The Teat of the Doctrinal Conformity Cow at SWBTS Will Not Be Milked Today

For five years I have encouraged Southern Baptists to resist the narrowing of the doctrinal parameter of Southern Baptist fellowship and cooperation. My mantra has been that some Southern Baptist leaders have been pressing for doctrinal conformity on all tertiary doctrines of the Christian faith. Many may remember that SWBTS trustee and SBC pastor Dwight McKissic was unjustly censured at Southwestern Theological Seminary for admitting, while preaching in the SWBTS chapel service no less, that he had a "private prayer language." This past week the President of Liberty Theological Seminary, a graduate of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, called the evangelism strategy of the International Mission board "heresy". Of course, it has been SWBTS professor Dr. Keith Eitel and President Dr. Paige Patterson who have sought to prove to all who will listen that the IMB administration has been full of theological error, writing letters years ago to IMB trustees to prove it. It's been stated publicly in the past by SWBTS President Paige Patterson that five-point Calvinist professors would not be welcome at SWBTS, by saying, "Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." We already know that Dr. Karen Bullock and Dr. Sheri Klouda were removed from faculty at SWBTS because trustees and administration hold to the belief that women should not teach a man anything in a seminary classroom. I could go on with illustrations of attempts to bring doctrinal conformity on all tertiary issues at SWBTS, but you get the picture.

However, it does seem there is now one issue that has been moved off the doctrinal conformity list at SWBTS. Both Bart Barber and Peter Lumpkins write on their blog that Dr. Paige Patterson has written a preface to an article defending his one of his professor's belief in an ancient earth. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Research Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cultural Engagement, Dr. William Dembski, has written a book entitled The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. Bart believes Dr. Patterson's defense of his professor's right to publish a book arguing for an ancient earth construct, while Dr. Patterson himself believes in a young earth. Dr. Barber, a trustee and employee of SWBTS, writes:

You may have read on occasion the allegation—the deliberately dishonest allegation—that Dr. Patterson or other much-maligned Southern Baptists require that people agree with them on every point of theology or else they will not cooperate with them. Here we have a perfect test case to see whether this is or is not true. Dr. Patterson bluntly states that he "[does] not agree" with Dembski, and even that Dembski has authored a book "highly [critical]" of Dr. Patterson's own system of belief. Understand me plainly: A professor at SWBTS, working for Dr. Patterson, has authored and published a book that Dr. Patterson (rightly) perceives as highly critical of Dr. Patterson's own theological viewpoint.

Peter Lumpkins chimes in with this colorful comment over Dr. Patterson's paper:

Bloggers like Wade Burleson have for the last several years milked the absolute conformity cow dry, insisting anybody who does not agree with Paige Patterson in even the smallest detail is marked. However, Dr. Dembski is an old-earth creationist and Dr. Patterson is a young-earth creationist ... Yet, in spite of the diversity, we see some very explicit unity portrayed here.

I agree with both Bart and Peter about Dr. Patterson on this issue. I also commend him. I, too, believe in a young earth--but I am thrilled to see the freedom for SWBTS professors to publish books representing different views than the President of SWBTS. This is a step in the right direction away from ideological and doctrinal conformity demands. It's good for SWBTS and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole.

Now, if SWBTS would give Dr. Klouda and Dr. Bullock their jobs back ... maybe the teat of the doctrinal conformity cow won't need to be milked much more at all. Whether or not this happens, at least SWBTS and Dr. Patterson have taken a step in the right direction, and I don't mind saying so.

In His Grace,

Wade

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

Preventing the SBC from Becoming the One View Baptist Convention

In my library I have several books that cover various viewpoints regarding tertiary doctrines over which Christians have historically disagreed. For example, I have read and enjoyed The Meaning of the Millenium: Four Views, and taught the people at Emmanuel all four viewpoints during a Wednesday night study. I taught each of the four millenial positions as if I believed it, and only at the end of the entire series did I give the members of Emmanuel my personal views on the subject of the millenium. I also admitted I could be wrong in my personal view and told those in the Bible study they should search the Scriptures for themselves to arrive at their own conclusions. Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom is another book in my library. We have used it in various small group studies in our church. There has never been a demand that people at Emmanuel hold to one particular view on this subject. Interestingly, all four viewpoints on God's soverereignty are represented by different Sunday School teachers in our fellowship. But all of our members understand that we are never to make disagreement over this tertiery doctrine a test of fellowship. Another book, entitled Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Four Views , is an excellent summary of the different viewpoints Christians hold regarding spiritual gifts. Again, all four views on the gifts of the Spirit are held by various people within our 4,500 church membership. I'm excited that an agreement has already been reached with Broadman and Holman for another four view book to be published in 2011 called Perspectives on Tithing. A Southern Baptist will serve as the main editor and there will be three other contributors, with Southern Baptist Ken Hemphill providing one view on the subject. There are a number of other books that take handle biblical doctrines by presenting four views on the subject in question. The ability and freedom to learn, discuss, and debate various views on tertiary doctrines is a sign of health and strength for any church or convention. Demands that everybody believe the same thing on tertiery matters is a sign of dysfunction.

Unfortunately, some within the Southern Baptist Convention would like to demand that all Southern Baptists conform to ONE VIEW on every tertiary doctrine. This week one Southern Baptist went so far as to write administrators at our cooperative seminaries and suggest that any professor who taught a different view on "storehouse tithing" than that held by "the majority of Southern Baptists" should be removed from faculty. The International Mission Board trustees removed from prospective missionary service any missionary who believed that "a private prayer language" was a legitimate spiritual gift. Certain Southern Baptist ideologues who believe that a woman cannot teach men in a classroom setting, and wishing to push that singular view on all Southern Baptists who cooperate in the support of our agencies, removed Hebrew professor Dr. Sheri Klouda and Dr. Karen Bullock from their classroom responsibilities at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Southern Baptist pastors and leaders should feel the freedom to hold firm convictions on tertiary issues. They should believe, preach, and defend their views with conviction. But nobody within the SBC should even begin to think about threatening, ridiculing or seeking the removal from leadership or service any Southern Baptist who believes, teaches, or publishes a contrary view. Once we Southern Baptists allow ideologues with intentions of demanding doctrinal conformity to proceed unchecked and unchallenged, our Convention will lose all sense of true Baptist identity. We Baptists, out of all the Christian people in this world, should cherish and protect freedom for our people to hold to various views and interpretations of tertiery Biblical doctrines.

Each of us who care about the future of cooperative mission effort should take a collective stand to prevent the Southern Baptist Convention from becoming the One View Baptist Convention.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Good for GOOGLE; Shame on CHINA

SAN FRANCISCO (Michael Liedtke AP)- Google Inc. will stop censoring its search results in China and may pull out of the country after discovering that computers hackers had tricked human rights activists into opening their e-mail accounts to outsiders.

The change-of-heart announced Tuesday heralds a major shift for Google, which has repeatedly said it will obey Chinese laws that require some politically and socially sensitive issues to be blocked from search results that are available in other countries

Google disclosed in a blog post that it had detected a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China." Further investigation revealed that "a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists," Google said in the post written by Chief Legal Officer David Drummond. {End of AP's Report}

Wade Burleson's question is simple: "What did China intend to do to the human rights activitists after the Chinese government cracked their Google email accounts?" It doesn't take much of an imagination to know it wouldn't have been pretty. The only way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose.

