One of the Costs of Real Leadership Is Being Misunderstood and Misperceived

By all accounts President Abraham Lincoln was a Christian man full of mercy and compassion. Several anecdotes from his life reveal a genuine love for his fellow man, even his enemies, including the ability to forgive and pardon those who personally wronged him. The United States Department of War complained of an increased lack of discipline within the ranks because troops knew that President Lincoln often pardoned soldiers who deserted the army. Lincoln spent the last week of his life granting hundreds of pardons to both Confederates and Union soldiers, sparing many from a death sentence.

However, Lincoln could also be tough as steel. Word reached President Lincoln that the Confederate States of America had issued orders that any black Union soldier captured in Confederate Territory was to be executed instead of taken as a prisoner.  The Confederates were furious with the January 1, 1863 implementation of Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" and the resultant recruitment and deployment of black soldiers within the Union army. Upon hearing of the CSA's orders to execute black prisoners of war, President Lincoln issued his July 1863 "Order of Retaliation" which stated in part:

"The government of the United States will give the same protection to all its soldiers, and if the enemy shall sell or enslave anyone because of his color, the offense shall be punished by retaliation upon the enemy's prisoners in our possession.

It is therefore ordered that for every [Black] soldier of the United States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed; and for everyone enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war."

It seems to me that principles of justice demand that when people full of grace are faced with the prospect of the weak and defenseless being unjustly harmed, the only appropriate response is an "eye for eye" approach to the abuser. That kind of tactic is not easy. It requires both moral discipline and strong leadership. In addition, when people don't know their leader personally, as was the case with most regarding President Lincoln, they will often base their opinions of the leader on his public writings alone. This would have led to a false impression. But being misunderstood is one of the costs of leadership. Those who lead should know this. It is also a sign of weak leadership when one is constantly trying to correct false perceptions of himself (or herself).

I consider President Lincoln one of the best leaders our nation has ever seen.

THE Greatest Problem In Evangelical Christianity Is Our View of "Authority"

"Touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm" (Psalm 105:14-15).
"He that is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:11).

In the mid-1990's our mission team from our church went to Belarus to partner with Christians there to plant churches in the inner cities of the former Soviet republic. We made friendships with many Belarus Christians and the partnership continued for over a decade.

In the late 1990's I received a call one evening from a Belarus pastor who was concerned for a 20 year old  Belarus Christian woman named Natalie. We had met her in Belarus a couple of years earlier, and she had been taken by the Christians in Oklahoma, and through other contacts in the United States, she had come to to Oklahoma to work as an "intern" at an independent, fundamental Baptist church in Oklahoma City. We had no connections with the church, but the pastor said he needed my help. Natalie wished to return to Belarus but was being held captive by the pastor and staff in the basement of the church where she had been given "free" lodging. She had managed to make a short, frantic phone call, where she had pleaded for help from her overseas pastor.

It took me and our missions pastor, John Stam, an hour and ten minutes to get to this particular independent Baptist church in Oklahoma City. I called a couple of police officer friends in the metro and had them meet us at the church. Our missions pastor and myself knocked on the door that had the sign "Church Office" on the front. The fairly large church was locked down because it was after hours, but we saw lights on inside the building. Soon the associate pastor opened the door and I introduced myself and told him that I was there to speak with Natalie from Belarus. He hesitated for a moment and then said that was not possible. I told him that I had received information that Natalie was being held against her will by the pastors of the church, and if they did not produce her within sixty seconds, I would bring every available police officer in Oklahoma City and both print and television news media to their doorstep within the hour. He scowled but went to get her.

When Natalie came to the door her face was tear stained. She sobbed in relief when she saw me. I asked her if it was her desire to leave the United States and return to Belarus. She said yes. I asked her if she was being held against her will. She said yes. I told her that she was to go to the room, collect her belongings, and we would be leaving immediately. We would take her to the airport and buy her plane ticket back to Belarus on the first available flight. I also told her, in the presence of the Baptist pastor, that we would be discussing with the local District Attorney about pressing charges against those who had held her against her will.

The associate pastor was irate. Livid and red-faced from his rage, the pastor verbally harangued me while Natalie collected her things. He told me that the Natalie had willingly come to the church to work for a year. She was only six weeks into her tenure, and her desire to go home was not of God.  The pastors of that church were her spiritual "authority," and her desire to go back to Belarus was spiritual rebellion. I let him talk until Natalie returned with her belongings. He concluded his diatribe against me by pointing his finger in my face and said, "You will answer to God at the judgment seat of Christ for going against the God-ordained authority of this church!" I grabbed his finger, twisted his arm behind his back, and put him face first against the wall and whispered in his ear, "Christ atoned for everyone of my sins at the cross so I will not be answering for them, but I can darn sure guarantee you if you laid one finger on this girl you will answer to the prosecutor and courts of Oklahoma County and no amount of spiritual authority will keep you safe in prison."

 Long story short, we were able to get Natalie back to Belarus and the news media released a story about a year later regarding multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against the pastor of that church, resulting in multiple lawsuits. We would later see Natalie in Belarus and her family expressed their gratefulness for our intervention in the United States.

I tell you that story for one purpose. In my opinion, the greatest danger in the churches of America is that pastors and "leaders" have a warped view of authority. Rather than seeing "servant-leadership" and  mutual submission as the norm for Christian living, pastors have this bizarre view that they are "God's anointed" and if anyone does anything to cross them, then God will avenge them.

I do believe that God is up to something great in the ekklesia. Part of the revival is the tearing down of this notion that pastors have some kind of inherent "authority." We pastors are called by our Lord to be servants of all and our personal desires are to be subordinate to the people we serve. By the way, the "anointed" in Psalm 105 are all of God's people, not just preachers. That's something every pastor should remember.

A Different Take on Dr. Kevin Ezell's Leadership in His Church's Small CP Giving

When Al Mohler's office issued a press release in early January 2008 that the President of Southern Seminary would allow his name to be entered into nomination for President of the Southern Baptist Convention, I wrote a blog detailing the reasons why I believed Dr. Mohler would not be elected President.

The third reason for my rationale involved Al's home church, Highview Baptist in Louisville, Kentucky, Highview's low percentage giving to the Cooperative Program and their nearly non-existent giving to the traditional SBC missions offerings, including the Lottie Moon Offering for international missions and the Annie Armstrong offering for continental missions. I wrote in January 2008 the following:

"Mohler is a member of Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, where he serves as a "teaching pastor" and a Sunday school teacher. The church contributes 3.3 percent of its $5 million in undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program and nothing to the SBC's two mission offerings according to Baptist Press. The mission's giving of one's home church is more important than it might seem at first glance, and in the coming months and years I am quite positive that this issue will only grow in importance in the minds of those whom will chose who leads the SBC."

