The sign said:
The Historic Missouri Compromise Line of 1820
36°30' Latitude
I had forgotten that the Missouri Compromise Line reached into modern day Oklahoma (what was in 1820 part of Arkansas Territory).
The Missouri Compromise was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The free states were becoming concerned that too many slave states were being entered into the union, and the balance was shifting toward slavery because of the number of congressional delegates from these new slave states. The Missouri Compromise insured that any new states from the Western Territories would be free states.
The little strip of what we now call Northern Oklahoma, where slavery was forbidden, is where I live. Even when Congress created Indian Territory, slavery was barred in the land of the red people north of the 36°30' Missouri Compromise line (the Choctaw word for 'land of red people' is "Oklahoma").
In an April 22, 1820 letter to John Holmes, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the division of the country created by the Compromise line would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union. He predicted, forty years before it occurred, what we know as the Civil War. Jefferson wrote:
"... (This Compromise), like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."
Pay close attention to Jefferson's words: A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.
I believe there are some extraordinary parallels with the 1820 Missouri Compromise and the 2007 SBC. A line has been drawn in the sand and many in the SBC are saying, "You will go no further in an attempt to enslave us to your views on secondary and tertiary matters." The angry passions of men and women have been aroused and every new irritation seems to make the division only deeper.
How will it end? Only the Lord knows, but it is my prayer that rather than a civil war, Southern Baptists will be able to move forward in a spirit of cooperation as we fulfill our gospel mission. But make no mistake - the line has been drawn - and it is effectively known as the Garner motion.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
43 comments:
Wade,
I am truly trying to understand your views on what is happening within the SBC, but I'm just not convinced it is as widespread as you seem to be indicating. You have encountered some people with narrowing views within the IMB Board of Trustees but I'm skeptical whether it goes beyond an insignificant minority.
If the Garner motion is the line drawn in the sand, what about those who comment on your blog about their utter disdain for the 2000 BF&M? I believe there are some who would like you to take up the crusade and do away with the 2000 BF&M altogether.
I also think the words "enslaved on secondary and tertiary matters" is a bit much. Good people can and will disagree on doctinal issues. Nothing wrong with some good healthy debate!
I am satisfied with the 2000 BF&M and have no problem with the Garner motion, but that can't be said by many who claim to be disgruntled moderates.
Jim,
I don't think the scare tactic of shouting 'liberals in the SBC' works anymore.
I wonder if, as our President says, angry legalists are the ones harmful to the SBC, not the 'disgruntled moderates' as you call them.
All I know for sure is those who would continually demand that everyone be the same are the ones holding captive the SBC
Wade,
I have been reading your blog for better than 18 a year and appreciate your heart as a pastor and denominational leader. I would have do agree with what Jim wrote about it being as widespread as you make it out to be.
"Enslaved on secondary and tertiary matters" is strong language. Is it possible that you have drawn the line in the sand? There does seem to be a lot of discussion coming from other places around the SBC at this time?
Steven
Wade:
Sorry to inflect your post today but have an alert you may want to take up later, an alarm
Your fellow Oklahoman David Roach and his BP CBF story is causing quite a stir at www.baptistlife.com
I hope you and others who frequent your blog will take a look at it in faith and practice there as I'm sure our friend TD Webb has already.
Thanks
Oh, Charles Marsh on Wayward Christians; you and Duren and Ben Cole will give it some thought
End? Silly boy.
Simple. The rapture.
Vermont was an independent republic for 14 years before joining the U.S. And in 1777 it became the first republic to outlaw slavery. (And you thought we were just happy to have the Simpson producers select our Springfield for its premier.) So how does this fit the post? The only thing that comes to mind is that sometimes you have to separate if you want to truly get things done. (Not that I'm advocating that, I'm just trying to find a point. I really just wanted to mention Vermont :)
I think the way to pursue unity rather than division on tertiary matters is to center our conversations on the gospel rather than focusing on our disagreements. If this matter were on par with the conservative resurgence discussions that would be a different story, but I agree with some of the others above who say that this is really only a big deal for those who are heavily involved in SBC politics. Most of the SBC is just struggling to figure out how the gospel of Jesus Christ applies to all of life and ministry.
Wade, I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on the gospel and thus provide some edifying wisdom for us all.
BCW
Just 72 hours ago I spent time on my favorite hill in the world: Little Round Top in Gettysburg, PA where Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine defended the extreme left flank of the Union forces against the rebels of Texas and Alabama. Knowing that his men were running dangerously low on ammo and that they were to hold the flank "to the last," he told his men to mount bayonets in preparation for a charge... and charge they did saving the North's flank. Who knows? Would we have been two countries if they had failed?
