A Case Study in How Fundamentalists Can Kill a Convention (Part 2)

During the aftermath of Peter Lumpkin's ridiculous post about Southeastern Theological Seminary and Peter's baseless accusation of a problem with rampant "drunkenness" on the campus of SEBTS, Dr. Danny Akin, the President of SEBTS, signed in to "comment" (comment #113) on Peter's baseless post. Dr. Akin was gracious but firm in his denial of Peter's charges. Peter Lumpkins responded to Dr. Akin by writing:

"Dr. Akin did not really address the main point of the two posts I’ve written."

I find that statement ironic since Peter invited me to debate him on the subject, but subsequently deleted every single one of my comments. Peter did not have the ability to delete Dr. Akin's comment, so he simply dismissed Dr. Akin as someone who "did not really address the main point of the two posts I've written." So,I will dialogue for a moment on Peter's assumptions in a place where he cannot delete what I write.

Question: What is the "main point" of Peter Lumpkins' posts? Here it is in Peter's own words:

Main Point:  "When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen?"

Peter is perturbed that some faculty members and administrators at SEBTS have either taught moderation of alcohol from the Bible and/or have invited speakers to the seminary who hold to personal "moderation." Peter believes they are not only wrong, but they pose a danger to the SBC. To Peter and Southern Baptists of his ilk, total abstinence is a first-tier, gospel-centered, foundational moral issue. You either agree with his position of total abstinence, which is the ONLY "official" Southern Baptist position, or you are "immoral." If one dares teach "moderation" as the biblical position, as some professors at SEBTS do, then one can expect the sin of drunkenness to be rampant on the campus among the students.

Wade's response  to Peter's main point - Hogwash.

Let me be clear. What is hogwash is not Peter's personal conviction for total abstinence. I respect that and affirm him in it. What is hogwash is Peter's demand that every Southern Baptist conform to his interpretation of Scripture and accuse those who don't, as in the case of some at Southeastern, as immoral Christians or at best on the verge of rampant immorality. That kind of condemning spirit is legalism; or it could be called Fundamentalism with a capital "F."

Dr. Gresham Mechan, the great conservative Biblical scholar was once asked if he considered himself a "Fundamentalist" or liked being called a "Fundamentalist." Listen to his response:

"I regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a "Fundamentalist?" Most certainly I do. (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, p. 337).

John Piper gives seven reasons why Machen never spoke of himself as a Fundamentalist. To Dr. Machen, Fundamentalism meant. . .

(1). The absence of historical perspective;
(2). The lack of appreciation of scholarship;
(3). The substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions;
(4). The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine;
(5). The pietistic, perfectionist tendencies (i.e., hang-ups with smoking, drinking alchohol, etc . . );
(6). One-sided otherworldliness (i.e., a lack of effort to transform the culture), and,
(7). A penchant for futuristic chiliasm (or: premillennialism).

The SBC should avoid Fundamentalism. It will kill us. We should never take third-tier issues of fellowship and place them in the first-tier category. I have written before on the freedom Christians should give one another on the issue of alcohol consumption. The Biblical command is to "abstain from drunkenness." Whether someone in the Southern Baptist Convention drinks wine, or beer, or alcohol--unless it is a violation of the law (such as "underage drinking" or "drunkenness")--should be none of our business.

The "main point" of Peter Lumpkins should be vociferously resisted by all Southern Baptists, vocally and in writing, because if the spirit of Peter Lumpkins is allowed to become the predominant and prevalent spirit of the SBC, our great Convention will die a slow death as it is strangled by Fundamentalism. Remember, the issue is NOT whether or not someone should be free to follow a personal conviction to abstain from alcohol, but the issue is whether or not one's personal conviction should be forced onto the entire Convention. Fundamentalism says it should.

God says it shouldn't (Col. 2:16; I Cor. 10:31; I Timothy 5:23 ).