Although Al Mohler later pulled his name from nomination for President of the SBC, Highview Baptist Church and her pastor, Dr. Kevin Ezell, spent a few weeks "clarifying" their missions giving. In one press release Highview's pastoral leadership explained that the church gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to missions, just  not through the traditional CP mechanism. Explaining their low CP giving, Dr. Ezell stated:

"As for our Cooperative Program giving, Highview has chosen to give the majority of our cooperative funds directly to the SBC instead of funneling the funds through the Kentucky Baptist Convention. The reason is simple: The KBC retains 64% of those funds, and we want to ensure that more of our dollars went directly to evangelism, missions and other programs that Highview supports."

Last week, September 1, 2010, the Search Committee for the President of the North American Mission Board announced they would be presenting Dr. Kevin Ezell for approval as the new President of NAMB. One of the advantages of the Internet is to look back over the past several years and make observations based upon the written record and not simply one's faulty memory. I'd like to give a couple of observations on Dr. Ezell's nomination that might be a different take than most.
 
(1). The Southern Baptist Convention has just come through a mega-shift in terms of leadership. Dr. Ezell has publicly stated that he led his church to bypass his state convention in the church's missions giving, and then the Presidential Search Committee of NAMB, the mission organization tasked with working directly with the respective SBC state conventions, is nominating Dr. Ezell as NAMB's President. I believe Dr. Ezell is a phenominal leader and a wonderful man. I have no argument against him as a person. My observation is a philosophical one. When Dr. Ezell is elected, the Southern Baptist Convention's Cooperative Program as we have known it for decades will be over. We are increasingly moving toward the 1800's model of SBC giving called "societal." Churches will give to those "societies' or "agencies" that best reflect their own ideology or philosophy and/or benefits them the most. Cooperation between state and national agencies in the Southern Baptist Convention, cooperation between churches and their respective state conventions and national missions' agencies, and between mission minded SBC churches will be over. SBC churches, SBC state conventions, and SBC national agencies will be emphasizing their own work and requesting respective cooperation from others, depending less and less on the "Cooperative Program."
 
(2). When Dr. Ezell is elected, a new crop of leadership, including the new President of the Southern Baptist Convention (Wright), the new President of the North American Mission Board (Ezell), and the impending new President of the International Board (the top prospect is a stunner), will now be asking for people and churches in the Southern Baptist Convention to give more to the Cooperative Program and the national missions offerings, but at the same time, attempting to cut cooperative links traditionally tied to the offerings. As I mentioned in the previous post, I find it very interesting that those who formerly refused to give to the CP change their tune when elected to leadership. What's changed? The answer of course is, "The leaders have changed." So, I must ask the question: Do we give to the CP because we like the leaders or do we give to the CP because we like way we are doing missions? I think if Southern Baptists stepped back and took a hard look at the missions work of the SBC over the past few years, we would come to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with our agencies when we spend millions of dollars to "change" the way we do missions every time new leaders are elected. The gospel is not a political philosophy that changes like the platforms of Democrats and Republicans. However,  the SBC is looking more and more like a wasteful government agency than a gospel organization.
 
(3). I like Bryant Wright, Frank Page and Kevin Ezell. They are really fine men. The concern I have with the SBC as it relates to my church is the fact that our church gets way more excited about the mission work we do directly in India, Africa, Guatamela, New York and our own state than we do trying to figure out why our national agencies spend tens of millions of dollars constantly changing methodologies, organizational structures, and the way they do missions at the whims of new leadership. Frankly, I wish we listened more to the missionaries on the field (state, national and international) than we do to the ever changing leaders in Nashville, Richmond and Atlanta. Until we have a mechanism that allows our appointed missionaries to have more of a say in what our Convention accomplishes in the field, there is a hesitancy to give more to national offerings just because "new leaders" have emerged.
 
A Principle: Any move toward "societal" giving in the Southern Baptist Convention creates an atmosphere where larger churches become more and more convinced that the best "society" for accountable, effective missions giving is the local church, not a national board.
 
I'm not saying the above principle is right or wrong, it is simply a fact. That's the danger of political and ideological infighting in a Convention built on cooperation. The cooperation fractures to the point the local church believes the best investment in mission dollars is the work being done by its own members.

Orwell's 1984 and Extraordinary Parallels to Baptist Leadership Today

In George Orwell's classic work 1984, Orwell describes a futuristic totalitarian regime in fictional Oceania, a land ruled by an oligarchy of powerful men. These leaders seek to keep order among the masses (order defined as the masses subservient to the leaders), by (1). maintaining pervasive government surveillance to identify anyone who speaks out against the establishment, (2). exerting public mind control by constantly reminding the people that when the government speaks, God speaks, and (3). voiding all citizens' rights for the sake of the party's best interest.

When the party made mistakes that placed them in a bad light, party leadership would simply collect and destroy all historical evidence. For example, if party leaders made a certain claim, but it was eventually proven "untrue," then the written record of the claim would be expunged. Or, if promises were made and not kept, then the record would be wiped clean. Then, party leaders would place in the public archives, called "The Times," alternate falsified "records" that made the party look good. The problem in Oceania were those poor saps and minions who questioned leadership; the problem was never leadership. If the masses would   submit to party rule, there would be no problems in the kingdom.

Orwell's fictional novel was to help people of his day understand that leaders without accountablity will constantly manipulate the masses for their own selfish ends. It is the duty of those being led to hold their leaders accountable. But beware; if accountablity is brought to bear, party leadership will simply go about trying to change the record and mold the collective memory of the masses. Orwell describes the process in this manner.

As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs—to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place.

Orwell may have been a prescient Baptist.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Immaturity Is the Reason People Personally Attack the Deliverer of Uncomfortable Messages

An individual who has been quite influential in exposing the descrepancies in Dr. Ergun Caner's biographical, theological and educational backgrounds has emailed me with a question that he would like for me to answer.

"Why are many Christians attacking me as if I have done something wrong?"