Today there is a monument that marks the place where Joshua gave the order of charge... It stands as a testament that Unity is worth fighting for... even worth dieing for.
So amazing to me how we as Southern Baptists are so quick to forget God's Word. Some time spent in John 17 is in order. We are to live in unity... it is Jesus' prayer for us. May we be an answer to His prayer.
BCW,
With pleasure.
My next post shall be entitled 'The Power of the Gospel to Transform Lives.'
I just object to any map that makes Iowa a part of Missouri. I don't care if the map is historically accurate. I won't stand for it!
No self-respecting Iowan wants to be a part of Missouri!
Dave Miller
Sioux City, IOWA
Wade,
Really excited. Centering each other on Jesus and His glorious gospel is a grand end in itself. That is the greatest need of our churches, and the SBC.
And yet, I think if we do work to show how central the gospel is in all of life and ministry and ... denominational politics(?!)... it will become clear how tertiary the tertiary really is.
BCW
Wade,
I would hope that in drawing a line in the sand, one would use something that is more substantial and has no weight (unless a bylaw of the SBC is ingnored or violated) and is so heavily disputed, would be used.
Strong language from even you in the post. As a history buff and one married to an Okie, I appreciate your attempt at this connection but find the application lacking and approach somewhat misleading. I agree with Jim, it is not as widespread as you make it appear IMHO.
TG
Greetings from Hoptown -
Hey, Vermont had its own stripe on the U.S. flag for a while (as well as a star). Some other state did so later but I forget which....
This "line drawn" really is a huge deal of divisiveness & consequence. We have a group of trustees on a few boards answering to - who? - who have said to the SBC, "We know more than you and don't take to being warned."
They have so much as told the SBC that it can pass as many resolutions as it likes but, as in the terms used by Dr. McKissick, the children will refuse to listen to the parent. How do we deal with attitudes like this?
Does that not remind you of the Confederates at Charleston SC and President-elect Lincoln in Dec. 1860? It sure does give me the same sense of waiting for the other shoe to drop.
One great difference & blessing in today's rebelliousness is that we have a strong-willed, wide-awake President Page in the SBC, not a mere chair-warmer as James Buchanan turned out to be.
Dona nobis pacem
Steve Austin
Bob,
But what about those of us from more Reformed traditions that don't believe in a rapture per se? I guess we should just hope that the Lord will bring about the end quickly.
Wade,
I'm somewhat saddened that the voices of moderation and acceptance in the convention are now starting to use "us vs. them" and "line in the sand" language. Maybe I'm overreacting, but the latest from Art Rogers and SBCOutpost seem to do this as well (and I realize that it's not only people on this side of the discussion, but those are the blogs I read).
I fear that this type of language will only escalate the conflict causing more problems within the convention that I love so dearly. I know that some blogs have been using that type of language for awhile, but I pray that it stops with them and doesn't continue to spread.
I fear this, because as a missionary for our convention I know that a greater conflict will only lead to money, prayer and people who would have come to support us through the IMB doing so through other avenues. As someone who is on the field, and works with people from other organizations regularly, I know that we have the best organization going, and know that most of my GCC partners would agree.
My prayer is that even if those of us who support a more open convention do not win the presidency in Indianapolis, that we will endure. My prayer is that no matter the "side" that we fall on, we will realize that we are partnering for a much greater cause than the secondary issues that we fight over today.
As many of you, I was educated under professors from both sides of previous conflicts. I had evangelism and ethics under Dr. Bill Tillman at Hardin-Simmons. He broke into tears one day telling us about the names he was called simply for defending his moderate brothers against attacks. The lie slinging and name callling aimed at him were embarrassing. At SWBTS, I remember Dr. Roy Fish also breaking into tears one day over the name calling he experienced as a conservative, but also for the name calling aimed at his godly colleagues who were thrown under the bus and labeled as liberals. I pray that our convention will not have a generation of young pastors who look back at today and cry as they tell their future students about their role in the struggles facing our convention today.
An Anonymous IMB M
Once again Dr. Adrian Rogers may have proven to be a prophet. In his sermon in San Antonio in 1988, he reminded conventioneers of a B.H. Carroll quote... "The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power and the wider its usefullness. The modern cry, less creed and more liberty, is a degeneration from the 'vertebrae to the jelly fish.'"
I understand why an IMB anonymous missionary must remain anonymous. However, to the last anonymous person I give you my best Dan Quayle "I knew Adrian Rogers. I was a friend of Adrian Rogers. I don't think you have a clue about Adrian Rogers."
:)
Anonymous IMB M:
That's ok. Believers who don't expect there will be a rapture get to go anyway.