In His Grace,

Wade

The Ugly Side of Religious Fundamentalism: The SBC Will Die If Not Delivered from It

Last year the Washington Post took me to task for praying during the opening of the Oklahoma Senate that  "only believers in God be leaders in our democracy."  The Post, a paper not known for its conservative moorings, considered me a Christian Fundamentalist. The religion editor falsely opined that I had "disdain" for "atheists and secular humanists." It's not the atheist or humanist that I "disdain," its their principles. It seems that the far left has as difficult of a time distinguishing between principled disagreement with another's beliefs and personal disdain for another's person. True Christians love people, even their enemies, but are fearless when it comes to pointing out unrighteousness. Ironically, the Washington Post editorialized yesterday on the Ergun Caner situation, and it is likely that the editors may have missed the most astonishing aspect of the story. It's not Muslims, atheists, or secular humanists who called Liberty to bring accountablity to the Ergun Caner situation, but conservative, evangelical Christians. The Word of God states "It is time for judgment to begin with the family of God" (I Peter 4:17). For too long, we conservative evangelicals have refused to police ourselves. A new day is dawning, and Christians have taken their rightful place in holding one another accountable to the gospel we preach. What is the gospel? We are all sinners, and Christ grants His grace to those who confess and repent of their sins and trust in Him. "You shall call His name Jesus," the angel said, "for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Christ doesn't save us and leave us in our sins; Christ doesn't save us and call us to cover our sins; Christ delivers us from our sins.

Yesterday, the Southern Baptist Fundamentalists at SBC Today went after any Southern Baptist who has  publicly stated their refusal to believe Ergun Caner has been "exonerated" by Liberty's decision to remove him as President of Liberty Seminary through the Committee's public acknowledgement that Caner gave "factual statements that are self-contradictory." The tactics taken by SBC Today show the  dark and ugly side of religious Fundamentalism. They (the tactics) form an antithesis to the commands of Christ, and unless called out and stopped cold in their tracks, will lead to the total and final destruction of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Tactic Number One: If a Fundamentalist is losing influence, he will lie about his opponent.

James White, a professor at Golden Gate Seminary, is a recipient of such tactics. The leaders of SBC Today publicly declared:  "Dr. James White also accused Dr. Caner of not being a former Muslim." SBC Today gave no citation, no evidence, not one shred of proof for their claim. In fact, the statement about James White was a bald faced lie.  James White has never claimed Ergun. Caner was not a Muslim.  He has only questioned the contradictions in Caner's testimony. James White himself came into the comment stream and asked for evidence that he ever said or wrote such a thing or retract the statement. 
No evidence was provided by SBC Today, but no retraction was made either. And, by the way, a very sagacious comment by James White that irrefutably revealed the illogic of SBC Today's accusation was deleted by SBC Today.

Tactic Number Two: If a Fundamentalist can't answer a question from his opponent, he accuses his opponent of malevolent motives, dishonorable intent, or godless character.
 
For example, Les Puryear claims people questioning Caner have "hatred" in their hearts the way people had hatred in their hearts when they crucified Jesus (see comment #1). Robin Foster calls those who question Dr. Caner's contradictory statements "abusers" (see comment #28). Tim Rogers calls Christians who question Dr. Caner's testimony "godless" and "slanderous" among other things (see comment #35). Craig Deliassio calls Christians who question Caner's embellishments "pathetic heretics" and says he will physically hurt them if he ever meets them (see comment #38).
 
Tactic Number Three: If a Fundamentalist is personally hurt or embarrassed by the words or actions of another, he will invoke God's judgment on the one who brought him hurt.

One of the champion cheerleaders for SBC Today wrote the following comment about those who questioned Ergun Caner's factual statements that are contradictory (I quote verbatim):

"I know God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but right now if one of these unsaved charlatans died I’d have to force myself to remember what I believe about hell and make myself be sorrowful for the fate of their souls."

Tactic Number Four: If a Fundamentalist is losing a debate because of a lack of logical defense, he will invoke the name of a Fundamentalist superstar to end discussion.