Theological Debate Without Finger Pointing

The comment stream yesterday was very interesting, with several perceptive comments by the readers of this blog. One of the things that struck me as I read through the comments is how many Southern Baptists can debate theological issues with a spirit of grace, never demeaning those who disagree, while displaying a humility that conveys they don't feel they always have all the right answers. Some Southern Baptists, however, seem to display a spirit of arrogance, pointing fingers at those who disagree, and act as if their words are the words of God. I am hopeful that the latter group can learn from the former. I really think that one of the good things that might come from disagreements over The Shack could be learning how to disagree with grace.

Two of my favorite comments were not actually posted, but were sent to me via email. The first, written by a Bob Cleveland, one of the wisest SBC layman you'll ever want to meet, wrote the following:

"Unless I'm mistaken, a non-believer reading The Shack would get the idea that God is approachable, redeeming, and loving. I also don't think the church does nearly as good a job of getting THAT message out as many seem to think.

I'm just sayin'"

Emmanuel Baptist Church will baptize new converts during each of our five Sunday services on Easter Sunday. I am personally aware of two individuals who will be baptized on that day who credit the Holy Spirit using The Shack to cause them to begin asking questions that led them to become followers of Jesus. I am confident that all Southern Baptists can rejoice in that fact.

The second email I received is from distinguished Baptist scholar Dr. Curtis Freeman. Dr. Freeman wrote:

"You really struck a nerve with your blog on The Shack. Our church recently formed a reading group. The first book they read was The Shack. Everyone loved it. Last week was Marilynne Robinson's wonderful book Gilead, which in my view is a far superior book, both in a literary and theological sense. But many of the group found it tedious, while they related to The Shack.

My wife teaches our Sunday School class. One of the members has an adult son whose life has taken a very tragic turn. The man told me, with tears in his eyes that after reading The Shack he realized that God really does care about him. While I have some reservations about the theology of The Shack, I find it speaks to people about the love of God in a remarkable way. It has also started a discussion about the Trinity which is far more than many sermons, books, and articles have done. So perhaps we should first say “thanks” before we voice our concerns."

This Baptist scholar makes several great points. All of us would be hard pressed to find anyone that would agree with every theological tenet to which we hold, but theological discussions that begin because> of a book can be a very good thing.

For example, one of the charges that is made about The Shack is that it does a very poor job portraying the Trinity. I would agree simply becaue the book, a work of fiction, was never designed to present a doctrinal view of the Trinity. However, if The Shack causes others to begin to discuss theological issues like the Trinity, that's a good thing.

Finally, for those who want a really sound theological paper that refutes the eternal subordination of the Son as the basis for the eternal subordination of women to men (a very hotly debated theological issue today), then I invite you to read my father's most recent post entitled "Is Jesus Eternally Subordinate to the Father? - My Two Cents"

I think you'll see an example there of how to present a position with both grace and humility.

In His Grace,

Wade

Lessons in Dealing with a Disgruntled Member

This post is a personal testimony. It is offered as an illustration on how to deal with a disgruntled member or member(s) of a large church. There are those who say that no church member ought to express opposition to the pastor's decisions. Some say that the pastor is the Lord's anointed, and to question his ministry, or his decision making, or his integrity is simply rebellion against God.

Not so. No pastor is beyond the scope of scrutiny. Further, it is not the questioning of the pastor that is the problem. Rather, it is the response of the pastor to the questions that is often the problem. Many pastors, whether it be for personal insecurity reasons, fear of exposure, or a false understanding of "church unity," will deal harshly with those who question their leadership. This post is offered as an example of how a pastor and church can deal with a disgruntled member in an effective manner.

Secret Meetings and Secret Complaints

There was man at Emmanuel who was not happy with the hiring of a particular staff member. He felt that the staff member displayed personal qualities unbecoming of a pastor (i.e. "impatience," "sarcasm," etc . . .), and the disgruntled member and his wife began to meet with three or four other families to "pray" for this staff member and our church. During the meetings which were held at the home of the dissatisfied member, other issues began to be discussed, issues involving me personally. The leader of the group felt that the hiring of this staff member reflected poorly on my pastoral leadership. Others began to question my salary and ask if the Senior Pastor was making too much money. A couple of the church members had heard that I was a member of the local Country Club and wondered if the church gave me that benefit, etc . . . They decided that they would meet on a regular basis, invite others to join them, and pray for our church.

Eventually someone told me about the meetings. Immediately, there was a mental decision that I had to make. Were these disgruntled members who were questioning my decisions, salary and benefits, and other matters as important to the Lord's kingdom as those church members who express appreciation for my pastoral leadership? I gave an immediate "yes" to that question in my mind.

As a result, I had to ask myself a second question: How can I affirm the people who were secretly meeting and how can I encourage them spiritually, while at the same time not reacting defensively to either their attitude or their questions? The person who had told me about the meetings had been invited himself to attend, and he knew that the group was going to ask others to come and be a part the following Friday. There was obviously an intentional effort to make the dissident group larger. Yet, I had to settle in my mind and heart that my goal could never be to prevent, control or dominate these people in any form or fashion. Jesus came to set people free, and that means disgruntled church members should be free to dissent and disagree with their pastor - and tell others of it! And, I should be free to accept it as from the Lord. It's a little like King David when Shemei was cursing him and Abishai, David's servant said, "Shall I go cut that dead dog's head off?" King David said, "Let him alone. God has bidden him to speak." As pastor, I see every event, even the difficult ones, as God refining my character.

Compassion, not Confrontation

I decided the best way to approach the disgruntled member was to personally contact him and let him know that I knew of the meetings, and that I affirmed all the members' rights to participate. Further, I determined that I would volunteer to meet with them, if they desired, to try to answer all questions they felt important. I also wanted to express my appreciation for their prayers for our church.

And that is what I did. Nobody else was involved. Just me. I expressed to the disgruntled member all of the above and told him I would be more than happy to attend the next meeting and answer any and all questions if he would like, believing that it is always best to communicate directly when there are differences or disagreements.

The disgruntled church member was a little taken aback. Later he told me that he was most surprised at my affirmation that he and the group had every right to meet. He also was taken aback at my expressions of love for him, especially knowing that I knew he was attempting to lead a growing group of dissidents to question my leadership. He would later tell me that this knowledge did not diminish the love and grace I displayed for him personally, and that this was what most impressed him.

Transparency, not Terseness

During our conversation I sought to answer any and all questions he had. We talked about the hiring of the staff member and I explained the process under which he was hired and assured him that any concerns he might have about a pastor at Emmanuel not relating with church members in a gracious manner was an important concern. I shared with him how that particular issue had already been addressed with the staff member in question and how it would continue to be addressed if needed. We then discussed my salary. Our church places all salaries into one lump sum when the budget is presented, and Emmanuel's Finance Committee had made this a practice long before I came as pastor. My preference would be that all salaries be broken out individually within the annual budget, but I have been overruled by the Finance Committee members. However, it is church policy, and a wise one at that, that ANY member who desires to know the salaries of staff members, including the pastor, only has to ask. He demurred and said he really didn't wish to know, but I told him my salary and benefits anyway, believing it was an important question for him to have answered and he was just too embarrassed to ask me.

Then we talked about my membership at the Country Club. I told him that the church does pay the $300 monthly dues, but I pay all my expenses, including meals and guest fees. I also explained that I knew in Enid that some might view my membership at the Country Club as exclusive, but we had a very particular reason for the membership - the people there need Christ as much as the poor. I related how I had been able to build multiple relationships through meeting peole at Oakwood Country Club, and had been asked by many non-churched Enidites to perform funerals for family members, had been able to lead several to faith in Christ, and through my contacts, many Christian family members had become members of Emmanuel. I also told him I loved the golf course (a Perry Maxwell course, no less!).