:)
Wade:
I had a serious thought. Why is the BF&M not a creed? I'm guessing that the folks who set it up as a consensus statement of faith did it that way so we would have freedom to take exception even with some aspects of it and still be Baptists. Otherwise, why isn't it simply a creed?
When I assume it was set up that way on purpose, then the more noble is the struggle we're involved in, and the more egregious are the attempts to narrow the parameters.
And some claim the "narrowing" is to preserve our traditions? Wow.
The truth is there have been a number of lines drawn in the sand over the years. A big one was drawn almost three decades ago. In looking back at the 28-year-long Conservative Resurgence, one must ask what are the results. In purging many godly men and women from positions of service under the guise of 'liberalism' and saving the convention from 'liberals', what has the result been? More people won to Christ and baptized? Surely a more conservative Baptist would be a better soul-winner than the 'liberals' but the facts simply don't support that. There should be much more church growth with conservatives in charge, right? Well, again, not so. There should be more harmony and love now that only conservatives are allowed in the tent and all the rabble-rousing liberals are long gone, correct? Wrong again. Just a quick glance at some of the SBC blogs attest to the fact there is a line in the sand and sides have already been chosen. The Conservative Resurgence was nothing more than a civil war, a blatant takeover using man's methods and man's ways and having nothing to do with glorifying God. For followers of Jesus Christ, ends never justify the means. The fighting is now in its 28th year and the enemy is ourselves. As so many correctly predicted, it will not stop. The fighting just becomes more and more intense and internal. I think Satan laughs at the SBC. I don't think God is smiling with approval at all. And if Adrian Rogers indeed said that more agreement on doctrines leads to greater usefulness and power, then he, like many, fell short of the mark of understanding what really results in power and effectiveness. Faith, obedience, and love are the keys to power and effectiveness. I think it is plain for all to see, that there has been little love shown for others in the SBC tent these past 28 years. The one thing Jesus said would distinguish his people from the devil's is the one thing lacking the most these past 28 years. So dig in, draw your lines, fight your fights, and when you're done, if you have any energy left, focus on fighting the real fight God has for all his children. Take on the real enemy. For now, he sits and laughs with little resistance from those in the SBC.
Steve
Wade,
You seem to really favor illustrations of violence and aggression to make your point. In the past using the "Ottoman Turks" the "Nazis" the "Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse" the issue of "Slavery" and various other illustrations causes me concern with how you argue a point. Maybe using less violent imagery in your discussion about those with whom you disagree with will help your cause and agenda for the SBC instead of hindering it. Just a thought.:)
Oklahoma Joe
Cooperation depends on the willingness of everyone involved in the cooperative venture to be cooperative. The problems that the SBC is experiencing are the result of the simple fact that the original vision of cooperation, and the original basis for it, has been narrowed. Therefore, cooperation in the SBC is limited by the willingness of those in charge.
The "bury your head in the sand" attitude that is exhibited by some doesn't change the fact that there are concerns that need to be addressed. The "line in the sand" approach that Wade advocates is only one way of dealing with limitations and narrowing of the definitions of cooperation. For about 27 years now, the number of churches that either don't increase, or decrease, their CP support, has been growing. Along with that, an increasing number of Southern Baptists are seeking opportunities for mission service and theological education outside of convention entities. The percentage of churches sending messengers to the convention has dropped off considerably, and the messenger body itself is almost completely devoid of people under 50. The SBC has resorted to appeals to state conventions to increase their split of CP funds in order to get the money they need to operate, and has taken the unprecedented step of encouraging the formation of alternative state conventions to bypass the "bad boy" states that won't comply. There is a problem, the cessationist/continualist debate is just one symptom of several, and it's not going to go away.
In my opinion, the line in the sand is only slightly different than you claim. I am a Southern Baptist pastor of around 20 years and have been listening to and praying through this "controversy" throughout my adult life.
I am left to consider the SBC as an instrument to be "used" by my congregation. I once believed that denominational loyalty ran down a two-way street. Now it seems that we are supposed to serve the denomination as loyalists, while awaiting further instructions regarding their judgments on doctrinal issues, political positions, etc.
What if we simply begin using our SBC entities like we would a publishing house? If they do something that helps me accomplish our church's goals, fine. If not, why not use another source? In my view, that's the new line in the sand.
If I were advising a potential missionary candidate, I likely would counsel them to sign off on the IMB's known requirements even if the candidate disagreed. After all, isn't the goal to serve the Lord on the mission field? If it is, then why not fill out the forms correctly and move ahead? If they personally pray using a "private prayer language" who needs to know?