To defend his use of the word "exoneration" in describing Liberty's official conclusion regarding Caner, Tim Roger's invokes the name of Norman Geisler (see comment #22). Roger's wrote:

"If you have problems with me using “exonerated” as my choice of words then you have problems with one of the greatest and most respected apologist in the Evangelical world–Dr. Norman Geisler–he has used the same word."

Other names invoked include Jerry Falwell, Jr., Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, etc....

Tactic Number Five: If a Fundamentalist feels like he's losing control of an institution or a hold on the minds of people, it's always the kingdom of Christ that is being damaged.

SBC Today cheerleaders stated in the comment section about those questioning Caner: "These people want to destroy Liberty University!" It can never simply be Christians wanting to hold other Christians accountable for their actions. There must always be some other malevolent intent.

I would encourage every Southern Baptist to read SBC Today's post and comments entitled "To Clear From Accusation or Blame."  It is the best, most visible example of why God must intervene in the Southern Baptist Convention and save it from the philosophy and tactics of Fundamentalism, or the SBC will die a slow, tortuous and angry death.

In His Grace,

Wade

When Child Training Leads to Abuse and Murder: Pearls of Wisdom for Concerned Parents

Butte County (California) District Attorney Mike Ramsey confirmed last Thursday that he is exploring a possible connection to a Web site that endorses "biblical discipline" to the murder of a seven year old girl. Kevin Schatz, 46, and his wife, Elizabeth Schatz, 42, were arraigned in Butte County Superior Court and could face two life terms in prison if convicted. The Schatzes were arrested Saturday morning, February 6, 2010 after their adopted daughter, Lydia, age 7, stopped breathing. She was subsequently pronounced dead. Her 11-year-old sister, Zariah Schatz, remains in critical condition at a Sacramento children's hospital, though she is showing some signs of recovery. The two were adopted at the same time with an infant girl, now 3, from the same African orphanage about three years ago.

Salon is reporting that the Schatzes followed closely the popular, child "training" practices of Michael and Debi Pearl. The teachings of the Pearls and their Tennessee-based No Greater Joy ministry, which brought in $1.8 million last year in sales of books, DVDs and the like, are widely known across many conservative Christian churches and home-schooling communities. The Pearls advocate a specific program of even-tempered "chastisement" designed to bring about total obedience -- even by infants -- to their sovereign parents. Their website proclaims "A length of quarter-inch plumbing supply line is a real attention-getter."

It is with such an instrument that sisters Lydia and Zariah were punished. The Pearls cannot be ultimately blamed for the death of Lydia, but there is a growing concern among Christian groups that the mindless following of Old Covenant discipline principles taught by the Pearls, based upon a Jewish covenantal system that ultimately called for the death of continuously rebellious children, is misleading many Christian parents.

For more information on this tragic murder one may read the following sites:

Tragedy in a Homeschooling Family
The Course of Our Lives
I Speak of the Unspeakable
A Terrible Event
When Parenting Kills
Does the End Justify the Means?
When Parenting Kills: An Update
Hold Them Down, Defeat Them Totally
Sharper Iron

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

Christian Liberal Ideology and Christian Fundamentalist Ideology Are Brothers from the Same Mother

Classical Liberalism and classical Fundamentalism within Christianity, at first glance, seem to have nothing in common. The former makes figurative the historical narrative of Scripture while the latter makes literal the figurative, poetic and apocalyptic language of Scripture. Classical Liberalism denies, or removes from, truth in the sacred text, while classical Fundamentalism affirms all, and adds to, truth in the sacred text. Classical Liberalism turns salvation into something not needed, while classical Fundamentalism turns salvation into something not heeded. Classical Liberalism affirms the Bible to be sufficient for next to nothing, while classical Fundamentalism affirms the Bible to be sufficient for absolutely everything. At this moment, the Southern Baptist Convention is overwhelmed by the latter group (classical Fundamentalists). Grateful as I am that classical Liberalism is not at home within the SBC, it behooves us all to recognize the similarity between classical Liberalism and classical Fundamentalism in order to focus on a Gospel Resurgence within our Convention. We have no hope of the gospel being our priority if we don't see that Liberalism and Fundamentalism share the same DNA.

