As you ask the Holy Spirit for His help, you can, as Edwards did, respond in a Christlike way to false accusations or gossip.

"Be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing" (I Peter 3:8-9)

A Good Illustration of Passive Aggressive People

I have said more than once that I have met my share of passive aggressive people in the last couple of years. Passive aggressive people are those who talk sweet ('brother' this and 'brother' that), use spiritual lingo ('praise the Lord,' 'hallelujah', etc . . .), but all the while are looking to run over anyone in their way. I don't mind aggressive people when they flat out tell you their intentions. But the passive aggressive person is devious, dangerous and often destructive to himself and others.

Recently someone sent me the following illustration that verbally and visually paints the passive aggressive person in great - and humorous - detail.

To My Darling Husband,

Before you return from your business trip I just want to let you know about the small accident I had with the pick up truck when I turned into the driveway.

Fortunately I really didn't get hurt, so please don't worry too much about me.

I was coming home from Wal-Mart, and when I turned into the driveway I accidentally pushed down on the accelerator instead of the brake.

The garage door is slightly bent but the pick up fortunately came to a halt when it bumped into your car.

I am really sorry, but I know with your kindhearted personality you will forgive me.

You know how much I love you and care for you my sweetheart. I am enclosing a picture for you.

I cannot wait to hold you in my arms again.

Your loving wife.

Baptist Bloggers: Beware of Bloggers' Bitter Bile

Joe Klein offers his commentary in the June 18, 2007 edition of TIME magazine on the subject of the ever increasing bitter attacks against him by liberal bloggers for his attempt to present a moderate view on the war in Iraq. Klein is a writer that is not usually seen as a fan of the Bush administration, but he has defended the need for funding the Iraq war, not because he is in favor of it, but in order to ensure our troops are properly equipped.

Klein has become the target of very fierce rhetoric and ad hominem attacks by liberal bloggers. Again, though Klein himself is considered to be a political liberal, to the liberal fundamentalists who blog, Klein is not liberal enough. Klein says of the attacks by his usually like-minded bloggers . . .

The smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogospher.

Klein's words would be appropriate for any end of fundamentalism -- either liberal or conservative. He continues . . .

Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed -- especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.

One of the things that deeply pains me is the attack that comes from my fellow conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention when there are minor disagreements on methodology or minor doctrines. The very intense rhetoric that breaks out, including charges of leniency on homosexuality, desires for rampant feminism, and a movement downstream toward deadly liberalism against those who disagree with certain SBC leaders is unwarranted. Twenty-seven years ago that kind of tactic worked, but the average Southern Baptist today is much better informed and connected.

I am hopeful that all of us Southern Baptists who blog will ban the bloggers' bile that has infected the secular world. We who name Christ as Lord and Savior should set the example for disagreeing with both grace and civility.

In His Grace,

Wade

A Resolution on Love for Fellow Christians

________________________________________

WHEREAS, the Holy Scriptures acknowledge Christ as the head of His church; and
WHEREAS, His church encompasses all the peoples of the world who place their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; and
WHEREAS, God commands that His people love one another deeply (I Peter 4:8); and
WHEREAS, whoever does not love does not know God (I John 4:8); and
WHEREAS, Jesus Christ proclaimed that all persons will know that we are His disciples, by our love for one another (John 13:35);
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-14, 2007, reaffirm our love for Christians of all denominations and our desire to cooperate with evangelicals around the world for the fulfillment of the Great Commission; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon our elected officials to lead us to love with not just words but with actions and in truth (I John 3:18); and
Be it finally RESOLVED, That we, the individual messengers of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention, love each other so that we will be bound together in perfect unity (Colossians 3:14).

Submitted to the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention Resolutions Committee, Chairman Gerald Harris, on May 28, 2007, by Messenger Wade Burleson

Is It A Rebuke or A Response? The PC of the EC

Frank Page has spoken out about the New Baptist Covenant in this Baptist Press article

Page is quoted as saying,

"I will not be a part of any smokescreen leftwing liberal agenda that seeks to deny the greatest need in our world, that being that the lost be shown the way to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

It should go without saying that if the participants of the NBC deny the greatest need in our world is to be shown the way to eternal life through Jesus Christ, then all of us should be troubled. However, when our church financed and dug a water well in the slums of Bangalore for the 10,000 outcasts last November, it was the Hindu mayor that helped us. He denies the need for the gospel, but we continue to share the good news with our Hindu friend, something he has not yet accepted or believed. But his denial of the gospel has not hindered us in building a relationship with the mayor, nor partnering with him to relieve some suffering in the slums of Bangalore.

