I have met Dr. White just one time. He introduced himself to me in San Antonio prior to the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. He was extremely polite and had sought me out after the Sunday morning service at Castle Hills Baptist Church, a service we both had attended to hear Dr. Frank Page preach. I have nothing but positive things to say about him, his personal charm, and his ability to communicate his views.
The message he preached at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, however, precisely illustrates the trouble we are having in the Southern Baptist Convention. We have SBC leaders, including seminary professors like Dr. White, Southern Baptist agency Presidents, SBC trustees and other leaders who are preaching personal opinions as if they were mandates from God. This type of legalism will destroy not only the fabric of cooperation upon which our Convention was built, it will ultimately destroy the powerful message of the gospel because tertiary matters are elevated to a primary status of debate within the SBC, and people who disagree are excluded.
I listened to Dr. White's message from beginning to end. I would like to say I was shocked by what I heard, but frankly, my experiences these past three years have taken the edge of surprise off. One of our SBC missionaries who had been overseas for several years emailed me his concerns about what he heard Dr. White say in the message. The missionary confessed to me both shock and sadness. He wondered if Dr. White represents the direction our Convention is headed. I honestly believe that unless other conservative Southern Baptists besides myself begin to speak out and participate in Convention matters, Dr. White's opinions will shortly become mandated for the entire Convention.
The message he preached was about birth control. Can you imagine a policy requiring SBC missionaries swearing that they do not believe in birth control before they are appointed to the mission field? If you think that sounds far fetched, I simply remind you of other "doctrinal" policies being passed by Southern Baptist trustees infatuated with pushing their personal opinions on all others. Read carefully what Dr. White is saying about birth control and those who use it. The transcript begins at the 19:10 minute mark of the message.
"Behold children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward . . . Blessed is the man whose quiver is full” (Psalms 127:3,5a).
There is perhaps nothing in America that we have misunderstood as much as the fact that children are a blessing from the Lord. It says right here - “Behold children are a heritage from the Lord: the fruit of the womb a reward.” Think about what we do in our society, though, to undermine this one principle that’s taught here in Scripture. There is an entire industry that is built up on stopping or preventing children. We call it birth control, but we should call it contraception. We do not want to conceive and so we attempt to stop (it). In fact, we do this in so many different ways. We have sex education to teach our kids know how to do it properly. The newest survey was upset because the rising amount of people not on contraception had grown to seven percent rather than five percent. Think about those statistics. The nation is upset because seven percent of our population is not using contraception. We have the pill. We have the patch. We even have rods you can stick in your arm now that lasts for three years. We have all of these things built up to prevent children from being formed or born . . .
I’m not here this morning to go off on you, I‘m here to tell you something because I’ve made the mistake. When my wife and I were married in 1999, whether it was because of my own selfishness or because of improper information, we were on birth control. Birth control, they tell you, is not abortive in nature. But birth control has three functions. I won’t go into detail of those three functions because I don’t know how many kids we have (here), but the third function in that birth control is to prevent implantation on the uterine wall. And if it reaches that third function, that third function does not take effect until the seventh day. The seventh day is seven days too long, and its murder of a life. When the egg and the sperm meet, you have life. If you ask theologians they’re going to tell you that the egg and the sperm meet when the souls implanted. There’s no other time to say that God creates the soul and puts it in than that point in time. And so at that point you have life. You have at the moment of conception life, and yet the third aspect of birth control is to say that life cannot implant on to the wall as it normally would, and so that life is going to be flushed down, and that my friends is wrong.
I made the mistake. I’m not standing here telling you anything other than this: I don’t want you to make the mistake because of lack of knowledge. I want you to know that the third form of birth control known as the pill, that third form that it has is wrong – it is not correct according to Scripture.