Both ideologies find it difficult to allow the freedom to express disagreement.

Or, to put it more bluntly, classical Liberalism wants only Liberals to be heard, and classical Fundamentalism wants only Fundamentalists to be heard. Adherents to both ideologies remind me of weak, insecure Chief Executive Officers who can't let their boards ever question their decisions--out of fear they may move in the wrong direction. Of course, the wrong direction is any direction opposite of the views of the CEO. Rather than being open to dissenting views, all dissent is ridiculed and stifled. Stifling and silencing opposing views is as prevalent in the university, institution, classroom or church controlled by classical Liberals as it is by those conrolled by classical Fundamentalists. Since classical Fundamentalism is the struggle within the SBC at this moment, allow me to show the danger of Fundamentalism silencing all dissenting views on various subject matters. We have seen Fundamentalists remove missionaries who disagree over the cessation of spiritual gifts, professors who disagree over women being able to teach men in a classroom setting, and a host of other examples of silencing and removing dissenting viewpoints in the SBC these last few years; but now the SBC is being given another example of the prevailing ideologists clamping down on any opposing view.

An Attempt to Remove Professors Who Do Not Teach Storehouse Tithing

An excellent biblical presentation on the Old Covenant practice of "storehouse tithing" is found in an article entitled “Will a Man Rob God?” This study on tithing in the Old and New Testaments by Andreas J. Kostenberger and David A. Croteau, who at the time the article was published served as professor and Ph.D. student respectively at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, is an excellent argument for pastors and teachers to cease their emphasis on "the tithe" and encouraging their members to give "cheerfully, generously, and regularly" as led by the Holy Spirit. Dr. Kostenberger remains a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. David A. Croteau is now a professor in the religion department at Liberty University.

I received information that Southern Baptist pastor Les Puryear, a small church pastor who ran for President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008, contacted the supervisors of these men at the respective seminaries where they are employed. I was told Les was seeking their termination for teaching giving and Christian stewardship in a manner contrary to "storehouse tithing" and the practice of the Jews in the Old Testament. I contacted Les to ask if this was true, and he both called and wrote a written response which he published in the comment section of his blog. He wrote:

-- "Thanks for your email. I returned your phone call as well but your assistant said you were in a staff meeting.

First, I don't know who your seminary contact is, but rest assured that I will raise the issue of private information being leaked to you, to seminary officials.

Second, your source is wrong. I have not asked for anyone to be fired, nor will I ask for anyone to be fired.

Third, I appreciate your concern with tertiary issues, however, I believe that this issue goes beyond tertiary and to a foundational issue of our convention and that is the role of Holy Scripture in the life of the Christian. That is the issue I am addressing. If you think the validity of scripture is a tertiary issue, then we have a true disconnect." --

I took Les at his word and thanked him for not seeking the termination of the professors who disagreed with his views on "storehouse tithing."

But then, after my conversation with Les, I was given excerpts of the letter Les sent. Pay close attention to what Les writes to the seminary supervisors:

1) -- "It has come to my attention that one of your professors has written a document that is available online in which he states that the biblical command to tithe is no longer applicable."

2) "I do not believe that (professor’s name) position is the typical position among SBC pastors. My concern is the influence which (professor’s name) may have upon future pastors who may teach this unbiblical position."

3) "I am completely shocked and surprised that in the years following the Conservative Resurgence, (school name) would employ a professor who teaches that tithing is not necessary."

