The individual with whom I conversed last week about allowing his name to be nominated for President of the SBC called me and told me he has decided he will not allow his nomination. He gave me a reason, which I found very interesting, but nonetheless, I affirmed him and his decision to not run.
I have said from the beginning that the issues which we face as a convention are critical. The President of the SBC will have a great deal to say regarding our future, and more importantly, will be able to help chart the course. The issues as I see them are:
(1). We must stop narrowing the parameters of cooperation in the area of missions and evangelism. We cannot, we must not, define Southern Baptists in more narrow terms than our Baptist Faith and Message and more importantly, we cannot disenfranchise committed, conservative Southern Baptists who hold to the integrity of the Scriptures but differ on the interpretions of minor doctrines of the sacred text.
(2). We must broaden the base of service in the SBC to include more than just a few who are recycled in their appointments. This broadening of the tent of service will insure that the SBC will remain broad in cooperation, grasssroots in the authority structure, and viable for the next generation of Southern Baptists.
(3). We must actively seek to engage the new generation of Southern Baptists who are unfamiliar with the SBC by ceasing the attachment of perjorative labels on fellow Southern Baptists, and more importantly, forsaking any exclusivist spirit which refuses to cooperate with those we identify as "different" from us. Even though I have spoken clearly and directly against Landmarkism in the SBC, I love my Landmark brothers and look forward to cooperating with them in our work. Unfortunately, the spirit is often not reciprocated. The same could be said of any other minor doctrinal issue where there is disagreement. We are large enough as a convention to work together in fulfilling the Great Commission without demanding conformity in issues of soteriology (Calvinism vs. Arminianism), ecclesiology (Landmarkism vs. traditional denominational views), eschatalogy (dispensationalism vs. other views), missiology, etc . . .
Young leaders in the SBC need to rally around the gospel. We as a convention must learn to emphasize the essentials, display a charitable spirit to those who disagree with us on the non-essentials, and most of all, work together to further the Kingdom of Christ.
(4). We must elect Presidents of agencies who are empowered to lead according to the vision God gives to them. Trustees are responsible to hold accountable administration and to help establish policy, but trustees must never confuse their roles with those of administrators. Therefore, there must be trustees elected to the different agencies who take seriously their responsibility and accountability to each other AND the SBC at large.
(5). We must move in a direction where people in our world know what Southern Baptists stand for, not what we stand against. We are for the the proclamation of the gospel. We are for the good news of Jesus Christ. We are for helping those in need both materially and spiritually. We are for so many good things.
Ronnie Floyd has announced that he is running for President of the SBC. I have commended Ronnie for being willing to serve Southern Baptists. If he is elected I will pray for him and his family, help him succeed as he leads our convention, and do everthing in my power rally people behind him.
There are some who may see the Presidency as an honor or a recognition. But the SBC needs a President who understands what the issues are and is willing to address them. The election this year for President will give the people of the SBC a choice. Ronnie has a vision for the future, and the other candidate will have one as well. It will be the decision of the body as to which vision is best.
Who will the other candidate be? I'm not yet sure, but this one thing I know --- there will be another one.
In His Grace,
Wade
33 comments:
Wade,
I have commented once before. I am a young minister (just turned 26) and in my short ministry i have started one church and seen it grow from eight members to 45 before being called to serve a church in North Dallas so my wife could continue her education. The interesting aspect from what i have read on your blog is the struggle that you seem to be engaged in is something that has been raging since 1979. I attended a moderate seminary at Logsdon Seminary of Hardin Simmons University. During my time at the seminary the history i read and the men i visited wiht seem to be the very struggle that you are once again engaging in and the result before was removal and exclusion. So now my question is as a young minister why should i remain hopeful that this time around will be any different? Thanks for all you do and may God bless you. JJ
Grace and Peace to you Wade!
I thank God for you because of the stand you are taking. I know you are a man of God and I want you to know that I am a young man who has been called to the ministry, currently attending seminary and do not see 'eye to eye' with most Southern Baptist's on the 'minor doctrinal issues' you discussed in your post.
I have found myself wondering if I belong in the SBC due to the fact that I do not fall into a specific 'label'. Thank you for affirming me that the SBC is 'large enough as a convention to work together in fulfilling the Great Commission without demanding conformity in issues of soteriology (Calvinism vs. Arminianism), ecclesiology (Landmarkism vs. traditional denominational views), eschatalogy (dispensatationalism vs. other views), missiology, etc . . .'
God Bless you and may he lead you through this next step in your life.