He laughed a little with me and we discussed a few more issues, and I spent about an hour talking with him about any and all his concerns. I ended the conversation in this manner:

"I may have not been able to answer your questions completely, and even if I have, you still may not agree with my decision making. Please know that your disagreement with the pastor of Emmanuel is not only all right, it is healthy. The main thing you should know is that you have every right to question me, and even if you think I make too much money, shouldn't be a member of the Country Club, or shouldn't have led the Personnel Committee to hire a particular staff member, our disagreement will never be, in any form or fashion, an impediment to me loving you and being a pastor to you. Feel free to relay what we have discussed to those you are meeting with, and know that you have my complete support in continuing to meet. You can invite anyone and everyone you desire to join you, and if you have more questions, I will be happy to come meet with you. If, after evaluation, you feel you can't worship with us because of a disagreement, please know that you have our blessing and full support to join another sister church and we will recommend you with Christian love and grace. Bottom line, I'm never above questioning, nor are you are ever beyond my desire to see our mutual walk with Christ strengthened."

The man teared up a bit. Thanked me for visiting with him, and we parted.

When Leadership Cares About People

Two weeks later, in church, he stopped me. He thanked me for taking the time to contact him, expressing his sorrow he had not contacted me before he had talked with others. He thanked me for answering his questions and addressing his concerns and said that after listening to me preach for 15 years he should have known that I would have responded with grace and transparency to any questions he had. He then expressed his love for me and mentioned how much he respected me. He said the group was no longer meeting, and all of them voiced at their last meeting that they wanted their families to be a part of a church where leaders affirmed them, even when they disagreed.

To this day, this man and the three or four families that met with him those few times remain faithful members of Emmanuel.

Application

I have called Dr. Mac Brunson at First Baptist Church, Jacksonville. I left my cell phone number with his personal secretary. I have also called Rev. Blount and left messages for he and A.C. Soud, Chairman of the Trustees of First Baptist Church, Jacksonville. My intention is to ask these men a few questions and offer my encouragement to them as a brother in Christ and fellow Southern Baptist pastor. None of them has called me back, but if and when one does, I will treat him in the same manner I did my own church member. Many conjecture that my calls will not be returned. Others wonder why in the world I would make events at FBC Jacksonville my business. I do for one reason only. I made a promise three years ago that should I ever hear of a Southern Baptist experiencing some kind of spiritual or emotional abuse by a denominational or church leaders, I would not be silent and I would do what could be done to help the one being abused who was without "power."

In 2007, an anonymous and disgruntled long time member of First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida began a blog called FBC Jax Watchdog. This man had several financial questions, voiced many criticisms of pastoral leadership decisions, and made known his deep concerns over sweeping bylaw changes - all of which he documented. I understand that there are always two sides to every story, and perspectives will be different over these issues depending on whom you visit with from FBC. The issue for me, however, is whether or not a Southern Baptist churchman has freedom to raise questions of leaders, or does he fear retribution if he does. Some have repeatedly and quite viciously taken Watchdog to task for his desire to remain anonymous. I've challenged him on this issue as well, and the Watchdog admits that he has made mistakes out of fear for what would be done to him if his identity were known. But the point of this post is neither to question or defend Watchdog's anonymity or his decision to make known to others his criticisms of leadership at FBC. I have no opinion on the merits of the latter. The point of this post is to question those in power - the leadership of FBC Jacksonville - as to why they took the approach they did when they discovered what a disgruntled church member was doing.

In short, the question to leaders at FBC Jacksonville is a simple one: "Why did you take such a hardball approach with Watchdog?"

Make no mistake, the leadership of FBC Jacksonville knows who the Watchdog is. A subpoena was issued to the internet provider that required the revelation of the identify of the owner of the Watchdog blog. Knowing that such a request for a subpoena would have to include allegations of criminal intent, I have asked the question of A.C. Soud, Rev. Blount and Pastor Brunson if whether or not what some deacons at FBC have shared with others is true - that the allegation against Watchdog (before they knew who he was) was that he was stalking Mrs. Brunson and stealing the Brunson's mail. Again, criminal activity must be alleged for a judge to grant a subpoena for an internet provider to identify the owner of a particular blog. You can't just shut down somebody's right to write anonymously on a blog, even if you don't like what they are writing, because such a right is protected by the First Amendment. What's worse, however, would be for someone to artificially create criminal intent in order to get information regarding a protected identity. But instead of assuming accuracy in the deacons' information of what happened, I would like to ask the ones involved in obtaining the subpoena. Ironically, the Chairman of the Trustees at FBC Jacksonville is retired Florida Circuit Judge A.C. Soud. Further, regardless of how leadership at FBC Jacksonville obtained the identity of the Watchdog, the concern of this post is not with the manner in which they obtained it, but rather, what did FBC leadership do once they discovered who Watchdog was?

Did they go and visit with the man and his family? Did they seek to provide some spiritual encouragement to him? Did they choose to try to answer his questions? Did they attempt to affirm him and his family for their years of service at FBC Jacksonville? Did they display Christian love and grace? Did they affirm them as Christian people and members of the church? My understanding is that FBC church leaders did none of the above but in fact, took the following actions:

(1). Leadership issued a court ordered trespass warning, barring the Watchdog and his family from entering the premises of the church.
(2). Leadership led the church to pass a resolution, led by retired judge A.C. Soud, that no church member shall be publicly critical of church leadership, and werer a member to violate that resolution, the member shall be "confronted" with their gross sin and disciplined publicly.
(3). Leadership went behind behind closed doors with the deacons and others and accused the Watchdog of inappropriate behavior (stalking, videotaping, stealing) without ever sitting down with the Watchdog himself to inform him of their allegations.
(4). Leadership also made phone calls to the church where the Watchdog has joined to "warn" the church of this man and his family.
(5). Leadership chose to make the issue Watchdog's "character" rather than answering the Watchdog's "questions."

The really sad thing to me is that the man in question is a long time, faithful member of FBC Jacksonville who has had family in the church for decades. He is highly educated, respected in the community, and has been faithful in service for years. In my opinion, church leaders are abusive when they attempt to shut down disagreement in the manner that seems to have been taken by the leadership of FBC Jacksonville.

Things must change in our Convention, our denominational agencies and our churches. Real leadership serves, not dominates. Real leadership affirms, not denigrates. Real leadership can withstand criticism, because real leadership is confident their actions can withstand scrutiny.

I am hopeful that other Southern Baptist church leaders and pastors can learn from the two different examples of disgruntled church members given above. What the Southern Baptist Convention needs at this hour are leaders who are servants, desiring to help people in their walk with Christ. Too many of us are "professional" ministers who are concerned with our careers and have lost sight of the fact that our careers actually have names. How should leadership deal with disgruntled members?

The answer to that question will go a long way toward making our Convention and our churches what we should be.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Wildness of Vitality or Thought Conformity?

A blogger friend who goes by the public name "Chris Ryan" recently sent me an excerpt from a book he is reading entitled "The Miracle of Dialogue" by Reuel Howe. The excerpt, given in full below, expresses precisely the conflict I see between the desires of "Baptist Identity" Southern Baptists who seemingly demand everybody in the SBC think the same way, believe the same way and look the same way they do, versus other Southern Baptists who understand the importance of dialogue with, and acceptance of, Southern Baptists who see thinks differently in non-essential areas of the faith. Read Howe's words carefully:

"In training a horse, it is important not to break his spirit because it is his spirit, during and after the training period, which will determine his style and endurance. Does education, we may ask, allow for the expression of the wildness of vitality during the educational process, or does it repress vitality in the interest of form and conformity? There is evidence that all education, theological education included, stifles the creative spirit of many students and burdens them with unassimilated and uncorrelated content. The form of knowledge has been substituted for the vitality of living and thinking.