I should soon have the opportunity to ask Frank about the NBC's alleged denial that the greatest need in our world is the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have not personally heard Mr. Carter or Mr. Underwood say this, and from my understanding, more than a few of the African-American pastors on the program are some great gospel preachers, but if I were to attend the Atlanta convocation, I will definitely be on the alert regarding any denial that the world needs the gospel. I make it a practice not to take someone's word about another, but wait until I hear it for myself, and if I were to learn that a Baptist brother denies the world's need of Jesus Christ, I would be greatly grieved. But I'm not sure I couldn't partner with them to relieve some suffering in the world, just like we've partnered with the Hindu -- and of course, I would try to convert my Baptist brother to true Christianity. Heaven knows that my concern for the past two years is that the Southern Baptist Convention may be on the verge of putting tradition and religion above knowing Christ and believing His authoritative and sufficient Word.

That being said, it does seem to me that Dr. Page's comments, as delivered by Baptist Press, sound like they may have been written by someone other than Frank. They are not quite as irenic as his usual words. Those of us who have been in such positions as Frank know that, on occasion, denominational or state officials prepare statements and have the President sign it. That may or may not be what has happened here. Regardless, Frank probably saw the document and signed off on it. The language and timing sure sound like someone high up may be a little afraid that the the SBC may be perceived by the secular press as becoming soft on liberalism - someone who was deeply involved in the conflicts of decades past.

I really think that there may be some in established denominational positions that carry so much emotional baggage over past conflict in the SBC that it is difficult for them to even think in terms of a new paradigm. Sometimes the softness of denominational luxury causes one to lose sight of the rampant poverty, disease, and sickness in third world countries. Of course, that happens to those of us who are pastors as well, and that's one of the reasons I enjoy going to third world countries with our people -- it helps me keep perspective.

Finally, the Baptist Press article today reminds me that Southern Baptists should always be champions of freedom - including a free press. We must always be on guard against any SBC Executive Committee offical or employee using Baptist Press as a public relations tool. Baptist Press must be free and employees of Baptist Press should not take their orders from denominational executives. As it stands, the headline on the Baptist Press article with Page's remarks within the first hour of posting from Page Rebukes New Covenant to Page Responds to Carter. I'm wondering who put the first title up, and who called and requested the second?

Not that it makes much difference. We are all Baptists. And as I said in my earlier post, we should respect one another's opinion, and love each other, even when we disagree. I'm not sure where I stand on the New Baptist Covenant - it may end up being a smokescreen for liberal politics - but I'm not sure how much different that would be from a convention attaching herself to right wing politics.

Both bother me.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

P.S. PC in the title is 'Political Correctness.' EC in the title is the 'Executive Committee' of the SBC.

Popularity Is Not My Mistress; Christ Guides Me

I am currently reading a book entitled "Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989" by Presidential historian Michael Beschloss. It is quickly becoming one of my top ten books of all time. Beschloss points out that the greatest leaders in United States history were those who were willing to buck popular opinion, follow one's conscience and conviction, and implement change for the good of the nation as a whole. As President John Adams said when he sought peace with France during a time that the vast majority of Americans desired war with the French, "Popularity is not my mistress."

There are three positions I am committed to take as a Southern Baptist for the next decade that may not be popular, but I am convinced that each of them is the right course of action for me.

(1). I am committed to love those Christians with whom I disagree.

I shared in my blog comment string yesterday that I am a die hard Republican. One of my best friends is a Republican National Committee member. Our former Republican Governor, Frank Keating, used my office on a regular basis when he would travel through northwest Oklahoma. I am a right wing conservative politically. I am pro-Israel, and anti-abortion. I support a consitutional amendment on marriage and believe the war in Iraq is just. You will not find a bigger supporter of George W. Bush than I, and I am absolutely convinced history will be kinder to him than the current polls. I love America and am a very strong capitalist. Yet . . .