Great question. People will often attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable or embarrassing. This response is both primitive and natural. When the mosquito stings, you slap it. When the food is bad, you spit it out. When someone reeks of body odor, you push them away. The child’s first response to something offending is to always push it away. At some point, though, adults are expected to think though their response to that which is offensive. Maturity entails reflecting on the future repurcussions of quickly and angrily dismissing that which is offensive. Real leaders entertain facts, no matter how uncomfortable they are, dialogue and discuss disagreements, and refuse to personally attack the messengers, no matter their message. But many never leave their intellectual childhood and continue to react to difficult messages by making the messenger the issue. Those who do this are not leaders of men. The Internet makes it quite easy to identify leadership material. Those who write hateful emails, angrily post their primitive reactions on message boards, and continually attack other people are revealing childishness and immaturity. But those who calmly address and/or respond to issues raised, who keep the dialogue civil and informative, and refuse to attack the messengers are the true leaders.
In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

To Question Our Leaders Is Not Only Morally Right, It Is the Essence of Christian Integrity

Nearly four years ago I wrote a post entitled The Cult of Personality in the SBC where I questioned how a large Southern Baptist Church in Florida could call a man who had repeatedly lied about his past to be their pastor.

Steven Flockhart, pastor of FBC West Palm Beach, resigned his post after a secular newspaper revealed the lies he had told the pastor search committee. The resume of "Dr." Flockhart claimed he had several theological degrees, but the newspaper revealed he had fabricated all his educational credentials.

Interestingly, in the very last line of Steven Flockhart's resume, there was this statement:

"(I) have been accepted at Liberty University to obtain a second doctorate."

When I initially read about his fabricated resume, I wondered if Pastor Flockhart was also lying about his enrollment at Liberty University.

It seems The Palm Beach Post may have had similar questions. A reporter called to question Liberty's registrar's office about Flockhart's enrollment for a "second" doctorate.

In an article published on August 26, 2006 The Palm Beach Post reported that the registrar's office initially said that they had never heard of Mr. Flockhart, but then they called the newspaper back later and said they had discovered that Flockhart was enrolled and had paid the registration fees directly to seminary President Ergun Caner. The paper then quoted a Liberty official:

"The pastor (Flockhart) is enrolled and has paid in advance," said Ron Godwin, executive vice president and CEO of Liberty University. He added, "I love those kind of students."

Granted, the Palm Beach Post could have misreported the initial response of Liberty, as well as the words of Ron Godwin, but the newspaper's published report caused many of us to ask several questions about what seemed to be a peculiar financial arrangement. While several of the financial questions were ultimately answered by Dr. Caner himself, there were two main questions that went unanswered at the time:

(1). Was Steven Flockhart enrolled in an actual doctorate program at Liberty University?
(2). If so, what safeguards were in place to prevent Liberty from accepting a doctoral student who had fabricated degrees?

Though questions to our Christian leaders may bring some discomfort, asking them is not a bad thing. It is not attacking someone's character. It is not assuming someone is evil or wicked. It is a legimitate process through which we Christians can hold each other accountable.

For example, Darrell Gilyard was a rising star among Southern Baptists. He preached at Pastors' Conferences, including the Southern Baptist Pastors' Conference in Las Vegas, and his eloquence in the pulpit was unmatched. However, it was discovered that his story of growing up homeless, sleeping underneath bridges, and being converted to Christ out of the rough streets of Jacksonville was all a lie. Baptist Press reported that the Dallas Morning News, in an exclusive July 28, 1991 story, reported that:

Gilyard actually was brought up in a comfortable north Florida home by a woman who reared him as if he were her son. The article included an interview with Barbara Davis, the 65-year-old Palatka woman who said she helped to rear Gilyard from age 8 months until he left home at age 19. The paper also reported Gilyard misrepresented his academic background; accepted a $10,000 "love offering" from Falwell's ministry under false pretenses; and lied about repeated traffic offenses and a suspended drivers license in Florida.

Gilyard is now in prison, not for lying, but for multiple sexual crimes. One wonders why Southern Baptists never asked the tough questions of Darrell Gilyard while he was a Southern Baptist and before he became involved in criminal behavior? Why does the secular press have to do what we ourselves seemed unwilling to do?

It's not hard for anyone to find story after story about Baptist pastors who have lied about their past. Baptist youth pastor Randy Lee Morrow lied about being in a biker gang. He lied about serving prison time. He lied about having terminal cancer. "I lied a lot more than I should have," he says. Why was there nobody asking the tough questions of Randy Lee Morrow?

Now some Christians are asking tough questions to Ergun Caner about the representations he has made to others about his past. These questions are not accusations--they are legitimate queries of a Christian brother to ensure accountability and integrity of Christian ministry. To ask them is not to accuse. To not ask them, however, is inexcusable--particularly when the words spoken publicly are those of Dr. Caner himself. There are some bloggers, like Peter Lumpkins, Tim Guthrie, and others who personally blister anyone who asks tough questions of Dr. Caner. One of these days they will learn that attacking the character of those who ask legitimate, tough questions of our leaders will only ultimately backfire on their intended purpose.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

A Decision Based on Conviction Enables One To Embrace Any Disgrace

Last week I published on this blog an email written by a fellow Southern Baptist pastor to Southern Baptist seminary administrators. The pastor suggested in the email that it would be "helpful" if two professors were removed from their respective faculty positions because they published a scholarly article on "tithing" that took a view contrary to "the majority of Southern Baptists." That email, interpreted by some friends of the two professors as a call to remove the professors from their faculty positions, caused one of those friends to inform me that there was pressure being placed on seminary administrators to remove the professors. I called the author of the email to ask him if this allegation was true. He denied it. But then a friend of the professors sent me the pastor's email and it was clear the author of the email was being less than forthright with me. It has been the tactic of Southern Baptist ideologues to publicly act as if SBC employees had their support (think Russel Dilday, Ken Hemphill, Al Shackleford, Dan Martin, Sheri Klouda, Karen Bullock, and a host of others), while at the same time privately bringing about pressure behind the scenes to have these people removed from their positions of SBC service for doctrinal differences that have nothing to do with the essentials of the faith. Though in this last's weeks instance, the pastor in question had neither the authority nor the pull to bring about the termination of the two professors, the principle at play remains the same--the private, secret attempt by an ideologue to intimidate and/or bring pressure to remove a Southern Baptist from cooperative ministry because of a disagreement over a tertiery biblical doctrine.

I had a decision to make.

Do I make public the email to expose the tactic used to intimidate Southern Baptists who had dared to publish a paper with a doctrinal viewpoint different than that of the majority? Or, do I remain quiet? It was not an easy decision. Our church's Cooperative Program gifts pay the salaries of seminary professors. They are our employees too. I have a responsibility to be involved if I am aware that someone is being pressured by ideologues to conform to one view (i.e. "the ideologue's view") of a tertiery doctrine over which Christians often disagree. Personal considerations, including a vow I made to never again be silent when I saw employees of the Southern Baptist Convention under attack, were thought through carefully. I knew that if I chose to publish the email that a number of Southern Baptists would consider my action unethical, that many would not be able to comprehend my view that all Southern Baptist cooperative ministry business should be public and transparent (particularly efforts to remove SBC personnel over questions of doctrinal integrity), and that a few Southern Baptists would even question my personal integrity and Christianity. I knew all that before making the decision.