Similarly we must ask, does religion allow for the undomesticated and the unconventional responses of people to the surges of vitality and the movements of spirit? In the area of thought, for example, many graduates of seminaries are so afraid of being heretical that they are unable to think courageously and creatively. Orthodoxy is not an alternative to heresy; it is the result of honest thinking about truth in relation to new needs and data, in the course of which points of view have been arrived at, tested, and abandoned. The sin is not in thinking heretically while seeking the truth, but in settling for heresy as a substitute for truth. When fear of heresy prevails, the forms of system have stifled the vitality of thought.

It is hard to understand why religion and its institutions, which should be a source of renewal for life, become the servants of a sterile conservatism. Why are churches not more commonly places where, in the spirit of Christ, creative wrestling with the problems of the human situation can take place? Why are church people in both their individual and organized lives so often conformists, substituting middle class conventions and morality for the searching, disturbing truth of Christ? The Church was brought into being to be the expression of that spirit in each generation, and yet the need and vitality of each generation hasbeen frustrated and complicated by the status quo pull of reactionary and ultraconservative spirits.

In thinking about conservatism, we should distinguish between monological and dialogical conservatism. The former is dumb and blind to all other values but its own; the latter keeps itself in a relationship of polarity with the liberal spirit and point of view. Yet each needs the other. Without the liberal position one would not dare to be a conservative; and the liberal is more freely liberal precisely because the conservative helps hold in focus the traditional viewpoint. Monological conservatism acknowledges no dependence, and contradicts Christ's spirit and teaching. Obedience to its spirit may be our mostserious sin because it tempts us to think that we own our institutions,and to exercise proprietorship in matters of the faith. Possessiveattitudes toward truth lead to a life of conformity and sterileorthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not our goal! New life, new meaning, new creaturehood is! The purpose of obedience to truth is not to graze in the flat lands of orthodoxy, but to climb the sharp, high, narrow ridges of faith in order that we may understand more and more the relevance of the revelation of God to our own age."

The Problem of Authoritarianism in the Conservative Pulpits of America

Last week the New York Times ran a profile on the hip, conservative evangelical Seattle pastor of Mars Hill Church, a man named Mark Driscoll. The article was sent to me by one of our church members, and I enjoyed reading it. Before I criticize something the New York Times attributes Pastor Mark Driscoll saying, let me make it known that I appreciate what Mark has done in the Seattle area, and I am probably very similar to Mark in terms of theology and philosophy of church ministry. In my opinion, Mark has some great ideas, and I know that the people hear the gospel from Mark's mouth.

Yet, Mark is quoted in the article as saying something that I find quite disturbing. After the New York Times makes it known Driscoll has little patience for dissent, the newspaper writes that in 2007, two church elders protested a plan to reorganize Mars Hill Church. The elders, according to the newspaper, felt the reorganization consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides, giving to the pastor too much authority and control. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill.

“His answer was brilliant," reported the pastor. “He said, ‘I break their nose.'"

The New York Times goes on to report that when one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. Pastor Mark Driscoll then gives to the New York Times the money quote that ought to send a shiver up the spine of every member of an evangelical, conservative church in America. Pastor Driscoll said:

“They are sinning through questioning."

Huh?

The Bible tells us that true leadership is found through men who are courageous enough to be questioned. Jesus said that real leaders are servants, not masters. The incredible notion that a member of a church should be shunned, persecuted or disciplined for simply asking questions of the pastor has more in common than the cultic practices of Jim Jones than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let me be clear. Those kind of pastors - pastors that advocate an authoritianism inherent in the pulpit, that stifle any and all dissent from the members of their congregations, that humiliate and denigrate the members who for the sake of conscience ask questions - could very well be considered great expositors of the Word of God and doctrinally orthodox. Yet those pastors display a character that is the antithesis of the character of Christ, an ironhandedness that is the opposite of genuine grace, and a disposition that should cause their congregations to realize that their pastors are but one step away from falling over the precipice of moral failure in terms of their church ministries or personal lives.

The problem in conservative pulpits of America is not a denial of the Word of God, the problem in conservative pulipits of America is the preacher acts as if his words are the Word of God.

In His Grace,


Wade

Never Take for Granted the Freedom to Dissent

I have had a very cordial phone conversation with Dr. Hershael York, and I wish to sincerely apologize to him for unintentionally misrepresenting Hershael on two fronts.

First, my original post about Hershael was written from the perspective that he was involved with Dr. John Floyd, Jerry Corbaley, and other IMB trustees to bully and threaten me - once again. Though Hershael is new to the board, I assumed he had becoming involved with men who have made it a pattern to counteract dissent by attacking the dissenter. From over-the-top recommendations for my removal, and motions to censure, etc . . . the pattern of behavior of a handful of trustee leaders is to intimidate into silence those who dare speak against their policies or decisions. When Hershael York asked me "When are you going to publish Dr. Rankin's letter?" in the comment section of my blog, I had not yet received the letter. The next day, I did receive Rankin's letter, and then the following day a threatening letter from Dr. Floyd's attorney. Of course, Dr. Rankin wrote his letter because he was asked to by Dr. Floyd. The day after I received the attorney's letter, the attorney called and apologized for sending it, admitting that he did what he did based on the information he had been told; information that was false. I was not responsible for the comments regarding Dr. Floyd, and I immediately removed them when they were brought to my attention weeks earlier.

I apologized over the phone to Dr. York for assuming that he was a part of the group who initiated involvement of an attorney, and even worse, being part of the group of trustees who have continually attributed to me things that I have not done. He assured me he had nothing to do with the attorney, had no previous knowledge of Dr. Rankin's letter, and only knew about it because Dr. Floyd emailed him a copy. He did not know how many other trustees received a copy, and he expressed to me he thought Dr. Floyd was wrong in requesting that a letter from his attorney be sent to me. I accept Dr. York's explanation.

Second, Dr. York feels that my post misrepresents his love for Southern Baptist missions and IMB missionaries. I'm not sure how my original post creates that perception, but I sincerely apologize for anything I wrote that might have caused someone to doubt Dr. York's love for Southerrn Baptist missions. His love for missions and IMB missionaries has never been, nor ever will be questioned by me.

Finally, the reason I have chosen to take down the original post and all comments is because of the following statement Dr. York made to me on his blog:

I hope you can see that even while I have felt so very wronged I have tried to be Christlike. I value you as a brother and I do not want to have any personal animus between us. We certainly disagree on ecclesiology, but I would point out to you that one of my dearest friends is a Free Will Baptist pastor and neither of my two closest pastor friends calls himself a Calvinist nor has my ecclesiology. I can easily get along with and work with those who disagree theologically. I have pledged that to you before and I do so again now.