Yes, there must be another option. I am ashamed our leaders are rallying around someone with such a low CP percentage with no hint of hesitation. Dr. Akins defense of FBC Springdale's low CP giving was poor statesmanship IMO. Why not own up to this glaring deficiency? Talk about the Beltway being out of touch with the grassroots. But Greensboro keeps getting closer...
Wade,
I thought your interview in the Texas Baptist paper was dead on target! We need a man of wisdom like you. I hope you will allow your name to be nominated.
YES!
REX
Dorcas Hawker?? I should have guessed.
Wade,
In your Thursday, May 11, 2006 blog, entitled "A New Nomination for President of the SBC," you said, "If this man (i.e., the unnamed individual you had approached about nominating) decides to allow his name into nomination for the Presidency, I will not allow mine." But, now that this man has declined, you say, "Who will the other candidate be? I'm not yet sure, but this one thing I know --- there will be another one."
What is this? Waffling? "Playing hard to get?" I honestly don't want to accuse a man whose integrity I respect greatly of double-talk. But, it is difficult not to think that, since there are numerous people willing to nominate you, why you would answer that way.
Let your Yea be Yea and your Nay be Nay! When you went ahead and answered all of the 15 questions directed to Ronnie Floyd, you implied in the strongest way that you were ready to accept the nomination if the man you asked turned it down. What, if anything, has changed since then?
Please don't bow to a "crisis of courage" just because it is a daunting decision!
One of Many Supporting You
Wade,
Do you think that Bob Reccord would be a good candidate for SBC President? I thought he would be good, but let me know what you think.
OKpreacher.
RDB,
I don't think Bob would be a good candidate.
Mr. Anonymous,
I can be guilty of many things but a lack of courage is one charge not levelled at me by those who know me --- regardless of their position for or against me.
Wade, I have often been told that I have the gift of discernment. (It hasn't gone out of existence, has it?) Today as I have been reading selected blogs it became clear to me that it is
YOUR insights and convictions that we have been reading and reading about. It is your "position papers." It is you with whom we agree and in whom we have confidence. You are the one we trust to lead where you have said you would. Thank you for trying to find us someone else but no matter who you endorse or even nominate, messengers cannot have the assurance that they will be voting for a leader they want. Any other "alternate candidate" will not have the same rsults as the one we trust. God be with you.
JR,
You MUST quit saying very personal things about others for your comments to be posted! :)
P.S. Our church's mission points numbered four last year and all were quite successful in reaching people for Christ.
Marty -
A woman as president of the SBC? Now you are talking about a revolution. :)
Mary Mohler for president
Dorky and....
My fear: this is paving the way for years of disagreements and dissensions. I hope I am wrong, but with all the feuding I hear about, already, on Blogs and Trustee Boards this will certainly come across to the world as a "Baptist Blowup."
Perhaps an Olive Branch would be more in keeping with the Spirit of Christ than an alternate candidate.
Praying that the name of Christ not be harmed by our feuding over non-essentials.
BR
I do feel the need to write, in light of the letter from Anonymoous.
The other man refused, so the only thing I can conclude is that you will allow your name to be placed in nomination. I wouldn't imagine that would mean you will nominate yourself, but only what you said.
Unless someone has nominated you, yea or nay is not yet called for.
It also does not seem your style to say you'll be a candidate when it DOES depend on someone else actually nominating you, and not just talking about nominating you.
To accuse you of waffling, playing hard to get, or having a crisis of courage is completely inappropriate.
I, for one, see that, and someone certainly needs to say it.
With all the cautions I know I've thrown at you, should you eventually be a candidate, I'll be very sure you really, REALLY know it's God's will for you.
Did Brad ever get his own blog? I'd like to read and post there. Sometimes "transparent" is a compliment. "See right through you" never is.
There should be another candidate - you are right. Wade Burleson. You have a vision that we all need and you are willing to fight for what is right. Why are we so afraid of controversy? If it is over the truth, we should not be afraid. Paul was never afraid to stand up for what is right. It does not mean that others are terrible or evil. It just means that Wade and others are articulating another vision for the future. How bad have things gotten that when any other conservative group speaks up to share their thoughts, they are shouted down as divisive? Take the nomination, Wade, and lead us.
Brad,
Your fears are in delayed mode - the people of the SBC have ALREADY had to endure years of "disagreements and dissensions" at the hands of the self-important ones.
In regards to the olive branch, please clarify - will the kingmakers of the SBC be offering Southern Baptist people an olive branch?
Praying that "all-new" leadership will be in place after Greensboro.
Nothing would make me happier in Greensboro than voting for YOU.
Hiram,
Thanks for your post.
I would encourage you to begin your own blog. I believe your interpretation of my answers to Tad's questions is way off base. The beauty of my blog is that people can read for themselves.