I chose to publish the letter because of a greater good than my reputation. People in the Southern Baptist Convention must be willing to cherish and protect the freedom needed by our SBC professors, pastors, teachers, leaders and/or laymen to believe, teach, preach, write, and publish different interpretations of the sacred text without fearing repercussions or intimidation from ideologues who demand absolute conformity. We are a Convention built on cooperation. By the very definition of the root word cooperate, demands for conformity must be resisted. It's time that we Southern Baptists push back against those who want everyone to look like them and believe like them; and my decision to publish the email was part of that push back. The decision to publish the email was thoughtful, intentional and convictional.

When a Decision Is Based on Conviction, One Is Enabled to Embrace the Disgrace

I do not begrudge any criticism or strong condemnation that comes my way as a result of my decision. I neither fault, nor desire to discourage, any of my fellow Southern Baptists from publicly questioning my integrity, my honor, or even my Christianity.

When Shadrack, Meshack and Abednigo defied the king's law, there is no record of them yelling and screaming at the king for putting them in the fiery furnace. They walked into the fire calmly because they lived on the basis of conviction and made their choices on principle. When Daniel defied the king's order and continued to pray, he quietly went to the lion's den. His decision to defy the law, based on a conviction, led him to not whine about his punishment. When Peter defied civil authorities and preached Christ, there is no record of him complaining about the jail term that came his way. He sang in jail rather than passing notes around about how he shouldn't be there. When John the Baptist was sentenced to capital punishment, you have no testimony that the Baptist bemoaned the fact he spent his life bowing his knee to the Lordship of Christ rather than kissing the ring of the king. When you do what you do because of conviction, then you embrace any disgrace that comes your way because of your decisions. Likewise, you pay little attention to any praise, which is easier, since most convictional choices are countercultural and bring little praise. Convictional people do not make good politicians. There's never any finger up in the air seeking the wind direction of public opinion. Our chosen path comes from within, as we are led by the Holy Spirit. And if the Holy Spirit leads us down an unpopular, unlawful (think Hitler's Germany, modern Iran, the rescue of orphans in Haiti, etc...), or difficult path, then we above all people should never complain when others seek to shame us or disgrace us.

Let me illustrate how this plays out for me in practical ways these last couple of days.

(1). The author of the email I published writes that he is receiving supportive and encouraging emails at the rate of 50 to 1. For his sake, I can wish it were a million to zero in support of him. Nothing in me is affected or changed by any ratio of support.

(2). One man wrote that Wade Burleson was "a pile of human excrament (sic) with the integrity of belly button lint." If I remember right, Paul called everything in his life "dung" (reputation, career, etc...) for a greater cause. To me, that's pretty good company. In other words, no offense taken with this man for his words. He feels them; I receive them.

(3). One SBC lawyer opined "It is a serious ethical breach for lawyers (which I am) to receive mail from other people like this. Ah, if only you preachers would live up to the standards set by the bar associations. I freely acknowledge that my decision does not live up to the ethical standard of attorneys, and were I one, I would welcome any censure or punishment handed out.

(4). One SBC pastor charged I had a self-perceived messianic complex. Others have alleged I desire adulation or want to be a hero. I admit a tad bit of confusion on those charges since it's been indicated support is running 50 to 1 against me. Messiah's and heroes usually have the 50 on their side. Of course, those pastors' charges actually go to the motive, not the results, of my decision to publish the letter. I feel quite comfortable knowing God and I are the only ones who can know my true motives, and even I am sometimes blind to them. For my motives to be considered suspect or sinful because of my decision is something I accept.

(5). Others have weighed in with their opinion that "they would not have done it the way Wade Burleson did it." That's absolutely true. Nor should they have. Were the whole world to choose a different path, that would not change any decision I make based on conviction.

Back when I saw the same pattern of forcing a specific ideology on all Southern Baptists through new doctrinal policies at the International Mission Board, I made the decision to make public my concerns. Trustees at the IMB were backdooring the new doctrinal requirements by bypassing a vote from the Convention, and then trustees were removing from service anybody who disagreed. In addition, trustees in charge changed the trustee guidelines in an attempt to keep me quiet. They passed a policy that stated any trustee of the IMB who publicly criticizes a board approved policy will be censured. I voted against the "no dissent" policy, and at the time stated that "it was the worst policy ever passed by any Southern Baptist board of trustees in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention," violating the no dissent policy within five minutes of its passage. When I chose later to continue my criticism of the new doctrinal policies implemented by IMB trustees, policies that exceeded the BFM 2000 (see The Garner Motion), trustee leaders moved to publicly censure me. When a reporter asked me how I felt about the censure, I responded in this manner:

The board of trustees have every right to censure me, and should--because their new trustee guidelines call for it. I welcome their censure and any future censures. I am choosing to criticize these new doctrinal policies publicly because I believe a greater good will come from my criticism. We must cease narrowing the doctrinal parameter for Southern Baptist cooperative mission efforts by refraining from demanding interpretative conformity on biblical doctrines that are not essential to our salvation. Southern Baptists must be free to disagree."

I've not changed my views on this in the last five years. When I come across secret attempts to intimidate or threaten fellow Southern Baptists for disgreeing over tertiery doctrinal matters, I will contact the person who initiates the intimidation privately, but if there is no remorse or repentance, the intimidation will be publicly exposed and publicly opposed--every time. The attitude "you must agree with all my interpretations of the Bible or get out of the SBC" is neither historically Baptist or essentially Christian. I will at all times, and on all occasions, publish any private emails or written communications from SBC ideologues that seeks to intimidate into silence any Southern Baptist employee who believes, teaches, or publishes a contrary or dissenting doctrinal viewpoint.

Ideologues in the SBC need to know that any and all attempts to intimidate other Southern Baptists who view things differently will continue to be exposed and opposed. Nobody who intimidates, bullies or threatens others in the Southern Baptist Convention--a Convention built on cooperation-- gets a free pass.