Oklahoma Joe,
I love history and favor historical analogies. I learned a long time ago that the best advice comes from friends sympathetic with one's goals, not necessarily those who are unsympathetic. I also know that when unsympathetic people begin offering unsolicited advice 'to help your cause rather than hinder it' it becomes concrete evidence that significant progress has already been made toward reaching the stated goal - in this case more cooperation and less fixation on demands for conformity on tertiary issues.
Thanks Joe for the encouragement.
:)
Wade,
I understand an admire your knowledge of history. I myself could use more discipline in the study of history and you serve as a good model. Unfortuantely the medium of weblogs do not communicate the subtleties of emotion and expression as well as verbal and physical conversation does, and I fear that sometimes your use of analogies comes across harsh because of this barrier. I guess that is the greatest weakness of weblogs. I just don’t want others to see the use of such illustrations from your knowledge of the past and her wars to be an implication that you are a brawler yourself looking for a fight with others. Granted some of those whom you rightly take issue with do such and I hate to see you compared with their harsh tactics to get your point across as they do. Just an honest observation. God Bless.
Oklahoma Joe
tracybw,
If a missionary candidate prays in a private prayer language, and he is ASKED if he does so (and he will be because that question is now at the top of the survey), then the missionary candidate must either tell the truth or lie.
If we follow your advice we appoint people without integrity.
If we follow the trustees counsel (refuse to appoint them) then we refuse to appoint people with integrity.
The question should be asked, "WHY ARE WE ASKING ABOUT A PERSONS PRIVATE PRAYER LIFE?"
Of course, one could argue that we have created a climate in the SBC of lying about numbers, attendance, membership, etc . . . so what's the big deal about lying about PP.
Wade,
I thought you were the recipient (on another blog) of a comment that was less than charitable to say the least. Frankly, more than a few troubling comments come from that source and it really doesn’t bode well for proper Christian discourse. Just wanted to say that I saw it and didn’t like it.
BTW, I am not unsympathetic to your goals, I just have another set goals that are personally important to ministry. I guess that is why we each are created differently to cooperate in unity while being diverse. :)
" I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift." (Ephesians 4:1-7, ESV)
Oklahoma Joe
Tim: The church I attended growing up was a offshoot of Southern Baptist. The Landmark doctrine and the Fundamentalist doctrine are one in the same except for a few minor differences. I believe it's why it attracts the John Hagee's, the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, David Jeremiah(whom I actually listen to and like). Sorry but I disagree.
Wade is correct in stating the the Garner motion is a line in the sand, but where will it lead? There has been a lot of sabre rattling going SBC over the last couple of years with attempts to draw lines in the sand regarding Charismatics, Calvinists, etc, but the Garner motion is official, voted on and approved by the SBC.
I believe that there is more pruning ahead for the SBC. Pruning involves cutting off both the living and the dead branches with the goal of greater fruit bearing. If the Lord will do that in the life of an individual christian, then He certainly can, and I believe will in a christian organization. Is the Lord through with the SBC? I don't believe so, but I do believe that He is in the process of making us leaner, more focused, and thereby more effective in making disciples.
Tracy,
Obviously the issue in signing off on the IMB paperwork is one of personal integrity. The last time I looked lying was a sin. So we want our missionaries to be people with a lack of integrity? If they will lie about their PPL then what else will they lie about...the virgin birth, the resurrection, the divinity of Christ, the truth of the Scriptures? What kind of gospel will they be presenting? Do I want my CP money going to support someone like that? Do you? You're a pastor...so what are you encouraging your flock to lie about in their daily life so that they can do the "Lord's work."
Wade,
You have probably answered this question in previous blogs, and maybe you don't want to address it now, but here goes my question anyway.
I am very much in support of (for lack of a better term) "big-tent conservatism" in the SBC. I agree with much of the thrust of the bloggers movement (once again - an undefined term, but most here probably understand it).
My one concern as I have read the blogs is: Where DO we draw the line?
I was a Virginia pastor during the height of the controversy. I saw that many bible-believers were ostracized because of their political leanings. I struggle with the question of drawing the line in the right place.
Here's my question for you. Where do you draw the line?
BFM 2000? (with minor disagreements)
Inerrancy and Immersion?
If you are willing to encapsulate it - where do you draw the line of SBC fellowship?
Dave Miller
Sioux City, IA
Nativevermonter,
I'm used to it.
:)
Only makes me more resolved.
Dave Miller said, "Here's my question for you. Where do you draw the line?
BFM 2000? (with minor disagreements)
Inerrancy and Immersion?
If you are willing to encapsulate it - where do you draw the line of SBC fellowship?"