4) "… do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of (school name)?" --

I will accept that Les didn't mean what it sounds like he meant. Asking the supervisors of the respective professors "is it helpful to keep this professor on faculty?" may not, at least technically, be a call for the professors' terminations. But let me turn the phrase around to maybe help Les understand the signficance of such a letter from the perspective of those who are being pressured to be silent about their beliefs in order to continue as seminary faculty members. Suppose one of the members of the church where Les pastors wrote to the chairman of his deacons and said the following:

"Do you think it is helpful to our church to keep Pastor Les on the payroll when he is publicly teaching (blank)?"

I would think that the impression given by the letter would be, "Les, stop teaching (blank) or you may be fired!" I honestly don't believe I am the only one who believes the letter Les sent is indicative of an inability for Fundamentalists to handle dissent. There are some people in the SBC who still don't seem to get the problem we are facing as a Convention. The struggle within the Southern Baptist Convention is no longer over the Bible. We are in as much trouble today as we were years ago when Southern Baptists were shouting "Liberalism! Liberalism! We must throw out the Liberals!" Though some doubt the extent of Liberalism within the SBC in the late 1970's, there can be no doubt the spread of Fundamentalism in the SBC in the early 2010's. We have substituted one ideology for another ideology--and the brother of the former has the same DNA.

Both can't stand dissent or disagreement.

Well, if we threw out adherents to the Liberal ideology in 1979, then we better get ready to throw out the adherents to the Fundamentalist ideology of the present or apologize for what was done to the people we Southern Baptists called "liberals" in the late 1970's.

In His Grace,

Wade

Perception is Reality: The Continued Slide of the SBC toward Independent, Landmark, Fundamentalism

I couldn't help but chuckle as I saw the picture to the left on MSN. Nick Ayrom, a former high school teacher, is being interviewed for technology-related jobs at the Verdugo Job Center in Glendale, California. I don't think Nick has read the book How to Win Friends and Influence People--at least the chapters on countenance, posture, and giving off the perception you are a positive individual. Nick may be a great guy, but he's got to understand the perception of others becomes your reality.

For four years I have been writing that the Southern Baptist Convention is sliding into a brand of independent, Landmark, fundamentalist Baptist theology that will destroy the fabric of missions and evangelism cooperation.

One of the major historical tenets of our identity as Southern Baptists has been our rejection of creedalism. Confessionalism has been part of our history from the beginning, but creedalism is different. A creed is an official statement of beliefs that a person must subscribe to in order to be a part of the church or evangelical movement. The Westminster, Heidelberg Cathecism, Lutheran Formula of Concord, 39 Articles of the Church of England, are all creeds--even though Westminster carries the title "Confession." Why? Because if you refuse to sign, you CANNOT be identified with the group. The Baptist Faith and Message, like the New Hampshire Confession, et.al., are descriptive summaries of what a majority of Southern Baptists in convention have believed at a particular time, but they are not statements, nor have they ever been statements, to which one must formally subscribe to remain Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists have historically possessed freedom of conscience; there is freedom to dissent from official confessions. But, the BFM 2000 has now become a creed. You either sign it or you are out.

Truett-McConnell College President Emir Caner, and Liberty Baptist Seminary's President Ergun Caner (who seems to personally receive seminary registration fees paid by his friends), are both proteges of Dr. Paige Patterson. These three SBC brothers-in-Christ epitomize the new direction of the SBC. We have become a Convention who demands absolutely conformity on all tertiary matters of the faith, or you are out--fired if an employee, or outcast if not. The continued ridiculous emphasis on "signing" the BFM 2000 is getting out of hand.

I believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible, word of God, and because it is "God-breathed" it is 'living and powerful.' One simply has to listen to my expositional messages to know that the TEXT drives the message. I believe in the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. Apart from God's grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus the Christ, there is no deliverance from the righteous punishment of a holy God in hell. This is the gospel. I also believe that the mark of genuine Christianity is the display of agape love toward one's fellow man, the same kind of love God gave us in Christ. Jesus said, "By your love for one another will all know that you are my disciples" (John 13:35).