With an attitude like that, I have absolutely, positively no issue with Dr. York. Again, I do apologize for misunderstanding his intentions. In regards to the other trustees involved in this little matter, I will continue to expose their tactics. My desire is to always deal with the issues, but I will resist tooth and toenail the bullying and intimidation tactics of Southern Baptists who wish to silence dissenter - not only when it involves silencing me, but particularly when other Southern Baptists happen to be the recepients of such intimidation.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Free Flow of Information in Christian Ministry

In the comment section to yesterday's post regarding the resignation of IMB Regional Leader Rodney Hammer, IMB trustee Hershael York wrote the following comment:

Hershael York said,
"When are you going to publish Dr. Rankin's letter to you?"
Tue May 06, 11:58:00 PM 2008

I was completely oblivious to the letter to which Dr. York was referring, but assured him that I would be happy for any correspondence between Dr. Rankin and myself to be made public. When I arrived at my office on Wednesday morning, May 07, 2008 after a three day staff retreat, behold, there was a letter from Dr. Rankin on my desk. I read it and immediately called IMB trustee Hershael York at Southern Seminary and asked a question:

"Hershael, how did you know about Dr. Rankin's letter to me when Dr. John Floyd was the only person listed as cc'd on the letter?"

It does not upset me that Hershael York is privy to private correspondence to me, particularly since I believe all ministry of the SBC, including correspondence of trustees should always be available to the SBC public. However, it is ironic to me that some complain there are 'breaches' of confidentiality on SBC blogs, when in reality, blogs simply make available the information that has been held tight and secure by a select few who have been privy to it for decades. I am of the firm conviction that unless safety of missionaries is in question, all information regarding debates, motions, business, and other matters involving SBC ministry should be made public. The free flow of information, transparency and Christian openness should be the norm for Southern Baptists.

Dr. Rankin's letter to me, dated April 25, 2008, was written to call my attention to two comments on my blog, made by someone I do not know, that misrepresented the truth about Dr. Floyd's tenure at the IMB. I had not even read the comments until John Floyd himself called me on April 14th, 2008 and informed me that they were inaccurate representations of the facts. Again, I was unaware of the comments in question until Dr. Floyd called me to ask me about the author who made them. You can read the details of how I handled the matter with Dr. Floyd in my response to Dr. Rankin's letter to me below. What is odd to me is how and why Dr. Rankin would write to me about those comments nearly two weeks after they were deleted? Obviously, someone had to print them, keep them, and show them to Dr. Rankin, and others - well after they were gone. It seems that the motivation for showing them is not the restoration of a reputation, but the denigration of a medium through which the comments were made.

When I called Hershael York yesterday and asked him how he knew about Dr. Rankin's letter to me, I informed him that I would happily comply with his request that I publish Rankin's letter, and I also told him I would also publish my response. I then called Dr. Rankin's office and left a message informing him of Dr. York's request that his letter be made public. To that end, below is Dr. Rankin's letter to me, made known to me by Dr. York before I even received it, and my response.

____________________________________________________

April 25, 2008

Dr. Wade Burleson
2505 W. Owen K Garriott Road
Enid, OK 73703-5224

Dear Wade:

I haven't been following your blog closely since your resignation from the board in January, but it was called to my attention recently when you released the position paper I had written on the personnel policies that was subsequently distributed to the board. I am not writing to comment on that subject and your commentary, as I choose not to engage in this channel of public communication.

Although you are not responsible for the comments others post on your blog, I feel that you should be responsible for correcting inaccurate and slanderous comments that enter the public domain through your site. Therefore, I am writing to correct two erroneous facts.

(1). Dr. John Floyd was not fired as regional leader for Central and Eastern Europe nor was he asked to retire or resign. This was a personal choice of Dr. Floyd when he became eligible for retirement and chose to return to teaching. In fact, I personally tried to persuade Dr. Floyd to continue in his leaderhsip role on the field with the IMB at the time.

(2). It was also mentioned that Dr. Floyd was known to abuse or harass a woman during his tenure on the field. One may not agree with Dr. Floyd's personal position on various issues, but no one could accuse him of anything other than being a person of impeccable character and integrity. There is absolutely no record or awarenes of anyone who knew Dr. Floyd during his tenure on the field of inappropriate actions toward women on the field.

I don't know if you will choose to correct these inaccurate perceptions generated on your blog, but I did feel obligated to write and express my disappointment at these mischaracterizations of someone who served our board faithfully over the years.

Sincerely yours,


Jerry Rankin

cc: Dr. John Floyd




__________________________________________________


Dr. Jerry Rankin
The International Mission Board
3806 Monument Avenue
P.O. Box 6767
Richmond, Virginia 23230-0767


May 7, 2008


Dear Jerry,

As you affirm in your letter to me of April 25, 2008, I keep an open, un-moderated blog where people can comment without my knowledge or my approval. I, too, grieve over any comment that misrepresents the truth. The only thing worse would be official statements to Baptist Press or other news agencies that intentional distort the truth. I was unaware of the two comments you reference in your April 25, 2008 letter that misrepresented the truth about former Trustee Chairman John Floyd's career at the International Mission Board. I was unaware of them until John called me on April 14, 2008. I have hundreds of people who comment on my blog and I have neither the time nor the will to read or respond to every comment. John called desiring information about the author of the two comments. I informed him that not only did not I know the author, I was unaware of the comments. He directed me to where they were located on my blog, and I told him that I would immediately remove them.

He stopped me. He told me not to remove them because his attorney was looking into the comments and when they found out who wrote them they would then address how to correct the matter appropriately. I asked him to clarify what he just said by asking, “Dr. Floyd, are you telling me that the two comments that offend you, that misrepresent the truth, and that are located deep within an un-moderated comment section of this blog should remain so that you can sue the person who wrote them?” I assured him that I was not unfamiliar with public statements about me that were distortions of the truth or outright lies, and because of my own experience, I was sympathetic to his dilemma and would be happy to correct the matter for him immediately. But, I said, I would do as he suggested. After a momentary pause, John said I should delete the comments.

I tell you this because your letter is dated nearly two weeks after my conversation with John and the deletion of those comments. Further, the author of the comments, a Southern Baptist layman, had phone conversations with Dr. Floyd the very day I deleted those comments, and called me to apologize for making them. I told him my concern is that he resolve the matter appropriately with Dr. Floyd. He assured me the matter had been resolved satisfactorily. Again, I am unsure of the reason why you chose to write your letter to me dated April 25, 2008, or why trustee Hershael York requested me on May 6, 2008 that I publish your letter to me, a letter that I did not even know existed until my arrival back in Enid on May 7, 2008 after a three day staff retreat. I can assure you that I believe the desire to protect the reputation of John Floyd is admirable. I am pleased to publish both your letter and my response at Dr. York’s request.

While I find it admirable to protect the reputation of the former trustee chairman, so too, I find it just as admirable when all of us seek to protect the reputation of our missionaries. So, too, it is praiseworthy to come to the defense of people like Regional Leader Rodney Hammer. So, too, it is admirable to fight for those God called young men and women in the Southern Baptist Convention who are disqualified for missionary service because of two doctrinal IMB policies that exceed the BFM 2000 and even, in some minds, the Word of God. So, too, it is worthy to correct any trustee who publicly makes the absurd claim that using the Arabic word for God (Allah) is a sin, and Jehovah or Yahweh should be the Arabic substitute word for God used by our missionaries in Arab lands. So, too, it is praiseworthy to refuse to allow trustees who have never set foot on a foreign land to correct our professional missiologists and their methodologies in reaching unreached people groups with the gospel of Jesus Christ through books they write. So, too, it is an honorable action to ensure that the International Mission Board abide by the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention and implement the Garner Motion. So, too, it is wise to stand up to trustees who are turning the International Mission Board into an agency that silences dissent, demands conformity, and threatens the termination of anyone who dares question trustee or Richmond directives.