I stand by what I have written.
Blessings to your efforts as well to shape the SBC in the manner you deem best.
Wade:
What if...
God looked at the SBC and the IMB and saw things He did not like?
He saw some of the things we've seen recently ... manuevering motions to avoid a public discussion that might have, in a manner of speaking, cleared you in the "gossip & slander" statements?
He saw "exclusivism", which I believe is repugnant to Him?
He saw a group .. organization .. structure .. that had lost sight of the fact that our attitude is to be that of unworthy servants?
If so, I bet He'd eventually do something. If so, perhaps that might be termed a "Baptist Blowup".
Maybe that's just what the Doctor (that Great Physician) ordered.
All we can do is walk in the light He gives us. Every action. Every statement. Every intention. All the time.
He'll do the rest.
I read the comments here often, but seldom post. I did post similar comments as this on a Pro-Ronnie Floyd blog (Not that this is a negative Ronnie Floyd blog...)
I don't believe that Dr. Floyd is just seeking recognition nor does he lack a grasp of the issues. I am just burdened about the entire process of the "kingmakers" choosing a candidate and the candidate claiming "God's special revelation" to him to fill that role.
There is a certain fallacy that just because a church is big, that it is more blessed. Is Dr. Floyd a better leader than a pastor of a smaller membership congregation, averaging 150 worshippers? I for one am weary of the misleading dogma that only the mega-church pastors are the God called leaders of this convention. I do not believe I am alone in this weariness!
I certainly mean no disrespect to Dr. Floyd. However, he has yet to utter any words or demonstrate by his actions anything that would indicate he means no disrespect for the rank and file Southern Baptist pastor.
This may sound like bitter grapes from a pastor of a non-mega church. I personally assure you it is not. I look forward to Greensboro and a harmonious convention, regardless of the number of presidential candidates.
Blessings,
Wade- As you are well aware, Pastor Floyd is not "running" for President. In his blog, dated 05/09/06 he says "What do we do? We pray…we do not run for President. We pray. We seek the Lord."
I would encourage you to do the same. Don't run. Just pray that God would bring about the result that He desires. We all know that we are a very strategic point in the SBC. We need God to choose the man to lead us for the next 2 years. The last thing we need is a race.
Wade,
Does his post on this specific blog mean Hiram Smith will not be your nominator or campaign manager for the Greensboro convention? . . . Bummer! ;^)
In His Grace and Peace,
Tom
Wade,
This Okie just caught your appearance on the "Baptist Blowout" (The only "blowout" was KFOR's reporter's in the failed effort to sensationalize the disagreement that exists on these issues. Neither, you nor the Duncan pastor took the bait, praise God!) Should KFOR-TV send a reporter to the SBC convention, they will probably only get an interview or two from a country singer. . .they think the convention will be held in . . . NASHVILLE! However, accuracy in reporting has never been a forte in KFOR's reporting. . .even during "sweeps week"!
In His Grace and Peace,
Tom
To Brad Reynolds,
As kids, my twin brother had the ability to shoot a mouthful of water ten feet through his buck teeth. He would throw his hands in the air and yell, “Peace! Let’s have peace” after getting me wet.
You remind me of him with your fear of disagreements and dissensions. Livingdust stated correctly that your stated fear has been going on for many years.
Your real fear is, if Wade becomes president, autonomy of the church and INDIVIDUAL priesthood will be restored which would require a new BFM.
Once again, let me thank you for your post. Without it, I wouldn’t have near as much to write about.
Rex Ray
Barney,
It is proper blog etiquette to keep comments on posts brief. If you make the comment longer than the original post, except by the specific request or permission of the author of the original post, one should start his own blog rather than weigh down the comment section. I have chosen to place comments that criticize me on my blog regardless of length.
Hiram posted the Blog version of the 119th Psalm
Currently a committee is placing chapter and versus for clarity
Giggeling while ducking grenades
J
Is Hiram Smith really the President of a seminary in TEXAS??
Wade I do hope you will allow yourself to be nominated.
Let's all remember to keep this positive. I look forward to telling my network positive things about Wade's vision instead of negative things about opposing candidates. I do have some of the same concerns others have shared/written about Floyd, and I think it is completely fair for those issues to be brought to the forefront. Let's do our best, however, to stay positive. Wade has modelled this for us through his ordeals in the past.
Hiram,
What do you mean by "Emergent Movement"? You may have explained it farther down in your comment;however I was exhausted before I reached that point.
I notice that your have your own blog. Could I suggest that, rather than use so much space on Wade's blog, you post a brief statement and then refer those who have interest to your blog. I think that would be a very thoughtful thing for you to do.
Post a Comment