I propose it is not loving to fire people who disagree with the BFM. I propose it was not loving to fire Dr. Sheri Klouda. Ironically, Sheri Kluoda "signed" the BFM 2000, but President Patterson's interpretation of the BFM is that a woman cannot teach men (i.e. "Senior Pastors") theology. We are now in the absurd position of people interpreting the BFM instead of the Bible. I disagree with the removal SBC missionaries from the field for refusing to sign the BFM. At the time, I trusted our SBC "leaders" and assumed these missionaries were "liberal." Far from it; they saw coming what has now arrived. These conservative Baptists were not creedal Baptists and lived (and were fired) for their convictions. I disagree with the removal of Dr. Sharon Bullock, the refusal to promote Wendy Norvell, the continued authoritarianism of SBC mega-pastors, the nepotism of SBC leaders and high profile pastors, and the constant alleged battles against "liberals" within the SBC, and the move toward independence--instead of cooperation--of our missionary efforts. These are all tell-tale signs of a move toward the independent, Landmark, Fundamentalist brand of Baptist theology.

I agree with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message on the major doctrines of the faith (salvation by grace, etc...), but there are several places where I disagree with the 2000 BFM, including its advocacy of "closed" communion, its semi-pelagian view of original sin, and its direct contradiction of the Scripture regarding the Holy Spirit's work in Article IIC. (see Example 3 here).

Granted, these are minor areas of disagreement, and there are more. It is interesting to me that my disagreements on minor points of the BFM are MAJOR TENETS of Landmark, independent, Fundamental Baptists (closed communion, arminian, cessationist, etc... theology). I have often stated that there are many people I consider friends who hold to such theology. We have people in our church who come from the Landmark, independent, Fundamentalist brand of Baptist church. I have no problem with them or what they believe when it comes to our mutual cooperation. They love me and I love them.

But for some reason, the fighting independent, Fundamental Baptists in the Convention don't seem to like people like me. They want to rid the SBC of anyone who would dare question their authoritarian edicts. "What I believe," they say, "is gospel."

Not so fast.

We are Baptists, and we have never been creedal. Tell me what you believe, but don't make me sign it. I'll tell you where you may be wrong. You show me where I may be wrong. But let's not separate over human differences. Let's cooperate around our mutual love for Christ.

There are some who may say, "But the SBC is doing great!" I remind you of Nick Ayrom above. The perception becomes the reality. We are narrowing the parameter of cooperation to the point that doctrinal conformity in the form of creedalism is the condition upon which you can be known as a Southern Baptist. Well, I'm here to stay, and until Jesus comes I will continue to speak out of the growing slide toward independent, Landmark, Fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist Convention.

In His Grace,

Wade

"Theater-Going Preachers" and Spurgeon's Censure of Them During the Downgrade Controversy

When it comes to the doctrines of the faith, one will find no Southern Baptist pastor who agrees more with Charles Haddon Spurgeon on particular and effectual atonement, the substitutionary and vicarious death of Christ for His people, the need for regeneration of the sinner's soul in order to believe, and other doctrines to which Spurgeon held. Monday's post criticized Spurgeon for not thinking enough of his relationship with his fellow pastors within the Baptist Union to make his concerns over their departure from the historic doctrines of the faith personally and privately known before making his concerns a public, denominational issue. Some have little understanding that Spurgeon believed Baptists stay on the road of orthodoxy by believing in the doctrines of "Calvinism"--doctrines Spurgeon called "vital." I disagree with Spurgeon on this point, believing orthodoxy and fellowship among evangelical Baptists is not dependent on similar views of the doctrines of grace. Most all Baptists in the 18th Century were Calvinists; and there was, as Spurgeon saw, a "downgrade" of belief in these doctrines during his era. Spurgeon sought a doctrinal statement for the Baptist Union that would be more precise in defining the doctrines of grace. It's my feeling that doctrinal statements upon which fellowship is built among Baptists can be, and often should be, much broader in scope.