Respectfully, David, the gauntlet was already thrown down by those who will only cooperate with those who are in complete aggreement with all of the former's narrow doctrinal views which are not essential to Southern Baptist identity. There is honest disagreement as to what is the best view on these secondary issues. However, those who would enforce their views of PPL, baptism, and a woman's teaching role in a seminary on others as prerequisites for service, are the ones who initially dug a trench in the sand in their contempt for dissenting views on these issues. Out of curiosity, what did you suggest to the leaders of the IMB BoT and the President of SWBTS for their deeds which precipitated this controversy?
In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb
I have actually contacted the IMB BOT president several times (both Hatley and Floyd) to let them know that I don't like where they are drawing the line. I have not contacted SWBTS. Dr. Floyd is courteous but makes it clear he has not interest in hearing what I have to say.
I KNOW where they draw the line. and I do not like it. I sort of consider myself a part of this broadening movement, but I just wonder how far we are going to open the gates again.
I want the fellowship broadened, but how far are we going?
That's the only question I am asking.
I'm sorry, I didn't sign my name on the last one.
Dave Miller,
Sioux City
Admittedly, I'm not actually going to advise anyone to lie on an IMB application. But tongue in cheek responses do often get to the real issue. Wade, you are right on target here. Integrity is that issue.
My question is, does the line of integrity run both ways, or is it a word intended only for seminary teachers and potential IMB appointees?
It seems to me that we play too man word games. Issues like "private prayer language" get batted around and then become a part of a checklist of appropriate doctrinal conviction.
But when does the list stop growing? Isn't that also a part of integrity? Or does the career missionary need some sort of default setting on their computer so that they can automatically agree in perpetuity with the terms of their employment?
Most definitely, integrity is at stake here...
David Miller said, "I have actually contacted the IMB BOT president several times (both Hatley and Floyd) to let them know that I don't like where they are drawing the line.
Good for you, David. Wade and others, who oppose the narrowing of SBC doctrine by officials in its entities, are on record as agreeing with essential or commonly held doctrines such as the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, salvation by grace through faith alone, baptism by immersion of believers, and holding Baptist leaders accountable to commonly held morality codes, etc.
It is in the area of these 2nd and 3rd tier doctrinal positions where there is honest disagreement and which has no arbitrary or specific Scriptural reference, nor are they mentioned in the 2000BF&M, where we must "agree to disagree" while we continue our efforts to cooperatively reach the world for Christ Jesus.
In His Grace and Peace,
Dave Miller,
I realize some may squalk at what I'm about to say, but I believe the BFM 2000 is a pretty good confessional statement around which we can cooperate. Let's not exceed it.
. . . Again:
Each year's version of the Baptist Faith & Message (1925, 1963, 2000) is REPRESENTATIVE of the personal theological persuasions of every kind of Baptist ever walking on the planet Earth and can be (and USED to be) the basis for all SBC'ers cooperation in missions and evangelism IF we WILL cooperate--WHICH STILL IS THE QUESTION (will we cooperate?). Everyone, permit each other one to choose the BF&M version to which he/she will adhere--all of which describe what it means to be 'Southern Baptist'--and all take 2 steps forward together in missions and evangelism.
David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX
Works for me.
Dave
Wade,
It seems like you associated that Adrian Rogers quote with my since it was posted anonymously and directly under my long anonymous post. Let me assure you, that wasn't me (but that should have been obvious since my post and his were in disagreement). I'd love to post my name because that would clear up this "anonymous" stuff, but as you know that's not an option at times.
My main fear is that using battle language will only rile up the troops more than they need to be riled up. I don't want any bloodshed, and I don't think you do either.
An Anonymous IMB M
Bob,
You made a great point by asking why the BF&M isn't a creed. I think the heart of it comes from our belief of what a church is. The BF&M says, "A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel." If a church is autonomous, and each believer within that church is autonomous in some regards, then how can a convention enforce any set of beliefs on churches that are autonomous? That's why I love being a Baptist. Great point Bob!
Wade,
My family will be out of town for 10 days and will most likely not have internet access. We are praying for you (as well as all of the trustees) at the meeting. I believe this has the potential to be a significant meeting in light of the Lifeway study, the decisions made by the messengers, et. al. I know that you have said that you will bring the topics to the floor, but someone must, and we are praying that they will speak wisely and that those of you who will be supporting them will speak boldly and in love. Thanks so much for everything you do in representing those of us on the field as well as representing all of the churches back home.
An Anonymous IMB M
Oops,
I meant to say, "I know that you have said that you will NOT bring the topics to the floor"
An Anonymous IMB M
Post a Comment