Lord willing, Southern Baptists will once again experience the true measure of Baptist identity--the freedom to believe, teach, preach, write and serve others as God leads. Our willingness to work with other Southern Baptists with whom we disagree is the essence of SBC cooperation. Those who can't cooperate, or won't cooperate, shouldn't be allowed to lead the SBC or determine who will be employed by those of us who pay the bills.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Wisdom of Leading by Example Rather than By Denigrating Opponents Personally

There is much to really like about Sarah Palin. Her values, her charisma, and her outside the beltway background makes her politically attractive to many. Whether she has a future in national politics is yet to be seen, but Saturday night she gave all of us in leadership a valuable lesson. According to the Huffington Post, Palin "mocked" President Obama for using teleprompters in speeches, even to students in school. Yet, Palin herself would often glance at her hand where she had written several notes as talking points for her speech. The words "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" are clearly visible. Sarah Palin will weather the criticism that comes her way from her faux pax Saturday night, but the lesson that seems evident to me is that one would be wise to build support on the basis of clear enunciation of principles rather than denigrating an opponent's personal idiosycrasies (like using a teleprompter). If an opponent is to be challenged, let it be on matters of principle. All of us have personal idosyncrasies. When we build support by mocking our opponents personal habits, we invite scathing criticism of our own. Again, it seems to me that civil discourse and discussion should lead us down the path where we only point out the differences of our opponents policies and principles, choosing to leave out our observations of his or her perceived personal faults. What's the difference between attacking another's policies rather than his or her personal idiosyncrasies? The former seems to lead to effective and needed debate on the issues, the latter to personal ridicule and denigration of other people. Of course, Sarah Palin has been the recepient of the latter by those who oppose her since she was thrust into the national limelight. I have not heard her speak often, but I am hoping that her advisers and speech writers will not lead her down the same path the liberals have taken when it comes to denigrating her personally. She has enough material on policy issues alone to build a huge support base. All of us who comment on blogs, or lead others, would do well to simply and clear enunciation our principles rather than personally denigrating those who disagree with us.

In His Grace, Wade

The Launching of David Sander's Political Career Is Good for Us All

Recently I wrote about my friend David Sanders leaving his highly popular television and newspaper media positions to become the campaign manager for Stanley Reed in Reed's attempt to defeat incumbent Arkansas U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln. Unfortunately, due to a deteriorating prognosis from doctors regarding Stanley Reed's physical health, Mr. Reed had to pull out of the U.S. Senate race shortly after hiring David. But the turn of events has led David Sanders to run for office himself--the beginning of what I believe will lead this young, conservative Christian to the governor's mansion of Arkansas and beyond. He's that good.

My wife and I sent a contribution to David's campaign today. Though we live in Oklahoma, and David is running for a house position in Arkanas, we contributed to help David in his campaign. I'm a firm believer that Christians everywhere should support people who have similar moral and ethical values. Let me encourage those of you who either know David through his writings, or are interested in helping a wonderful Christian young man launch his political career, to visit David's campaign website at www.davidsanders2010.com and make a donation or sign up to help his campaign team.

David J. Sanders, 35, is a Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives in District 31, which covers portions of West Little Rock and Hot Springs Village as well as western Pulaski and Saline Counties. Sanders began working in politics in the early 1990s. While a college student pursuing a political science and communications degree at Ouachita Baptist University, he was a member of then-Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee's 1996 gubernatorial transition team. After graduating from Ouachita, Gov. Huckabee selected Sanders to serve as a policy and communications aide on his staff. He left the governor’s office to serve as press secretary to the late-Dr. Fay Boozman on his 1998 U.S. Senate campaign. During 1999 Legislative Session, he worked with the Arkansas Electric Cooperatives and Paschall Strategic Communications.

From September 2000 until December of last year, David served as columnist for Stephens Media’s Arkansas News Bureau. During that time, his twice-weekly column appeared in more than 25 newspapers in Arkansas. In 2002, at the age of 27, Arkansas Business named Sanders to its annual "40 under 40" list. In addition to weighing in on Arkansas and national politics, as well as a myriad of policy debates, Sanders was a tireless advocate for lower taxes, limited government, protection of the unborn and property rights. A recognized conservative voice, his work has been featured nationally in The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online and World Magazine. Last year, he began writing a nationally syndicated, bi-monthly column for the Associated Baptist Press in Washington.

In addition to writing, Sanders created, produced and hosted "Unconventional Wisdom," an award- winning public affairs program carried by the Arkansas Educational Television Network (AETN). He served as an essayist for public radio in Little Rock, frequent contributor to AETN’s "Arkansas Week" and as a regular political commentator for Arkansas television stations. In 2005, he was awarded the prestigious Robert D. Novak Journalism Fellowship by the Washington-based Phillips Foundation to begin work on a project entitled: "The Reluctant Convert: Why Arkansas Has Not Joined the South's Republican Realignment."

David and his wife, Rebecca, have five children: Abigail, 10, Noah, 9, Isaac, 7, Elijah, 2.5 and Levi who was born last October. He is an ordained deacon at Little Rock’s First Baptist Church.

There is a Higher Aim than that of Mere Office

On March 6, 1857, exactly 152 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks, both slave and free, were not - and could never be - United States' citizens. The edict, now known as The Dred Scott Decision, declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, and permitted slavery in all western territories of the United States. Chief Justice Taney, knowing that some would challenge the ruling by pointing to the language within The Declaration of Independence that specifically declares, "all men are created equal," defended the Court's decision by writing:

"(I)t is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

In Illinois, a local Springfield lawyer who had sworn off future involvement in poltics after serving a disappointing term as a U.S. Representative, was so disillusioned by the Dred Scott decision, he decided to run for 1858 Illinois U.S. Senate seat on an anti-slavery platform. Abraham Lincoln lost his Senate race to Stephen Douglas, but two years later he was astonishingly and unexpectedly elected President of a divided United States - running on the same anti-slavery platform. The majority of other Presidential candidates, including Stephen Douglas, were ambivolent on the issue of slavery. Lincoln, who had long admired the herculean efforts of English politician William Wilberforce to rid England of slavery, could not understand these "don't care" politicans who pretended indifference. Lincoln reminded his "do-nothing" political contemporaries:

In the Republican cause there is a higher aim than that of mere office.

Using even harsher, and possibly self-prophetic language, Lincoln wrote in a July 1858 letter that such do nothing politicians remind him of Wilberforce's opponents who "blazed," "flickered," and "died," whereas the memory of Wilberforce endured.

On this anniversary of the Dred Scott decision, we pastors, men with a cause even greater than that of the Republic, would do well to remember the words of Lincoln when we are tempted to clutch to the recognition that comes with an "office" and avoid the work necessary to see to it that those things which are good, and right, and true, and just are done through our ministries.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

P.S. The photograph is from Lincoln's swearing in ceremony at his first inauguration in 1861. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, author of the Dred Scott Decision, swore Lincoln into office. Nothing evil in God's world survives forever.