Now I learned. We stopped. I also learned this: It was in 1956 that the pill was created by the person who founded Planned Parenthood. It was in 1976 that the definition was changed. And the definition was changed to say that life began not when fertilization took place, but that life did not begin until implantation on the uterine wall took place. That change in definition allows the doctors to tell you that the pill has no abortive feature. That change in definition allows them to print in their literature the pill is not abortive in any way. And so it markets and sells better to our nation. It eases our conscience. But the truth of the matter is our consciences do not need to be eased, we need to recognize that children are a blessing from the Lord. I confess to you this morning the reason that I was on - we were on birth control - I didn’t take it, but I was the spiritual leader of my house and it’s my fault that we did; the reason that we did it was my own selfishness. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids in God’s . . . not God’s timing, but my time. I didn’t want kids while I was in my M.Div. program where I was going to have another mouth to feed and it was going to inconvenience my ability to finish my course work and maybe move on and do a Ph.D. and all these type things. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids my way, my time, the way I wanted to do it so I could plan my family out. Folks, you are not in control of your destinies, God is! And the sooner that we recognize that we are sinning when we say, “I’m going to control every aspect of my family,” and we’re not giving control to God, we don’t trust Him, we don’t believe that He knows better than we do, we think we know better than God does. And just like I did, some of you are involved in that exact same sin!
I thought you could control it. I thought as soon as we made the decision to come off, we would have kids immediately. It wasn’t that way. My wife and I have never had natural children. We were married in 1999. The Lord is the giver of life. It’s not us. I’ll tell you more about that story later.
It continues on here after it says, “Children are a heritage from the Lord and the fruit of reward.” It says in verse four: “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” Now I tried to think who in the world around here would have a quiver full, and Dean Nichols came to mind. Dean, how many kids do you have? Three? Four? Five? Six? Seven? Now you can’t afford seven kids. Eight kids? Nine kids? Nine? Or Ten? Nine?
Do you have a quiver I could borrow? (A quiver with arrows is brought to the stage – laughter). How about that? Anybody needs a quiver you just go see Dean Nichols, he’ll take care of you. Now this is an interesting thing. “Blessed is the man whose quiver is full.” Nine kids? And he’s still alive, how about that? (Laughter) You see we joke, but this is the attitude that this verse is against. It’s my attitude too. I think about ten kids running around the house and I think to myself, “O Lord, is that really a blessing?”
That’s what His word says, “Children are a blessing . . .”
(Dr. Thomas White then goes on to explain the characteristics of an arrow and how they compare to our children. He describes how a warrior prepares an arrow by bending and curing the wood, and how that compares to parents training their kids. Dr. White then speaks of the sin of pushing kids off to daycare, public schools or youth groups, when it is our primary responsibility to train our kids, just as the biblical warrior would construct his arrows).
Society tells us that children will make a rich man poor, but the Bible tells us that children will make a poor man rich. And that’s the attitude that we need to have. It is the Lord who controls our life. He is God and we are not. He is the one in control, and we are not. If He gives you twelve kids, twelve blessings you have received. If He gives you three kids, three blessings you have received. It is not for us to plan our parenthood, it is for God to be the giver of life.
(Dr. White closes his message with a story of how he and his wife adopted a child in 2005 and a challenge to "let God be God" and acknowledge that we are not God by refusing to use birth control).
There are three sobering judgements I would like to make about Dr. White's message:
(1). When SBC seminary professors, SBC agency Presidents, and other SBC leaders preach their personal opinions as if they were mandates from God, then anyone who ever dares disagree or dissent is considered a sinner, or even worse, a liberal who denies the Scripture. This attitude by the legalists causes the pool of Southern Baptists deemed qualified to serve in leadership or cooperative missions ministry to shrink. This legalism also destroys the cooperative Southern Baptist ministry, and it is for this reason that these kinds of legalists must not be allowed to control the Convention. By the way, Dean Nichols, the man illustrated as having a 'quiver full' of kids is head of security of SWBTS and the husband of Mary Nichols, one of the International Mission Board trustees and member of the IMB trustee caucus who forced through other personal opinions as "doctrinal" policies that exceed both Scripture and the Baptist Faith and Message.
(2). Dr. White seems to be unfamiliar with the teaching of our Baptist forefathers on this issue of the creation of the soul. The claim that "all" theologians hold to his view that the soul is created by God at conception is a claim either built on misperception or misunderstanding.