I respect you, Dr. Rankin, and appreciate your service to the Southern Baptist Convention. I, like you, desire to do everything I can to protect the reputation of the former Chairman of Trustees, Dr. John Floyd. I am ashamed that someone would misrepresent the truth about this man. Likewise, I am ashamed that our missionaries are subjected to the heavy handed, obstructive policies of a small, but powerful Landmark, cessationist, and very political group of trustee leaders who are harming the work of the International Mission Board. We need a Gospel Resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. We need to restore the freedom of God’s people to dissent over tertiary matters, but to love each other enough in order to cooperate to reach the world for Christ. Since 1992 I have been uninvolved in any political processes of the Southern Baptist Convention. My appoint in 2005 as a trustee to the International Mission Board opened my eyes to the some incredible, negative changes that have occurred at the IMB. As you know, I sought to correct the problem for six months behind closed doors. After being treated in a manner that defies Christian logic, I am sympathetic toward anyone who receives similar treatment, particularly those whose employment and careers are on the line.

I do hope that our communication by letter has given Dr. Floyd and other trustee leaders satisfaction that any misrepresentation of the truth concerning Dr. Floyd's tenure at the IMB has been corrected. I enjoy my fellowship with Dr. Floyd and his lovely wife, and I consider them friends. I do not enjoy, however, his and others’ desire to exclude those from the SBC who do not think, act, talk, believe or practice faith the way they do. His admission to me that the new policies were ‘doctrinal’ in nature, and there was no anecdotal evidence from the field that they were needed, nor was any evidence necessary, is enough for me know that a narrow, ideological group is attempting to direct our convention. I cannot be silent about the efforts of those who are changing our convention before our very eyes, and I commend Dr. York’s desire that this communication be made public. I hope the matter with Dr. Floyd is considered resolved satisfactorily, and I trust the other matters mentioned will also be dealt with in as satisfactory of a manner as that which precipitated your letter.

In His Grace,


Wade

Desiring the Death of the Death of Dissent

Hershael York, IMB trustee from Kentucky, reported that the IMB meeting this week in Sunnyvale, Texas was "absent some of the drama of the past" and focused on missions. It is great to hear that the business of missions was the focus of the IMB meeting, as it should be at every meeting.

There are a couple of Baptist identity folks who have expressed their sentiment that the previous drama at the IMB was caused by yours truly. One described it as "the pitiful antics of one man trying to make a name for himself and refusing to repent and surrender when reprimanded. I laughed when I read this anonymous 'preacherman' comment posted to the site by Wes Kenney, who himself advocates a renewal of the Baptist identity religion.

The last time I ever initiated going to a microphone at a Board of Trustee meeting was in November of 2005. At the time, I calmly questioned trustee leadership why they were pushing policies that the President opposed, particularly since I had requested repeatedly to see field data that the policies were needed. Those pushing the policies (trustee leadership) never gave me one scrap of paper that showed me there was a problem on the mission field that necessitated these new policies. They could not articulate for me or others one instance of a field problem not correctly handled by IMB personnel that would necessitate the proposed policies. It would be a year later that Chairman Floyd would announce to me that trustee leadership needed no field anecdotal evidence that the policies were needed. This was a 'doctrinal' matter, and Baptists needed doctrinal purity. Despite my objections (and several other trustees), the policies passsed.

Less than a month later (December 2005) I began my blog. I simply explained what had occurred the previous six months on the Board, made the Convention aware of the new policies, and proposed that there was an orchestrated attempt by some to either marginalize or remove Dr. Rankin because he did not meet the standards of the new Baptist identity movement. My great concern was that the Southern Baptist Convention was becoming inbred, and as a result, the demands for doctrinal conformity on tertiary issues was causing us to lose wonderful Southern Baptists who would otherwise be qualified to serve. The fact that these new doctrinal policies exceeded the BFM 2000, the only consensus confessional standard of the SBC, seemed to not matter much at the time.

From that November 2005 IMB meeting until I resigned from the IMB in January 2008, with the exception of a brief recommendation I made in early 2007 that requested an increase in the stipend given to retiring missionaries, I never once went to the microphone to initiate any conversation, never once went to a microphone to propose any item of business, never once went to a microphone to initiate any discussion, and despite what some would have you believe, I never once initiated the use of any time at an IMB meeting to ask questions about the adopted controversial policies, never initiated any comment regarding actions against me, nor did I ever request to address the Board about any other matter (the record will reflect this). I felt that we should spend our meetings conducting missions business. For reasons only they could give, some trustees felt that the laser focus of the board should be on me.

However, from 2005 to 2008 trustee leadership brought reommendation after recommendation that had me at the focus, not missions. There was the recommendation to remove me from the Board (January 2006), then a unanimous recommendation to rescind that recommendation since it had to be approved by the entire SBC (March 2006). Trustee leadership brought a recommendation directed at me that called for all trustees 'to publicly support a board approved action, even if they cannot privately support it' (March 2006). A subcommittee brought a recommendation to revisit the policies and ultimately revise them as 'guidelines' after the SBC requested an investigation into why the IMB exceeded the doctrinal statements of the BFM and was excluding otherwise qualified missionary applicants from service based upon these 'policies' (2007). Finally, one trustee brought a recommendation to 'censure' me (November 2007), and trustee leadership issued a report (never voted on) that the Board not 'accept' my apology for being the cause of 'distraction' since it was not an apology for publicly opposing the adopted policies in the first place (January 2008). It was at that meeting (January 2008) that I initiated, for the first time, a request to address the Board. I resigned that night.

My point is this: during all the debate on the above issues I never went to a microphone to speak unless I was called to do so by trustee leadership in response to their initiatives to 'deal with Burleson.' If there was any 'drama' in previous meetings, it was because some didn't like the fact that they could be questioned and public dissent over their actions would be expressed. My friend C.B. Scott puts it succinctly:

The absence of vocalized differences of opinions in a meeting means nothing more than that. Is the ultimate goal of the trustee board to have no disagreements? Sometimes the presence of a “sweet-spirited” meeting is evidence of cowardliness and a lack of conviction among other things.

There is no doubt that trustee leadership operates under the conviction that they represent true 'Baptist identity,' and those seeking approval of those currently in charge of denominational direction, will join them in the new Baptist identity movement. However, when Southern Baptists of this persuasion begin to realize that the best way to handle dissent is to allow it, to be so confident in your positions that you are unbothered by it, and accept people who disagree as part of the cooperative efforts of the SBC, then we will truly possess the identity Baptists have historicaly held.

The downfall of a denomination built on dissent can be traced through the denigration, intimidation, and exclusion of the dissenters. There will be no deliverance until there is the death of the death of dissent in the SBC.

Until it happens,

Wade Burleson

Great Struggles, Deep Irony, Significant Change

This past Sunday, April 6, 2008 marked the 146th anniversary of The Battle of Shiloh. This was the first major Civil War battle in the west, and opened the eyes of leaders on both sides of the War Between the States that the conflict would not be over quickly or easily. The battle commenced with a surprise attack by Confederate forces on Union soldiers under the command of Ulysses S. Grant encamped at Pittsburg Landing on the south bank of the Tennessee River in southwestern Tennessee.

Most of the soldiers who fought that day, on both sides, had little battle experience. They fought in the open field and exhibited remarkable steadiness and readiness to obey orders. The two-day battle was intense, bloody and costly. Eventually the Union soldiers held their battle lines and the Confederates withdrew. No pursuit was made or attempted. General Beauregard reported the Confederate losses at 10,699 captured, missing, wounded or killed. The loss of Union solders, according to Generals Grant and Buell were estimated at 15,000 killed, wounded, captured or missing.