I refuse to be defined by my politics when it comes to relating to, and cooperating with, my Christian brothers and sisters. I don't care if my brother in Christ is a Democrat, or a left wing politian. I don't care if he is politically anti-Israel, and refuses to fight against abortion in the same manner as I - I will still call him a brother in Christ. I don't care if he dislikes George Bush, believes the war in Iraq is unjust and favors more money for welfare and blushes at the presentation of colors - I will still call him a brother in Christ. I don't care if he is black, Asian, Hispanic or Jewish, if he calls Christ His Lord - he is my brother. He may view the world different than I; he may relate to the world different than I; but if he is my brother in Christ I will extend to him the right hand of fellowship and love.

I will, however, make a deal with him. When we get together, let's not talk about politics. When we worship together, let's just focus on Christ. When we see a need in the world around us, let's do our part to meet that need through cooperation. We may never see eye to eye politically, philosophically or even theologically, but we will commit to love each other with the love of Christ. I shall refuse and resist to become caustic, angry or bitter towards my brother or sister in Christ, and would hope the desires would be reciprocal. But even if my brother in Christ tries to provoke me to anger by attacking me, I will steadfastly refuse to respond in kind.

I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. -- Booker T. Washington

(2). I am committed to be firm in my convictions, but humble in my relationships.

I am not scared to dialogue with others who disagree. I am not afraid to listen to those with opposing views. Only the weak silence dissent. Only the insecure wish the dissidents buried. Those strong in their convictions have the ability to be humble in their approach. Meekness is controlled strength, and only strength of convictions under control give rise to meekness in relationships with others.

In fact, I will go even further. When evangelical conservative Christians seek to make friends of liberal non-evangelical Christians, liberalism is destroyed. It is the goodness of God that leads to repentance, and it is the goodness of conservatives that leads non-conservatives to a greater appreciation for, and ultimate conversion to, a more conservative view of their world and their faith. Animosity, anger, bitterness and hate only turn people away from the fulness of the gospel, but love, grace, meekness and patience lead people to it.

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? -- Abraham Lincoln

(3). I will absolutely refuse to allow any of my political, cultural, traditional or national views transcend or trump my view of the gospel of Jesus Christ and my relationship with those who follow Him.

That does not mean I will not maintain my national, political, and cultural identity, for I will. To deny who I am would be dishonest. However, in everything Jesus Christ will be preeminent. I am not interested in people living like those of us in Western Civilization. I am not even that concerned that people view the world as I view it. World views are important, but Christ has a way of changing the perceptions of His people, and He does not need me to do it for Him.

I will keep the main thing the main thing. I desire to know nothing among you save Christ and Him crucified. It is my desire to win converts to Christ, and His kingdom transcends everthing. I will resist with all my might ANY attempts to politicize the spiritual. We Baptists always err when we are more concerned with politics, denominationalism, national identity, and Western Civilization than we are the kingdom of Christ. I remind all of us however that the Apostle Paul clearly told us that the purpose of goverment is to 'bear the sword of justice,' while the purpose of the church is to proclaim to the world the gospel of Christ.

When I am around my brothers in Christ I will pray with them, support them, encourage them, partner with them, and praise them -- but I will not seek to make them like me politically, culturally, philosophically or even theologically. Nor will I bend if they attempt to make me like them. My bond with my brothers and sisters in Christ is Christ alone.

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. -- Bishop Desmond Tutu

I look forward to the next ten years in the SBC.

In His Grace,


Wade

Something I Genuinely Do Not Understand

At the IMB meeting in Kansas City last week I took the opportunity, between meetings, to tour the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Missouri.

During the nineteen minute introductory video of the life of the former President, the narrator said that the Democratic handlers of President Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt chose Missouri Senator Harry Truman as the 1944 Vice-Presidential running mate because he was "a Southern Baptist, friendly with labor, and a well-liked politician."

That phrase stuck with me because I had already made a visit to the First Baptist Church of Independence, Missouri. Even though we arrived unannounced at First Baptist Church, Dr. Kevin Paine gave Ben Cole and I a tour of the historic church buildings. He showed us the old auditorium, and then the new auditorium - built in the 1970's - which has been recently remodeled under Dr. Paine's leadership.

During the tour Dr. Paine explained that President Truman visited FBC frequently, both during his time in office and the twenty years he lived in Independence after leaving the White House. However, like the politician he was, Truman never joined any particular church. Yet the President never hesitated calling himself a Southern Baptist. Traditional lore says that First Baptist Church, Independence, Missouri was the spiritual home of the late President.