(3). Here's hoping that our preachers are being taught the primacy of the gospel at our SBC seminaries and not the primacy of birth control. What changes lives is not the claim that Christians taking birth control are sinners, but the claim that God sent His Son to die in the stead of sinners.
Thy Peace (one of this blog's readers and commentors), you asked me for an illustration of legalism in the SBC.
I hope this post helps you understand why I write what I write.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
229 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 229 of 229Peter:
You actually now are the heart of my point (and Wade's) with this comment:
Why even a kid hooked on crack cannot be legitimately counseled about the morally questionable behavior of such addiction because such counsel is "an extension of Scripture beyond what is written"--without, of course, assumed to be a proud, card-carrying, member of the local, moral legalists' society.
Wow, talking about putting words in my mouth! I've been on record on Wade's site for almost 16 months that alcohol prohibitions via rules/law are ineffective and unbiblical. The only alternative, in my opinion, is to teach abstention from alcohol only as a wisdom (i.e. a wise decision not a "moral dictum") and noting that making such a choice is an attempt to hedge one's behavior so that one doesn't fall into temptation that CAN occur especially among those with genetic predisposition towards substance addiction.
So you're using the technique of arguing the logical extreme in order to try and portray me as someone who is either amoral or anti-moral. But my claim is that you can't reduce life to rules that you impose on other people in the name of God no matter the extent to which you believe that such rules are justified by morality or by umbras and penumbras of the Bible. ;)
I'll happily take your comments one-by-one, though, so that Wade's readers--any who might remain interested in this discussion--can see how the thinking of the typical Southern Baptist pastor/leader often goes:
1. Why even a kid hooked on crack cannot be legitimately counseled... Since you're reading into what I said, I hope you'll permit me some interpretation of what YOU are saying. Legitimate counsel is not that which creates condemnation. Legitimate counsel creates an outcome. I'll ask readers to weigh in on which of the two forms of "legitimate counsel" tends to be more effective with their teenagers (I hereby disclaim that I have a 16-year-old and therefore remove myself from offering an opinion due to my inherent conflict of interest):
a. setting a rule that the teenager or young adult has to follow and imposing consequences if the rule isn't followed
b. educating the teenager as to the natural consequences of a choice and asking them to obey guidelines designed for their own good
Which of the two is the more legitimate approach to counseling teenagers?
2. ...cannot be legitimately counseled about the morally questionable behavior of such addiction...
You wield the phrase "morally questionable" as if it has real meaning. Let's deconstruct it just a bit and see if we can tease out that meaning. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not playing a power or control game. So doesn't morally questionable mean "has the potential for self-harm or other-harm"?? I ask this for a very simple reason: the Bible very clearly delineates between ingesting alcohol--which is not forbidden--and ingesting alcohol to excess or in situations where it could be detrimental (i.e. "harmful") such as when responsible for the leadership of a nation (as a king, specifically).
So if the Bible bothers to make those distinctions about ingestion of one substance, shouldn't we form a similar set of gradations about other psychotropic substances? Or are you suggesting that crack cocaine is so powerful that we are required by ethics to use whatever force is necessary to stop young people and adults from using it because that's the way the Bible says to deal with alcohol?
3. because such counsel is "an extension of Scripture beyond what is written"
See point #2. If you re-interpret Scripture to provide a more strict rule and insist that it has moral consequences based on your interpretation of Scripture, then you're taking on the responsibility of clearing with God your position. What procedure do you propose for demonstrating to the people you are leading that God authorized that extension? A miracle? A casting of lots? And what if the same casting of lots turns out differently at different churches? We then vote on God's will and go with the majority?
I'm not saying this to ridicule you. God has very harsh penalties imposed in the Old Testament for those that falsely claim to speak for him. And the ending of Revelation doesn't loosen any of those OT rules in any way.
I think that if you deal fairly with the text of Scripture, you can make the claim to the addict that he (or she) is making choices that are harmful. I think you can appeal to Scriptures that warn against excess in consumption of alcohol and the resulting drunkenness. Those statements based on the text of Scripture are legitimate counsel and legitimate moral guidance and are entirely consistent with my yapping (and Wade's) against legalism.