The Most Influential Man of the 20th Century

On a recent post I asked the question "The Greatest Man in the 20th Century is Who?" The post revolved around the practice of St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City, where church leaders chose the most influential man of each of the past nineteen centuries and honored them by placing a handmade statue underneath the communion table. Already knowing the men listed for the previous nineteen centuries, we called the church to ask them about their decision regarding the most influential man of the 20th Century. Reverend Harry Pritchett was the 8th Dean of St. John's in New York. He is now at The Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta. Barbara, my assistant, called Dr. Pritchett and disovered him to be a very gracious man who offered the following information.

At the turn of the century, Rev. Pritchett and his church committee chose to depart from listing a single person considered to be the most influential man of the twentieth century and decided instead to name individuals, male or female, whom they felt were the most humanitarian of that century. There was some disagreement on this departure, but eventually the committee came up with four names representing the greatest humanitarians of the 20th Century: Ghandi (advocation of peaceful protest for humanitarian rights), Susan B. Anthony (advocation of women's rights), Martin Luther King Jr.(advocation for peaceful protest for racial equality), and Einstein (for his contribution to technology and his writings).

These four individuals are memoralized like the men chosen for the first through the nineteenth centuries, with a carving near the others. This carving is approximately three to four feet high, just like the previous statues, but is unique in that four individuals are included in the single carving representing the 20th Century instead of each person being given their own figurine. Dr. Pritchett emphasized that the first nineteen individuals named were not necessarily chosen because of their faith, but for their influence in their respective century. Some were Christians, some were not. Of those who were Christians, sometime their influence was not necessarily due to their Christian faith. The same could be said of the four representing the 20th Century.

Many may not agree with Trinity's choice of individuals to represent the previous one hundred years, but nobody can fault the church's desire to recognize great men and women who have given of their lives to make our world a better place.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Divisions Reveal Those Approved For Leadership

For the last twenty-five years I have met every Tuesday morning with a group of men for discipleship purposes. These men come from all walks of life and are very astute in Scriptural matters. One of the men pointed out to us this week that the Bible has something very interesting to say about divisions and disagreements in the church, whether they be doctrinal, political or personal in nature.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19

18. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

19. For there must (dei - "it is necessary") also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. NASV

The last phrase of these two verses gives us the reasons why divisions and disagreements are necessary in the church. " . . . so that those who are approved may become evident among you."

It seems quite clear that the kind of leadership that is approved of God, the kind of leaders that the church should follow, are those who are tolerant of other views, who graciously and lovingly accept people of different persuasions and opinions, and who place charity as the highest value within the church (I Corinthians 13).

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

A.W. Tozer on Leadership Within Evangelicalism

"We might well pray for God to invade and conquer us, for until He does, we remain in peril from a thousand foes. We bear within us the seeds of our own disintegration. Our moral imprudence puts us always in danger of accidental or reckless self-destruction. The strength of our flesh is an ever present danger to our souls. Deliverance can come to us only by the defeat of our old life...God rescues us by breaking us, by shattering our strength and wiping out our resistance. Then He invades our natures with that ancient and eternal life which is from the beginning. So He conquers us and by that benign conquest saves us for Himself.

With this open secret awaiting easy discovery, why do we in almost all our busy activities work in another direction from this? Why do we build our churches upon human flesh? Why do we set such store by that which the Lord has long ago repudiated, and despise those things which God holds in such high esteem? For we teach men not to die with Christ but to live in the strength of their dying manhood. We boast not in our weakness but in our strength. Values which Christ has declared to be false are brought back into evangelical favor and promoted as the very life and substance of the Christian way. How eagerly do we seek the approval of this or that man of worldly reputation. How shamefully do we exploit the converted celebrity. Anyone will do to take away the reproach of obscurity from our publicity-hungry leaders: famous athletes, congressmen, world travelers, rich industrialists; before such we bow with obsequious smiles and honor them in our public meetings and in the religious press. Thus we glorify men to enhance the standing of the Church of God, and the glory of the Prince of Life is made to hang upon the transient fame of a man who shall die."

A.W. Tozer

Those Who Tell the Truth Will Often Pay A Price

Not far from where I live in Enid, Oklahoma is a little town called Marshall. Buried in the Marshall North Cemetary is a nationally acclaimed Oklahoma author and historian named Angie Debo (pronounced Da Bo'). Although Angie died in 1988 at the age of 98, and although she received many prestigious awards from across the nation during her lifetime, the state of Oklahoma did not recognize her achievements until one month before she died.

It seems Angie got cross ways with our state and federal authorities in 1940. Angie had the nerve to tell the truth about the theft of Indian lands in Indian territory by our federal government. These lands now form the state we call Oklahoma. Angie's controversial book, entitled Still the Waters Run, portrays a series of of dozens of broken promises and contracts that eventually led to the Indians losing land that had been promised to them as a perpetual homeland. Angie, a University of Chicago graduate and a thorough historian, carefully researched her book, but state officials refused to allow it to be published in Oklahoma. In 1940 the book was published by Princeton University Press.

According to University of Oklahoma historian David Dary, the publication of 'Still the Waters Run' cost Angie Debo any teaching position in Oklahoma's universities. Though Angie would eventually write nine books and be granted the prestigious Award of Scholarly Distinction, she was forced to return to the high school classroom in rural Oklahoma. From Marshall, Oklahoma, Angie would often provide reviews for the New York Times. She was unwelcome and under appreciated in her own state of Oklahoma and admired by others outside the state -- all because she had the audacity to tell the truth about how we became a state.

Angie Debo's story reminds me of these three lines from 'A Few Good Men.'

Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

One month before Angie died at 98 in February of 1988, Oklahoma Governor Henry Bellmon traveled to Marshall, Oklahoma to officially recognize and award Angie Debo for her life's contributions and work. Angie's portait now hangs in the Oklahoma State Capital Rotunda next to humorist Will Rogers. Her last book 'Gerimono: The Man, His Time, His Place' was written when she was 83 and won the prestigious Wrangler Award from the National Cowboy Hall of Fame.

But Angie is most remembered for her persistence in uncovering and revealing the truth. Her book 'The Road to Disappearance: A History of the Creek Indians' was the basis for a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which important land rights for the Indians were recognized. Angie was loved by the little, overlooked people of our state, and hated by the establishment.

There are three things Angie Debo's story confirms for those of us interested in the twists and turns of persistence in telling the truth.

(1). Those who tell the truth will often pay a price extracted by the establishment.
(2). Persistent truth-telling will eventually lead to significant, landmark changes.
(3). In the end, the establishment will be so transformed by the necessary changes produced by truth-telling that the truth-teller will eventually be recognized and honored by the establishment.

So . . .