Dr. Paine also explained to us the difference beteen the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, whose headquarters is in Independence, Missouri, and the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), whose headquarters is in Salt Lake City, Utah. During his explanation, Dr. Paine revealed his own Christology (very conservative), his soteriology (salvation by grace through faith), his bibliology (the Bible is sufficient for all faith and practice of the Christian), and his ecclesiology (Christ is the head of His church).

Dr. Paine revealed to us that, shortly after he had become pastor of First Baptist Church, the Missouri Baptist Convention kicked his church and eighteen other Southern Baptist churches in Missouri out of the state convention for their 'dual alignment.' Dr. Payne said that his church had contributed to many Baptist organizations over the years, including the SBC and CBF.

I am a full supporter of all things SBC, and have never believed our convention should separate, divide or splinter. Many people already know that when the CBF formed in Oklahoma in 1992 I nailed on the door of the organizational meeting 95 Theses Against Participation in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma. This act led some in the CBF to label me a fundamentalist, while some who are are without controversy true fundamentalists call me moderate or liberal.

I was impressed with Dr. Paine's warm evangelism, his orthodox theology, and his attempts to keep his church focused on reaching the community for Christ. We commended Dr. Paine for his work at reviving the historic downtown church, had prayer with him over his life and ministry, and bid him a cordial farewell. Since meeting Dr. Paine and touring the historic First Baptist Church of Independence, Missouri, a question has continued to plague my understanding. Regardless of one's views on the politics at play within the SBC, I believe the same question must be confusing to anyone and everyone working in cooperating missions ministry . . .

"Why would any conservative agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, whether it be state or national, reject the mission dollars of a church or individual who desires to contribute to that agency's work in reaching the world for Christ through the proclamation of the gospel?"

What does it prove when that agency refuses mission dollars?

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Update: Don Wideman informs me that President Truman was a member of FBC Grandview in the years prior to his Presidency, and upon moving to Independence never changed his membership, but attended his mother-in-law's home church (Episcopal) and other churches in the area, including FBC.

Southern Baptist People Are What Make Our Convention Great

Yesterday was another great day at the finest Southern Baptist Church in Oklahoma, the Emmanuel Baptist Church of Enid. The worship was wonderful, and though it is spring break, the people turned out for Bible study and worship at all three of our morning services. We are looking forward to Easter when we have five morning worship services: 8:00, 9:30 and 11:00 a.m with simultaneous REFUGE worship services at 9:30 and 11:00 a.m. as well. Our goal is to have over three thousand in worship on Easter Sunday, and we believe we may have many more than that actually come. We are continuing our exposition of Genesis on Sunday morning and we are currently studying Genesis 20, a series entitled Divine Intervention: Overcoming Addictions and Strongholds. The response to the series has been phenomenal. Emmanuel is a wonderful church to pastor.

My appreciation for the people of Christ within our convention continues to grow outside the walls of our own church because of friends I have made through the blog world. Last night Rachelle and I had the pleasure of stopping in Conway, Arkansas and sharing a meal with Alyce and Mackey Faulkner of Little Rock, Arkansas. This Southern Baptist couple have been blog friends for several months, but last evening was the first opportunity Rachelle and I had to have the pleasure of meeting the Faulkners.

As we enjoyed wonderful meal, the Faulkners freely shared with us their support for missions through their local church, their mutual desire to make our convention more kingdom oriented, and their love for everything associated with Christ. Both Rachelle and I were reminded of why we love the Southern Baptist Convention as we listened to the Faulkners-- it is the people of our convention.

The Faulkners warm, down home hospitality, engaging personalities, and genuine humility are characteristic of the people we love at Emmanuel, and we are beginning to realize, it is also characterizes the majority of Southern Baptists around the nation. For those of you who enjoy good Christian blogs, Alyce's The Miracle of Mercy is a must read. Macky does not blog himself, but like Rachelle does for me, Mackey gives Alyce behind the scenes wisdom, balance and perspective. Alyce also confirmed to Rachelle and me that you really can tell a great deal about a person by the blog he or she keeps. Alyce's charm, insight, and passion are seen as much in person as they are on her blog. Thanks, Faulkners, for a great evening.

Rachelle and I arrived in Memphis around 12:30 a.m. this morning. I will be meeting with various missionaries throughout the day, enjoy dinner with the trustees at Mid-America Seminary this evening, and participate in the closed door forum meeting of all trustees tonight.

I'll blog about reflections on today late this evening.

In His Grace,

Wade