Four things astound me about this battle. First, the battle is called Shiloh because of a little church in the open field, called Shiloh Church, around which the men fought and died. Second, Shiloh is a Hebrew word for "Peace," yet in this place of peace more men died than in all the previous United States wars combined. Third, a Christian officer and gentleman for the Confederates issued an order during a particularly gruesome slaughter of Union soldiers who were being led in a counter attack to thwart the Confederate advances on Union positions. The general cried about the gunfire, "Shoot them in the midsection so they can make peace with God." A soldier dies more slowly when shot in the stomach, and the General sincerely desired the Union boys to die "making peace with their Maker." Finally, Confederate General Albert Sydney Johnston died at the battle of Shiloh, the highest ranking officer on either side to die during the Civil War. General Johnston was a Christian, an evangelical, and according to President Jefferson Davis, the finest man he had ever had the privilege of knowing. Johnston had been shot in the leg and bled to death. The wound, superficial in Johnston's mind, had nicked an artery. The General would have lived with simple medical procedures to stop blood flow - but this Christian man had sent his physican to care for the Union; that's right, the enemy soldiers that were wounded.

When people today make a big deal about brothers being against brothers and the loss of Christian civility, I am reminded that great struggles, which ultimately bring about significant change, often present the deepest ironies.

In His Grace,

Wade

What We Can Learn of Civil Dissent and Christian Disagreement From the Controversy Over Easter's Date

The word Easter has been adopted by Christians to signify the day of resurrection of Christ from the tomb.  However, the word has pagan origins and is nowhere found in Scripture or primitive Christian literature. Eostre was the mythical goddess of sunrise or spring for the ancient Germanic tribe known as the 'Teutones.' The Romans first identified the Teutonic people in the second century B.C. The Teutones were the forefathers of those we call the Dutch people today.  Eostre was the Teutonic goddess of life represented by the dawn of a new day or springtime. The direction of the sunrise (East) is named for her and Eostre (sometimes spelled Eastre and Easter) is also the ancient Anglo-Saxon word for spring.

When Christianity spread to Europe, the yearly Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which itself represents life, would eventually become known as Easter. Early Christian fathers (i.e. first and second century) would have had no concept of calling Christ's resurrection Easter. They would have called their celebration of the day of Christ's resurrection either The Saviour's Pascha or The Festival of Life. However, by the fourth century A.D. Christians everywhere were referring to the day of Christ's resurrection as Easter.According to the historian Eusebius (A.D. 311), it was the custom of the early Christian churches to mark the resurrection of the Paschal lamb with a period of fasting preceding the day of resurrection, followed by a festival or celebration feast on the day Christians officially celebrated Christ's resurrection. The churches were varied as to their fast customs, some fasted a single day, others two, and some even more days prior to breaking the fast with a feast of celebration.

A Controversy Unfolds

A controversy arose in the Christian churches around 190 A.D. related to the ending of the fast days associated with Christ's Pascha and the timing of the official Christian celebration of the day of Christ's resurrection. The churches of Asia, since the time of the Apostle John, would end their fasts on the fourteenth day of the moon in the lunar month of Nisan. The fourteenth day of Nisan is the day in which the Jews were ordered by God to sacrifice the paschal lamb and place its blood on the doorposts of their homes so the death angel might "pass over" (Exodus 12:6). Nisan is the first month of the Biblical Jewish lunar calendar and corresponds to sometime in March or April in our calendar. Modern Jews still follow their Old Testament lunar calendar and Nisan 14 continues to be the day set aside by orthodox Jews to commemorate Passover(Pascha). Of course, Jesus of Nazareth, the true Paschal Lamb of God, hung on the cross of Calvary on Nisan 14.  The timing of Christ's death points us to the fulfillment of the Old Testament laws through His work on our behalf and it reveals our Lord as the Paschal Lamb of God, sacrificed by our Heavenly Father on behalf of His children.

The early Asian Christian churches, claiming to follow the instructions of the Apostle John, would fast the days preceding the fourteenth day of Nisan, and then would break their fast on Passover Day and celebrate Christ's resurrection with "the  feast of the life-giving pasch" on the very day Jews celebrated Passover - Nisan 14. It mattered not on which day of the week Nisan 14 fell (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc . . . ), the Asian churches would break their fast and celebrate Christ's resurrection (i.e. Easter) on the same day Jews celebrated Passover. This date never changed on the Jewish calendar -  it was always Nisan 14 - but it would fall on different days of the week. However, Christian churches outside Asia would fast until the SUNDAY after 14 Nisan and celebrate the resurrection of Christ on the Lord's Day AFTER Jewish Passover.

The controversy that erupted in 190 A.D. occurred over the question of whether the festival of the celebration of the resurrection of Christ was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians could observe it on the Jewish Holy Day of Passover, the fourteenth of Nisan, regardless of the day of the week on which it occurred. Those Christians in Asia who kept Easter on the Jewish Holy Day of Passover came to be known as Quartodecimans or terountes - names intended to be both identifying and derogatory. In 190 A.D. the Quartodecimans were declared to be "non-conformists" and were ex-communicated from "the true church" by Victor, the head of the Christian church in Rome. Another pastor, Irenaeus, while expressing disagreement with the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproached Pastor Victor for his declaration of excommunication. Irenaeus' reproach of Victor is one of the clearest and earliest evidences that the pastor of the church in Rome, though influential, was not considered "the head of the church" (i.e. the Pope). Further, it is interesting to note that Irenaeus suggested that Victor should follow the moderation of his pastoral predecessors by accepting Christians who disagree over tertiary issues. In spite of Irenaeus' defense of the Quartodecimans, they soon died out in both influence and number.

The Flashpoint of Controversy Changes In Time

Barely a century after what is now known as "The Easter Controversy" of 190 A.D., Christian leaders gathered in the town of Nicaea to debate another "Easter" controversy. Churches were becoming confused as to the particular Sunday that they should celebrate Christ's resurrection. We have no extant records from this meeting except for a handful of letters from the emperor Constantine, who himself was present at the council and wrote to the Christian churches afterwards to share his thoughts on the decisions made. The historian Eusebius, in his work The Life of Constanine records for us one of the emperor's letters where he writes of the meeting in Nicaea:

At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day.

The question of the Sunday on which the resurrection of Christ should be celebrated was a source of major discussion at the Council of Nicaea because Christian churches had begun to celebrate Easter on different Sundays and argued about who was right. For instance, the Syrian (Antioch) Christians always held their Easter festival on the Sunday after the Jews kept their Pasch (or Passover) on 14 Nisan. On the other hand, at another important city, Alexandria, and seemingly throughout all the rest of the Roman Empire, Christians would calculate the time of "Easter" for themselves, paying no attention to the Jews. For this reason, the dates of "Easter" as kept by Christians at Alexandria, Antioch and other cities did not correspond with each other by the fourth century A.D.

The Council of Nicaea sought to establish a uniform day in which the celebration of "Easter" should be kept by all Christian churches. The leaders at Nicaea concluded:

Easter shall occur the first Sunday after the full moon that occurs after the Vernal Equinox of March 21st.

The Vernal Equinox (equiox is Latin for "equal night") is the first day of spring north of the equator and the first day of fall south of the equator, and is characterized by exactly 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness. Since the time of Julius Caesar Western Civilization had followed the aptly named "Julian Calendar" instead of the various lunar calendars used since the dawn of civilization.