But what most Southern Baptists today don't understand is that the concerns of Spurgeon during the "Downgrade Controversy" went far beyond what he called the forsaking of "vital" doctrines. He was just as concerned with the growth of "worldliness" among the pastors and churches. Spurgeon wrote:

We mentioned a decline of spiritual life, and the growth of worldliness, and gave as two outward signs thereof the falling-off in prayer-meetings, and ministers attending the theater.

The first (attendance at prayer-meetings) has been pooh-poohed as a mere trifle. The Nonconformist (ed. a London newspaper), which is a fit companion for The Christian World (ed. another newspaper), dismisses the subject in the following sentence: "If the conventional prayer-meetings are not largely attended, why should the Christian community be judged by its greater or less use of one particular religious expedient?" What would James and Jay (ed. famous English pastors) have said of this dismissal of "conventional prayer-meetings," whatever that may mean? At any rate, we are not yet alone in the opinion that our meetings for prayer are very excellent thermometers of the spiritual condition of our people. God save us from the spirit which regards gathering together for prayer as "a religious expedient"! This one paragraph is sorrowfully sufficient to justify much more than we have written (about the Downgrade).

The same newspaper thus deals with our mention of theater-going preachers. Let the reader note what a fine mouthful of words it is, and how unwittingly it admits, with a guarded commendation, that which we remarked upon with censure:—"As for theatres, while we should be much surprised to learn that many ministers of the gospel take a view of life which would permit them to spend much time there, yet, remembering that men of unquestionable piety do find recreation for themselves and their families in the drama, we are not content to see a great branch of art placed under a ban, as if it were no more than an agency of evil."Let it never be forgotten that even irreligious men, who themselves enjoy the amusements of the theater, lose all respect for ministers when they see them in the play-house. Their common sense tells them that men of such an order are unfit to be their guides in spiritual things. But we will not debate the point: the fact that it is debated is to us sufficient evidence that spiritual religion is at a low ebb in such quarters.

Very unwillingly have we fulfilled our unhappy task of justifying a warning which we felt bound to utter; we deplore the necessity of doing so; but if we have not in this paper given overwhelming evidence, it is from want of space, and want of will, and not from want of power. Those who have made up their minds to ignore the gravity of the crisis, would not be aroused from their composure though we told our tale in miles of mournful detail.

It is not my desire to address Spurgeon's concern over the lack of attendance in prayer meetings at his fellow pastors' churches. We could all express agreement with him. Where I think my hero in ministry failed is in pointing his finger at other pastors who churches were suffering such a decline. I think it profits a man of God to go about his ministry, faithfully fulfilling God's requirements on him, without the need to single out other pastors who may be suffering through a desert ministry.

It is the "theater-going preachers" and Spurgeon's censure of them which I would like to single out as an example of how Baptists will often allow cultural issues to divide them. The Royal Court Theater was the most popular theater in London in 1887, the year the Downgrade Controversy began. The long running play at the time was Dickens' Great Expectations. Were it to be made into a movie today, it would receive a "G" rating. Several of the evangelical pastors who attended the theater in London were well-known pastors like Dr. Talmadge, Henry Ward Beecher, Dr. Chapin and others. Spurgeon spoke the following about pastors who attend the theater in a sermon from 1888...

"The Christian church of the present day has played the harlot beyond any Christian church in any other day. There are no amusements too vile for her. Her pastors have filled a theater of late; and, by their applause, have set their mark of approval upon the labours of play-actors. To this point have we come at last, a degradation that was never reached even in Rome's darkest hour;-and, if you do not love Christ to be indignant about it, the Lord have mercy on you!"

The romanticist who wishes to view "The Downgrade Controversy" as a battle between theological conservatism and liberalism must be careful or he will find himself codifying for others his own personal convictions (like Spurgeon did) based upon what is, and is not, historically culturally accepted by the organized church instead of the clear teachings of the Word of God and the freedom that comes from resting in the God of all grace who gave us His Son so that we might enjoy Him instead of religion.

In His Grace,

Wade