May those who write blogs persist in writing and upholding the truth - regardless of the consequences. In the end, truth will prevail and the truth-teller will be honored - either here or the here-after.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Wisdom of Augustus Toplady for Today's SBC

My friend Dr. George Ella was commissioned in the 1990's by the British Historical Society to write a definitive biography biography on the great Anglican pastor, theologian and poet Augustus Toplady. Most Southern Baptists would only know of Toplady through the hymn 'Rock of Ages,' which he wrote. I have recently reread Ella's excellent biography and supplemented my desire to know more of Toplady by reading the beneficial one volume book entitled The Complete Works of Augustus Toplady (Sprinkle Publications: 1987). I found myself gleaning golden nuggets of counsel from Toplady's written wisdom regarding ministers, principles he articulated nearly 300 years ago. The following examples are relevant for Southern Baptist pastors and leaders today. In a time when some Southern Baptists seem to grasp for the choice morsels of denominational praise and acceptance, leaving the choicest meats of principles, heartfelt convictions, and necessary reform on the convention's plate, the words of Augustus Toplady provide the needed fuel for evangelical, reform-minded pastors to keep the faith.

(1). When the minister is falsely or slanderously accused.

"Gospel ministers should not be too hasty and eager to wipe off every aspersion that is cast on them falsely for Christ's sake. Dirt on the character (if unjustly thrown), like dirt on the clothes, should be let alone for a while, until it dries; and then it will rub off easily enough." (Augustus Toplady, Observations and Reflections, The Complete Works of August Toplady, Sprinkle Publications, page. 550).

(2). The passion of the preacher's life and message.

"Gregory Nazianzen says, in his euologium on Basil, 'Thy word was thunder and they life was lightening.' Such should the preaching and lifestyle of every minister be." (Ibid, p. 550).

(3). On pastors not responding to the trivial and trite criticisms of colleagues.

"Were evangelical preachers and writers to stop, and give a lash to every spiteful noisy cur that yelps at them in their way to the kingdom of God, they would have enough to do before they got to their journey's end." (Ibid, p. 550).

(4). The courage of conviction in the heart of the leader.

"The best clock in the world will be spoiled, if you are perpetually moving the hands backwards and forwards, and altering it in order to make it keep time with a variety of other clocks; it will hardly ever go regularly and well. So a minister, who shapes and accommodates his sentiments and discourses to the tastes and humours and opinions of other people, will never be happy, respectable, or useful."(Ibid, 550).

(5). On the preaching of the pure gospel.

"Among the great variety of preachers, some give the pure gospel wine, unadulterated and undashed. Others give wine and water. Some give mere cold water, without a drop of wine among it. The weight of opposition will always fall heaviest on those who sound the gospel trumpet loudest." (Ibid, p. 550).

This is food for thought for any evangelical Southern Baptist pastor who wavers between his desires for the favorable opinions of men and his faithful fulfillment of God's calling, regardless of any human endorsement.

In His Grace,


Wade

Creative Genius in the Southern Baptist Convention

We who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation of our souls affirm the eternal, unchangeable nature of the gospel message. However, the methods by which this unchangeable message is delivered to others should constantly be evaluated and creatively changed for the advancement of the kingdom at large. If local churches, the Southern Baptist Convention and evangelicals in general REFUSE to constantly adapt our methods in proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ, neglect the necessary emphasis on ministry creativity, and deny anyone the freedom to stretch traditional and established models of gospel ministry, we will find ourselves trapped in a crystallized methodology that dooms our effectiveness in reaching a world in need of a Savior.

It is interesting to note that in both the study of mathematics and gospel doctrine one learns precise systems of thought with established, constant truths that never change (at least from my conservative theological viewpoint). In this post I would like to examine the education of the great physicist and mathematician Albert Einstein and ask this question:

'What kind of environment is needed for great thinkers and theologians to arise out of the Southern Baptist Convention who possess the creative genius to lead us into new and even more effective methodologies of gospel ministry?'

Until Albert Einstein was seventeen years old he was educated in the German schools of Munich. Most German schools, including Albert's, were run with a Prussian sense of military style and efficiency. The students were like privates while the teachers acted as authoritarian officers. Learning was regimented and mechanical with an emphasis on rote memorization and repetitive lessons. Rewards were based on conformity and any creative learning was stifled.

Einstein struggled.

Albert found the style of teaching - rote drills, impatience with questioning, and corporate conformity - to be repugnant. His beloved sister, Maja, made this observation of Einstein's feelings:

"The military tone of the school, the systematic training in the worship of authority that was supposed to accustom pupils at an early age to military discipline, was particularly unpleasant."

According to biographer Walter Isaacson, in his recently published book simply entitled Einstein, Albert developed a deep contempt for the authoritarian style and militarist atmosphere of German schools. One day when troops in a parade marched down the street where Einstein lived, and all the children came pouring out of their apartments to watch, Einstein refused to join in. He told his parents . . .

When I grow up, I don't want to be one of those poor people. When a person can take pleasure marching in step to a piece of music it is enough to make me despise him. He has been given his big brain only by mistake.

The Reason Einstein Began to Flourish Academically

In 1895, when Einstein was seventeen, his family moved to Switzerland for reasons associated with his father's business. Einstein enrolled at the cantonal school in the village of Aarau before his entrance into the Zurich Polytechnic School.

Aaru was a perfect school for Einstein. According to Isaacson,

The teaching was based on the philosophy of a Swiss educational reformer of the early nineteenth century, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, who believed in encouraging students to visualize images. He also thought it important to nurture the 'inner dignity' and individuality of each child. Students should be allowed to reach their own conclusions, Pestalozzi preached, by using a series of steps that began with hands-on observations and then proceeded to intuitions, conceptual thinking, and visual imagery. It was even possible to learn - and truly understand - the laws of math and physics that way. Rote drills, memorization, and force-fed facts were avoided.

Einstein loved Aarau. Maja, Einstein's sister, said of the school,

Pupils were treated individually. More emphasis was placed on independent thought than on punditry, and young people saw the teacher not as a figure of authority, but, alongside the student, a man of distinct personality.

It was the exact opposite of the German instruction Einstein hated. His love for Swiss education and the freedom of individuality eventually led Einstein to renounce his German citizenship. Of course, the German system of worshipping human authority eventually led to the rise of one of the world's worst dictators just a four decades later.

Einstein later said of his year at Aarau,

When compared to six years' schooling at a German authoritarian gymnasium, Aarau made me clearly realize how much superior an education based on free action and personal responsibility is to one relying on outward authority.

Application to the Southern Baptist Convention

(1). Young evangelical pastors and leaders need an atmosphere where they are free to think and flourish in their own, individual, and creative way according to the manner in which God has gifted each of them.