But you know in your heart that the only hope for that "kid" is not to be condemned by rules. You probably won't even be able to have a meaningful conversation with him (or her) until you've established a relationship based on compassion and probably centered on meeting physical needs first if you ever want to have a chance to address the spiritual needs. That kid is most like the (younger) prodigal son.
How did that prodigal son change his behavior? The Bible claims he came to his senses. What rule did that? Jesus doesn't mention a rule but he does mention a comparison: between how he is living and how he lived in his father's house.
My dad always preaches about TWO prodigal sons in that story. The younger one is very visible: he squanders his inheritance and only after he is eating worse than (unclean) pigs does he come home.
The other prodigal son is like the Southern Baptist Convention of today when it indulges in legalism: he wasn't happy his younger brother found salvation, he wasn't happy that his father was celebrating that glorious return, and he made a point of complaining about it to the father.
That Jesus would use that parable to speak against the clannishness and self-assurance of the Jews of his day--and trust me they understood EXACTLY what he was saying--is a very clear warning against today's Southern Baptists behaving--or being perceived by God to be behaving--in a similar fashion.
Greg Harvey
greg.w.h.,
I think you have presented a false choice in having to pick a. or b.
Both are necessary.
From the mother of a teenager and
an adult, neither of whom has had to have consequences imposed.
To L's Gran:
How do you reconcile your view with the clear Scriptural instruction that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Adopting a worldview that says anyone who does good works with love for fellow man will be saved is to have an inclusive view of the Gospel and it is to deny Biblical teachings on the exclusivity of faith in Jesus as the only means of salvation.
Wanda,
I do not consider Mark a misogynist...I was saying that because i think I read somewhere where Lydia was saying that about Mark. My apologies if you did not Lydia!
From the Southern Baptist Convention
Robert I Masters
Elisabeth,
Thanks for that question!
Rob
Kevin said "Is the ingredient used for a decoration or garnish? If so, it should be cut very evenly and probably quite small."
Good to hear you have taken up cooking. So, to celebrate your introduction to the world of culinary delights:
We are sending out a case, to you today, of 'Dumbledorff's Finest: The Pickle With A Soul',
compliments of Mrs. D.
Yours truly,
W. Dumbledorff
P.S. Refrigeration is recommended. This is ONE kind of pickle that cannot stand the HEAT.
OK, here are my thoughts for what they are worth. I don't claim infallibility and I "definitely" don't claim infallibility on this issue.
My wife wanted a baby reeeeaaaally bad [and she prayed about it].
When she and I heard that birth control can act as an abortifacient, she immediately stopped.
We then had three children.
Yeahh!!!!!
My wife had three C-Sections. Hence if she were to get pregnant again, it could cause her physical harm. Tubes tied. No problem [with the law of Christ we are to obey].
Now, for me, I tend to have a "better safe than sorry" perspective on things.
However, I have had to learn to not impose my better safe than sorry attitude on everyone else on everything. I think. I can still struggle with it.
If the pill can act as an abortifacient, then a married couple would have to admit that they are taking a risk if pill taking is to continue.
However, I guess someone could say that I take a risk when I drive my children around in a van.
Objection: You have to drive an automobile in order to survive in this world!
Answer: The Amish seem to be doing just fine.
Hence, the pill would be different than an outright intentional abortion. With an intentional abortion the child WILL be killed. With the pill, the child MIGHT be killed [again assuming it is an abortifacient].
My encouragement to my spiritual family on this issue--do some research and walk in the Spirit.
God Bless
Benji
To L's Gran,
By my comment mentioning "liberal plot" I meant only that many on the secular-political right (and I have many Southern Baptist friends who can be classified in this way) view any environmentalist/preservationist/species saving policies as "liberal" and for that reason (alone) not worthy of support. I wasn't particularly referring to Southern Baptist leadership. I mentioned this simply as one factor that influences Southern Baptists in general on environmental (and possibly also family size) issues.
Hi Elizabeth,
I don't understand what 'world view' means. And, in my faith, I don't use that same type of language that you use in your comment. It is not something familiar to me.
There are many scriptures and some are seemingly contradictory to others. I say 'seemingly' because I have always thought that I could not understand them all, so I pray and ask the Holy Spirit to guide my reading of the Holy Writings. I pray before reading and, in thanksgiving, after reading.