The Julian calendar was a solar calendar that measured time by the earth's rotation around the sun rather than the lunar calendar method of measuring the moon's rotation around the earth. The New Year in the solar Julian Calendar corresponded to 'Eostre' or spring and was always celebrated on March 25th. The Julian calendar was in effect in 325 A.D. at the time of the Council of Nicaea.  The "Easter Debate" as to the specific Sunday on which Easter should be celebrated seemed to be settled by the Council at Nicaea; that is, until something strange began to be noticed by farmers, agriculturalists, and Christian leaders. As time passed, Easter moved further away from the Jewish celebration of Passover, and it seemed that the actual seasons (fall, winter, spring and summer) were a little off on the calendar. What was happening?

It was discovered that the scientests in Julius Caesar's court, authors of the Julian calendar, had incorrectly measured the length of the earth's year and seasons. The Julian year was short of a true revolution of the earth around the sun by a small fraction of a day. Therefore, as the centuries went by, Easter (or spring) on the Julian calendar, though a "fixed" date, was shifting in relation to the lunar calendar and the Jewish Passover. Further, the agricultural seasons seemed to be off kilter in terms of the calendar. If you were to look out your window on Easter in early spring in the late 1500's, it wouldn't seem like early spring.  Because of the Julian calendar's small error in measuring the earth's year, the actual vernal equinox had shifted over time to about ten days later than it should - from March 21 in 325 A.D. to the first of week of April by 1570.  

So, Pope Gregory XII, in the 1570's convened a commission to consider reform of the Julian calendar. Gregory rightly believed Easter should fall close to the Jewish Passover and a correction needed to be made to adjust the calendar to match the actual agricultural seasons. The recommended adjustments to the calendar by Pope Gregory were instituted in Roman Catholic countries in 1582 and became known as the "Gregorian Calendar." What happened to implement the Gregorian calendar was very odd. Ten days in the 1582 calendar were actually deleted, so that October 4, 1582 was followed by October 15, 1582 thereby causing the vernal equinox of 1583 and subsequent years to occur about March 21 instead of the first week of April, as it had happened in April 1582. In addition, the Gregorian calendar added "leap" years. A leap year is simply a year in which February is given an additional day for a total of 29 days instead of the typical 28. Thus a leap year consists of 366 days instead of 365 days.  According to the Gregorian calendar, every year that is exactly divisible by 4 is a leap year, except for those years that are exactly divisible by 100; these centurial years are leap years only if they are exactly divisible by 400. This formula is not as complicated as it first sounds, but it is important to understand that Gregory established leap years in order to keep Easter in the spring and close to the Jewish Passover. This year - 2008 - is divisable by four, and thus is a leap year.

Confusion Over Old Style Dates and New Style Dates

The change to the Gregorian calendar from the Julian Calendar did not occur all at once throughout Western Civilization. In Great Britain, Parliament legislated the change to the Gregorian calendar (eventually known as the "New Style" calendar) in 1751 after two failed attempts at change in 1645 and 1699. Parliament declared that September 2, 1752 would be followed by September 14, 1752 to accomodate the errors of the Julian calendar. This 1752 change also applied to the American colonies, but Alaska didn't change calendars until 1867, when it transferred from a Russian territory to a part of the United States.

In the short term after the change to the Gregorian calendar, dates were written with O.S. (Old Style) or N.S. (New Style) following the day so people examining records could understand whether they were looking at a Julian date or a Gregorian date. For instance, George Washington was born on February 11, 1731 (O.S.), but his birthday became February 22, 1732 (N.S.) under the Gregorian calendar. The change in the year of his birth was due to the change of New Year's Day from March 25 under the old Julian Calendar to that of January 1 under the Gregorian calendar. For the centuries preceding the Gregorian calendar, March 25 was always New Year's Day, corresponding to spring, "Easter" and "new life." Ever since the Gregorian calendar was implemented New Year's Day has been celebrated as January 1. Those individuals who were alive during the change to the Gregorian calendar, and were born prior to the change between January 1 and March 25, had their birthdates changed in terms of the year (one year was added to their Old Style Julian birthdate year), as was the case with George Washington.Ironically, even to to this day, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates their holidays based on the Julian Calendar as an act of rebellion to the "Western" or Roman Catholic Church. Thus, the date for Easter in the Eastern Church is always different than the date for Easter in the Roman Catholic Church or evangelical churches in the West. For an even more precise explanation of the modern dating of Easter in Western Civilization, see this article by Mary Fairchild

What We Can Learn About Civil Dissent and Disagreement from Easter's Date

1. Matters which lead to debate and disagreement are usually far more complicated than some might wish them to be; thus, patience, reflection, and restraint from making simple, dogmatic, conclusive statements is always best.

2. If the moderation displayed by Iraeneus in his desire to accept Christians who disagreed over the date to celebrate Christ's resurrection had been followed by other early Christians, many major church conflicts during the patristic period could have been avoided.

3. Any Christian who spends more time debating the minutiae of "church" doctrine rather than cooperating with one another to lead the lost to faith in Jesus Christ has sacrificed true Christianity on the altar of man's religions.

4. The tendency to pronounce moral epitaths on those who disagree with you, including "ex-communication" from the "true church," is a problem that is neither new or uncommon.

5. One year's intense controversy soon fades into memory, and soon other controversies arise that are as inconsequential as the earlier ones. In all cases, the church of Jesus Christ will continue to grow and thrive. After all, He is the head of His church.

I hope this spurs your thoughts as we prepare to celebrate one of the earliest possible Easter celebrations in terms of date (Sunday, March 23, 2008). As for me, I prefer Nisan 14 (which happens this year to fall on a Sunday, April 20, 2008).But, then again, some call me a 'non-conformist.' :)

In His Grace,


Wade

The Power of the Pen to Effect Needed Change

There lived in the mid-1800's a fiery evangelist named Lyman Beecher. His son, Henry Ward Beecher, became a famous minister in New York, and the evangelist's daughter, Harriet Beecher Stowe, wound up becoming well known in her own right while living in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The young Harriet was an abolitionist. She detested slavery. Harriet agonized in the 1850's over the flourishing slave trade south of the Mason Dixon line. But what, she thought, could this poor, relatively unknown daughter of an evangelist do to stem the growing tide of slave trade and stop the efforts of slave traders to expand slavery into the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska?

I can write, thought Harriet. That's what I can do. And write she did.

Harriet Beecher Stowe poured out her anger into a novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, that won immediate acclaim in the North and infamy in the South. More than three hundred thousand copies were sold in 1852, its first year in print, and over two million copies were sold during the next decade making it the bestselling novel in American history at the time - and according to proportion to population, it remains the bestselling American novel ever.

The book was adapted to the stage and countless thousands of Americans felt the author's agony over slavery in the character of Tom, who is eventually beaten to death by his master, Simon Legree. Audiences and readers also felt the author's hope and inspiration in defeating slavery through the escape of Eliza and her five-year-old son via the Underground Railroad. The nation became effected by the pen of a young daughter of an American evangelist.

According to Harry Stout, author of Upon the Altar of the Nation, Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe during the Civil War and reputedly greeted her with these words:

So you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war."

As those of who are parents tasked with the responsiblitity of properly training our children, we would do well to remember that the power of the pen shall never diminish. The keyboard may be the new instrument, but the ability to organize ideas through writing shall always wield tremendous power. Those who believe only the visual moves the massses simply need to be reminded that the all visual mediums (movies, television, videos, etc. . . ) follow scripts.

For all you Christians out there who write, keep it up. In the end, the kingdom of Christ is advanced. And for all you young people who play X-Box - consider dropping the controller and picking up a keyboard or a pen and write. It's far more satisfying to make history by doing good for the world than to simply watch the world go by.

In His Grace,


Wade