(2). Demands to submit to authoritarian control through mental assent to force-fed facts or truths, and demands for blind allegiance to established systems of denominational structure will thwart any sense of creativity and possibly restrict new and more effective means for accomplishing even greater Christian ministry.

(3). The discovery and advancement of more effective methodologies in missions ministry comes from hands-on experience of Southern Baptists who are actually doing missions rather than Southern Baptists who are hearing about missions.

(4). If young evangelical pastors and leaders ever get a taste of the freedom to do ministry as they visualize it needs to be done, but feel attacked or threatened by older mentors, they will eventually renounce their allegiance for, and membership in, the Southern Baptist Convention.

(5). The threat to the Southern Baptist Convention does not come from more freedom given to her members, but rather, the tightening of parameters and the authoritarian control that stifles creativity in missions and ministry.


In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

In Honor of the Bob Clevelands of the SBC

"Christ appears not to need the Christian of great acquirements. He can glorify Himself with any of the pupils He has taught. He needs not to take one who has become most skilled or best informed, that He may show forth His praise. He does it in every one -- more in one than another -- yet He so does it in all, that all testify of Him, whom not having seen they have believed.

Let the scoffing world account for the universality of such testimony. Were it seen only in the best, it might be thought the result of virtue. Were it seen only in the wisest, it might be attributed to philosophy. Were it only in the bravest, it might be ascribed to courage. Were it only in the strongest, it might be said to be endurance. Were it only in the most faithful, it might be said to be innocence. Were it only in the unlearned, it might be said to be ignorance; but, to go no further into such particulars, which might be greatly increased, when it is seen in those without any of these advantages, but afflicted with their very contraries, to what can it be ascribed but to grace, the grace given by Christ, through whom strengthening the weakest can do all things?"

From the Discourse Delivered by Rev. James P. Boyce, D.D. Professor in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, at the Funeral Service for Rev. Basil Manley, D.D. in Greenville, South Carolina, December 22, 1868

I first met Bob Cleveland over a year ago at the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, North Carolina. Bob is a Southern Baptist layman who became actively involved in attempting to make a difference in the SBC. I have a couple of stories in my file that I will one day reveal that illustrate just what an impact Bob made on the SBC in Greensboro.

But this post is dedicated to Bob because of the times he spoke at the SBC this year in San Antonio. Each time he was articulate, logical, and persuasive. I have listened to his speech regarding the BFM 2000 at least five times, and have placed the entire transcript on my blog. Bob has demonstrated to me that God doesn't just need the powerful name 'preachers' to make a difference in the SBC. As Dr. Boyce eloquently observed nearly one hundred and fifty years ago, '(T)o what can it be ascribed but to grace, the grace given by Christ.' I thank God for the great grace he has given to my friend Bob Cleveland and those Bob represents in the SBC -- people who are making a difference without having the 'name' or 'a position of honor.'

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

A Tenacious Bulldog Tussling With a Porcupine

One of my church members sent me the photograph below of a pit-bull who was set loose by his owner to attack a porcupine that was rooting up the garden in the backyard. The battle between bulldog and porcupine lasted about an hour in small town in Southern California. The pit-bull is known for both his bravery and tenacity; the porcupine is known for the ability to repel all attacks while stealing his food. The porcupine ultimately last the battle, but the pit-bull paid a high price . .



A vet sedated the dog, and then removed a total of 1,347 quills. The dog's owner now has a garden that is lush and fruitful - thanks to his pit-bull.



“The history of the world is full of men who rose to leadership, by sheer force of self-confidence, bravery and tenacity.” Mahatma Gandhi

The Fundamental Qualification for Pastoral Ministry Is A Godly Character

At this year's Together for the Gospel Conference, C.J. Mahaney's plenary session message was entitled Watch Your Life and Doctrine. He took as his text 1 Timothy 4:16 which reads: "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers."

Mahaney challenged the pastors in audience with these words (emphasis mine):

Sound doctrine is not enough, because according to Scripture, the fundamental qualification for pastoral ministry is godly character. Neither skill, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, nor reputation, nor personality, nor apparent fruitfulness of public ministry will suffice. Scan 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and you will encounter a profile of personal piety.

Yes, the pastor must be able to teach. Certainly, he must handle the Word of truth accurately and skillfully. But the foundational assumption of Scripture--both for appointment to or continuation in ministry--is that the pastor provide a godly example. Not a perfect example, but an authentic example. As Spurgeon exhorted his students in "The Minister's Self-Watch," "Our characters must be more persuasive than our speech."

If we neglect the command of 1 Timothy 4:16--if we fail to watch our life closely, carefully, and uncompromisingly--negative consequences are inevitable, for ourselves, our family, our pastoral team, and our church. A marked or prolonged inattention to personal holiness in a pastor is a grave matter that must be addressed.

In Sovereign Grace Ministries, here is how we have sought to apply this passage in relation to the pastors of our local churches.

We believe that the biblical requirement for a pastor is not flawless character but mature character. We are all progressively growing in godliness. A pastor who recognizes an area of immaturity, and takes specific action towards change, demonstrates close attention to his life and doctrine. Likewise, if a particular instance of non-disqualifying sin occurs in a pastor's life, but he genuinely repents before God and the appropriate individuals, this also honors the passage we are examining.

There are, of course, some sins that are particularly serious, both in the effect they have upon others and what they reveal about the condition of the heart. Even a single instance of such sins--sexual immorality, financial impropriety, violent behavior, etc.--would automatically disqualify a man from pastoral ministry. Beyond such grave instances of sin, however, a serious ongoing pattern of disobedient deviation from biblical requirements in the life of a pastor can also be disqualifying.

For example, a single lustful look, quickly confessed and repented of is part of growing maturity. However, a pattern of pornography could be disqualifying. Similarly, an isolated instance of lying speech, promptly brought into the light, is evidence of ongoing sanctification. Repeated examples of deceptive behavior, on the other hand, call into question a pastor's trustworthiness. Likewise, an outburst of irritation, immediately regretted and repented of is proof the Holy Spirit is at work. But a reputation for anger is not consistent with the biblical requirements for a pastor.

Where such patterns of sin exist, we believe that genuine care for a pastor and church involves a corrective process. Of course, this must be administered with all humility, gentleness, and patience. Occasions requiring the loving confrontation of a pastor in sin have been among the most difficult and painful of my ministry experience. But in the end, the corrective process has normally produced God-glorifying and fruitful outcomes in a pastor's life, family, and church.

These are powerful words for those of us who pastor to not just ponder, but to apply.

In His Grace,


Wade