I have lived long enough to understand that God's salvation is so much more than what we can put into words. Are there people out there who profess the Holy Name of Christ but do not really believe? Are there people out there who know Him and believe in Him, but do not know His name? Christianity is to be lived, not just professed. I think you call it 'producing fruit'. I call it 'repairing the world'
or serving Him. Different religion. Different beliefs. Or maybe, different emphasis on what is most important to God.
I have read about the 'faith alone' belief. For myself, I must accept that charity is the greater of faith, hope, and charity. That is my belief after reading the Holy Writings and asking for guidance. This is my belief for me, not what I would recommend to anyone, who may be secure in their own faith.
So, please understand why I do not understand all of your statement. I'm sorry. L's Gran
Dear Elisabeth,
I found something that can help you understand what I mean:
It is a quote from C. Crouse:
" Charity is the outward evidence of the inward existence of faith and hope."
So it is. Without the outward expression of charity, my faith is hollow.
L's G.
For clarity's sake, this is what I meant above:
"When she and I heard that birth control can act as an abortifacient, she immediately stopped [taking the pill]."
"I do not consider Mark a misogynist...I was saying that because i think I read somewhere where Lydia was saying that about Mark. My apologies if you did not Lydia!"
Apology accepted. I did not call Driscoll a misogynist. I called him a vulgarian. :o)
Lydia
Elizabeth,
I can think of several Scriptures that support L's Gran hope for her Jewish friend ending up in heaven.
Main one, the parable of the sheep and the goats. And don't forget the one about two sons, one who first refused to do what the father wanted, and then obeyed and the other son who said, "Yes, I'll do it" but didn't.
Dear Karen,
You said, "All our works are filthy rags in God's sight and cannot save us."
But do we not always recognise Jesus in the world? Very carefully read the words of Christ in this chapter of St. Matthew.
Matthew Chapter 25:
"Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?"
And so they were recognized and invited into the Kingdom. L's
Thank you, Anna.
You are like a guardian angel.
You are quietly there watching over me when I can't understand, and when I have no words, and you help. God bless you.
Thanks again, L's
Karen in o.k.:
Perhaps it is a false choice. But I know which way I prefer to be treated and which way I prefer my son prefer to be treated. Younger teenagers may very well have to be managed solely by carefully drawn rules. But older teenagers and young adults generally respond poorly in my experience to imposition of authority without reasoning.
Plus my point is broader than that: it's to attempt to reflect the difference in approach between the OT and NT. But you're correct: both approaches may be necessary and pragmatically both may work. But the latter approach generally should be the preferred approach in Christian life if we take into account Paul's comments on the Law in Romans (in my speculative opinion, at least.)
Greg Harvey
Note there are two Elisabeths commenting here. Myself, Elisabeth, and Elizabeth with a "z"
DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY
I was a mother of three
Before I went into labor
And gave birth to myself
As I was meant to be.
L's G.
I was just thinking about another medicine which there tends to be legalistic judgement against - antidepressants. I have been on antidepressants for about 3 years now, and would have been much better off if I had gone on them much sooner. I definitely have a physical cause to my periodic episodes of depression. But how often I had heard something along the lines of if someone is living in the joy of the Lord they won't need antidepressants! And how often I had felt inferior to other Christians because the "black cloud" would overtake me no matter how hard I tried to live in the joy of the Lord! And how, since I went on antidepressants, I have had to struggle to realize that it's not because I'm inferior, or weak in faith or whatever, that I have had this struggle with depression. Depression is a difficult enough struggle as it is, and some seem to be bent on making it even more so.
Hi Elisabeth with an 's'
That was my mother's name, my mother of blessed memory. Sorry about the spelling.
I had depression once, after the birth of my third child. I have NEVER suffered so much in my life from anything so frightening. It is invisible to others and excruciating to bear. Worse than any physical pain, even childbirth. In my case, it resolved over time. I'm sure it had something to do with hormonal changes, because the onset was almost immediately after delivery. In those day, over thirty years ago, all they did was give you Valium. I carried it around in my purse like a teddy bear. I had panic attacks. I withdrew to my house. I really felt alone and cried out to God to help me. I didn't understand what it was all about, because I never had it before. Or, thank God, since. All I know, is that is hell is like that, I don't want to go there. I saw a psychiatric social worker for six months. She asked me if I wanted to go into hospital and I said, 'No, because, there were still moments in the day that I could find some respite and feel like myself again and can get my work done. And that as long as there was still some enjoyment left in each day, I could bear the situation. She said I gave the right answer. The whole experience was like emotional growing pains: except my hormones were the culprits. Post-partum depression is treatable now. I'm SO glad for the younger generation of women.
The whole subject of depression is suppressed no longer: everyone has some of it in their life time, only varying in degree and in length of time. You need a good support system. Start with medical work-up first. Then ask for a responsible referral from your physician to the absolute BEST psychological professional in the area. You deserve it. I believe God wants us to take care of ourselves. I will pray for you.
You are not alone, believe me.
L's Gran
P.S. And those people who don't understand: they will have their own bout of it sooner or later, situation depression can occur throughout life after major illness, or deaths in a family, or other emotional trauma. They need to pray for you, if they care about you. If they are as insensitive as they sound, maybe they need your prayers more.
Karen: I listened to the sermon and it was very clear what he was saying. I think anyone who listens would have no doubt as to what he was saying. He definitely thinks birth control is sin. That means I was sinning for all the years I took birth control. We shouldn't be delving into private prayer closets or into a husband and wife's decisions. Both are private, both are personal.
I wonder how many people who have commented here with an opinion have actually listened to Dr. White's sermon?
Joe
Men and Birth Control:
A certain man's idea of 'sin'
Does he say it come from HIM?
Who writes these rules that seem so cruel?
Is it the The Ruler or 'the ruled'?
God? or Man? : Choose only one
Follow only His Spirit, His Holy Son.
Your life is yours, not MAN'S to rule.
Your Father is loving; He is not cruel.
Fear the Men who control a Wife.
Fear the Men who control a Life.
Go to Him in secret prayer
And trust His love to meet you there.
Accept only His guiding Hand
To give to you to understand
That MEN can never take His Place
His Holy Spirit will give you Grace.
And, in the end, when you decide.
In His grace-filled Peace, you will abide.
"a theologian of the caliber of Dr. White.
A THEOLOGIAN OF THE CALIBER OF DR. WHITE??
Does it not please God to hide from the 'wise' what He reveals to His children?
HIS wisdom is His to give to all His children.
How much autonomy any person gives over to another so that the other has control, will depend on the mental and emotional healh of both.
Enter the religious right. Some of their dogma is injurious to men, women, children, the family structure, the Church. Serious mental and emotional health problems come when fundamentalist preach total obedience to an unrealistic paradigm for the family. Any responsible Christian can see through the nonsense and avoid pitfalls: as soon as they notice pressure tactics to conform, to treat others with respect at the cost of their own dignity, and to ignore reality. Might be good for a young couple to step back from the pit and take another look before jumping in. Once in, they may not make it out intact, and there are the children to consider. Look before you leap. Groveling is not faith.
The B.I. people want to put their women into even smaller cages. Is this POSSIBLE?
How small a cage will it take to please the Patterson regime? Women will have to morph into something truly sub-human and mindless to remain 'christian'?
LET ME OUT OF HERE .
Especially as an 'outsider', I found this to be a well written, balanced article.
As I wrote about this very issue on my site, the Baptist (& organized religion) image is damaged (again) because of people and attitudes like White.
Religion-done-right should unite people with different views but often times, we non-believers only hear about the heresey we commit because we don't live our lives like you.
I enjoyed reading some of the views herein.
There are over 270 comments here, so maybe this was already asked:
Wade, do you not believe that life begins at fertilization? Do you not believe that the destruction of a fertilized egg is the taking of a human life? I thought that's what Dr. White was talking about.
You are so right to question Dr White and the Quiverfull Movment- it's scary..check out these stories from women in the movement.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/03/14/joyce_quiverfull/index.html
http://2spb.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment