'We Know Who You Are and What You Expect From Us' Is Code for 'We Know Who We Want You To Be'

Bob Cleveland has pointed out to me this article by Bob Terry, editor of The Alabama Baptist.

Mr. Terry says this about the adoption of the Garner Motion on the Baptist Faith and Message at this summer's Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio:

It is hard to understand the vote by the messengers as anything other than their expression of unhappiness and rebuke to the trustees involved for arbitrarily excluding Bible-believing Southern Baptists from service because of a practice most consider a secondary issue on which disagreement is allowed.

Anyone who reads the transcript of the debate in a non-biased, non-partisian fashion would draw the same conclusion of Mr. Terry. Dr. Al Mohler seemed to dismiss the messengers concerns by saying in his seminary 'report,' “We know who you are and what you expect of us". The editor of the editor of The Alabama Baptist responds to Dr. Mohler's statement with erudite logic:

Some ask if the trustee boards in question really do “know who you (Southern Baptists) are and what you expect of us” in light of the recent LifeWay Christian Resources study that found about 50 percent of Southern Baptist ministers believe a private prayer language could be a legitimate spiritual gift.

I would simply add if Dr. Mohler knows 'who we are' (meaning 'Southern Baptists' who don't practice 'tongues' in public or private), then why does he have C.J. Mahaney speak at his Southern's campus chapels and revivals - a man who not only speaks in tongues but advocates quite clearly that any teaching this gift has ceased is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.

Read carefully. I am one of C.J. Mahaney's biggest fans. I am glad he speaks at Southern. What bothers me is that Dr. Mohler desires the freedom to have a person who speaks in tongues to be able to teach his seminary students, but he believes it is appropriate for a trustee board to forbid Southern Baptists who speak in tongues PRIVATELY from serving on the mission field.

If there is not some kind of convention control on the establishment of tighter doctrinal boundaries for Southern Baptist missions and ministry service, then any board or insitution can mandate doctrinal requisites that have nothing to do with the BFM. The convention should have the final say on the boundaries of cooperation in terms of 'doctrine,' not the autonomous insititutions.

Dr. Morris Chapman, expressing the same belief as the editor of The Alabama Baptist regarding the motion, said,

“Other doctrines are beginning to be required aside from our adopted confession. It causes one to ask, ‘Where does it end?’”

May I answer that question?

(1). It ends when everyone looks the same, acts the same, and believes the same.
(2). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of soteriology.
(3). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of eschatology.
(4). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of ecclesiology.
(5). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of pneumatology.
(6). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of theology.
(7). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of . . . .

The Southern Baptist Convention is ceasing to be a convention of loosely knit autonomous churches of Bible-believing Southern Baptists who cooperate in spite of differences on secondary issues because disagreement is allowed, and we are becoming a much smaller convention (8,000 messengers in TEXAS) of controlled churches and pastors who are demanded to conform to all secondary and tertiary doctrinal issues before there is ANY cooperation in missions and evangelism ministry because those in charge say to us 'we know who you are and what you expect of us.'

There is a Greek word for that kind of thinking. :)

In reality, there are some who think they know best what Southern Baptists should be and are orchestrating trustee boards to reflect their view of 'doctrinal purity.'

It's past time for that to stop.

We'll see very soon (July 16-18 in Richmond, Virginia) if the trustee boards got the message.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Transcript of the 2007 SBC Debate Over the Motion to Adopt the Executive Committee's Statement on the Baptist Faith and Message

There are some on the losing side of the Southern Baptist Convention's vote to officially adopt the SBC Executive Committee's statement on the Baptist Faith and Message who are now saying the SBC messengers did not understand what they were voting on when they voted to officially adopt the Executive Committee's statement. Even worse, a few are so bold as to suggest that the adoption of the statement does not mean what those of us who voted for it understood it to mean. The messengers of the San Antonio Southern Baptist Convention voted to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM 2000 by a 58% majority vote. I personally think it is in poor taste to question the intelligence or wisdom of Southern Baptist messengers just because the majority did something different than the minority would have desired.

Prior to the debate on the motion to adopt the Executive Committe statement on the BFM, Dr. Morris Chapman, the President of the Executive Committee, had already given his address to the entire convention. Though I have not spoken with him about this issue, I can understand and comprehend his words. During his official report to the Convention, Dr. Chapman said:

"(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly,

(2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession."

It is my desire in this post to show the intent of the messengers when they voted for the motion to officially adopt the Executive Committee statement on the BFM. The messengers intent was to implement exactly what they had already heard the President of the Executive Committee say we needed in the SBC. Of course, an additional way to know what was in the mind of those who voted FOR the adoption of this statement is to hear those who articulated the reasons why this statement SHOULD be adopted. Likewise, to listen to the intelligent and articulate arguments AGAINST the adoption of this motion informs the impartial reader why this motion was not voted for by its opponents.

The following transcipt is taken from the video archives of the SBC Tuesday night's session entitled Previously Scheduled Business.

Again, the purpose of posting this is simply to prove that there can be no doubt in any fair-minded, non-partisian person as to the intent of the SBC messengers in adopting this statement, and further, the debate shows very clearly that SBC messengers present in the hall knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they voted by a 58% majority to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM 2000.

Rick Garner is the messenger and conservative pastor from Liberty Heights Baptist Church in Liberty Heights, Ohio who had made the motion to adopt the statement earlier that morning. The Committee on Order of Business believed this motion was important enough to be dealt with by the entire convention, and when it came time to debate this motion, President Frank Page encouraged messenger Rick Garner, if he was present, to move to a microphone. While the convention was waiting, President Page read the motion in order that the convention would be clear what it was we were about to debate and ultimately vote upon.

I move that this convention adopts the statement of the Executive Committee issued in February of this year, and included in the Executive 's report found in the 2007 Book of Reports, Page 17, which reads 'The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.'

After reading the above motion, President Page then said, "The Committee of Order on Business has decided that this particular motion should be dealt with at this time, and so, we would like to know if Rick Garner is in this hall and, if so, would he like to speak to this motion.

President Frank Page: Bro. Rick, are you at microphone nine?

Pastor Rick Garner: Yes, sir.

President Rick Garner: You moved. (Laughter)

President Frank Page: Would you like to speak to your motion sir?

Pastor Rick Garner: Yes, Mr. President.

President Frank Page: All right.

Messenger Rick Garner speaks FOR the motion:

Mr. President, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 stands as the doctrinal capstone of the conservative resurgence. It is the only consensus, and therefore, the only sufficient basis for doctrinal accountability among Southern Baptists. It is the privilege, it is indeed the sacred responsibility, of this convened body to inform our entities, agencies, and institutions of our continued and firm commitment to this instrument of doctrinal accountability.

The question before us this evening is this: Is the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 sufficient in its current form to guide the Southern Baptist Convention and all its agencies, entities and institutions? An affirmitive vote is for its sufficiency. A negative vote is a vote for its insufficiency and will effectively render the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 anemic to accomplish its purposes. I believe it is sufficient. My church believes it is sufficient. The Executive Committee report affirms it is sufficient, and this Convention believes it is sufficient.

If the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is sufficient for the Southern Baptist Convention at large, then it should be considered sufficient for all Southern Baptist entities, agencies, and institutions.

Amos 3:3 says, "Can two walk together unless they are agreed. We have all agreed that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is our convention's confession of faith. The only remaining questions is, 'Will we walk together?'

Mr. President, thank you.

President Frank Page: Thank you. I would like at this point (uh) what we are going to do, in case you are knew, normally in these situations we allow persons to speak for, and in fairness to speak against, if there is someone - and we do believe because the button is pushed. And let me say this very quickly -- we have a fancy box up here. It's nice, it's real nice. And it tells us who is pushed what buttons, but it doesn't show us who it is. We don't know who it is, but it does tell us if you are pushing for or against, so I hope it is correct. Number 2 says their against this. Would you like to speak against this?

Messenger: Yes I would

President Frank Page: Name, church, and . . .

Messenger: Mr. President, it's another Robin. Robin Hadaway, Missions Professor, Midwestern Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri, messenger Pleasant Valley Baptist Church, Liberty, Missouri.

Wade Burleson's commentary: (Read very carefully the following arguments professor Hadaway gives on why the motion should be voted down. Notice what he calls 'doctrine' and why the BFM 2000 falls short of being 'sufficient' -- to me he articulates very clearly the problem we Southern Baptistts would face had his view prevailed).

Messenger Robin Hadaway speaks AGAINST the motion.

I served as an IMB missionary for 18 years and as an IMB regional for 6 of those years and I enforced the IMB policies. The IMB has long had a policy that divorced persons cannot be appointed as long-term missionaries. This is a doctrinal interpretation of I Timothy 3, and is also based upon the fact that divorced persons are not normally called to Southern Baptist pulpits in the USA and are especially problematic for our Baptist partners overseas. The Executive statement on page 17 of the Book of Reports says, "The BFM is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the convention." Guide does not mean an exhaustive list. Let me list several doctrinal issues the BFM does not speak to.

Speaking in tongues or private prayer languages are not mentioned in the BFM, but do you want a seminary professor like myself, at your six seminaries, practicing glossalalia? This is not in the Baptist Faith and Message.

Last year's Resolutions Committee of which I was a member, and I am a member of this year's Resolutions Committee, passed a resolution on alcohol consumption. Our committee quoted Scripture making it a doctrinal issue. The IMB does not appoint missionaries that drink alcohol, and neither do the seminaries. Alcohol is not in the Baptist Faith and Message.

The Resolutions Committee a number of years ago passed a resolution on gambling. Scripture was quoted making this a doctrinal issue. Gambling is not mentioned in the BFM either.

Neither is the usage of tobacco.

Let's not make a creed of the BFM, let's keep it as a guide and allow the trustees of your boards, agencies and entities to design policies and procedures to select godly men and women as missionaries, professors, and employees to serve in these agencies.

Otherwise, you may have missionaries and professors like me, with practices not in keeping with the vast majority of Southern Baptists. I urge the defeat of this motion.

Wade Burleson's comment on Dr. Hadaway's speech: (Other than the fact I am amazed that the good professor believes 'quoting' Scripture makes something a doctrine, I would like to point out three problems with what Dr. Hadaway said. (1). To equate the Holy Spirit gift of glossalalia with divorce, tobacco, and alcohol would cause every mainline, conservative systematic theologian to raise his/her eyebrow, and (2). Dr. Hadaway well illustrates the problem the Southern Baptist Convention is now facing -- there are some who are attempting to force upon the entire convention their particular interpretations of holiness -- and worse, they are attempting to make EVERYTHING a 'doctrinal' issue and dismiss from service anyone who disagrees, and (3). A few of my fellow IMB trustees ought to be glad I am uninterested in enforcing the good professor's 'doctrine' of tobacco (wink). Of course, the passage of the motion rules null and void Dr. Hadaway's attempt to make everyone look like him.)

President Frank Page: Thank you Robin. Now do we have at microphone number nine again someone to speak for this particular motion?

Messenger Dwight McKissic speaks FOR the motion.

Yes, Mr. President, my name is Dwight McKissic, I pastor the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas.

It's really a simple matter. Are we going to let the parents make rules for the house, or our we going to let the children rule the house? The agencies and entities should be subordinate to the Southern Baptist Convention.

When I gave my church a doctrinal statement, all of our leaders are asked to read it and believe it, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. We buy into the convention based on that document. Then, when agencies circumvent that document it leaves a church like the one I pastor in a quandry. "Pastor, you sold us on the Southern Baptist Convention based on the contents of this document. Now decisions are being made that are not consistent or compatabile with this document that affects the identity and image of our church."

I don't let my four children decide what the McKissic household believe. Dwight and Vera McKissic decide what we believe and what we stand for. Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." We need the convention itself to speak to this issue and not the children.

(Loud Applause)

President Frank Page: Thank you Bro. Dwight. One more. Microphone number five do you speak against this motion.

Messenger: No sir, I'm here to speak for this motion.

Wade Burleson's comment: (It was here that the messengers could see Art Roger's at the microphone, the messenger ready to speak for the motion. Behind him one can see on the video screens Dr. Hershael York and Dr. Richard Land prepared to speak AGAINST the motion. You could see Dr. York adamantly attempting to get the microphone monitor to allow him to speak, but Art was at the microphone first and by rule, Art did not have to give up his spot until he had the opportunity to speak).

President Frank Page: To be fair, we've got to go with someone against. All right, we'll try number eight. Microphone number eight over yonder.

Messenger: Yes, sir. My name is Barbara Turner and I am a messenger from the Mountain View Baptist Church in California. And uh, I did not grow up in a Christian home, however, I had people who took me to church and so forth, and I accepted Christ after a Baptist camp, not a Southern Baptist. However, when I moved I had a neighbor who took me to the closest church, which was a Southern Baptist Church. And, as I started learning about that church I picked up a little paper, really a little card, that was called the Baptist Faith and Message. And as a young teenager, really preteen, I read that and thought about it quite a bit. And, you know I believed the things that were in that document. I felt like, yes, this is what I believe - this is what I want to subscribe to - and this is a body of believers that I want to join with. And I put a lot of thought in that, even as a young person, just as I did my salvation, knowing that God would want to call me to things. That document was written in 1963. It was put together thoughtfully with many great leaders, including Herschel Hobbs, who many people still read his commentaries. I have nothing against the 2000 as far as submission or whatever. However, I have a problem with saying you must subscibe to this particular Baptist Faith and Message or you can't serve. I guess I cannot serve because I believe in both of them. And I think there's a problem, and so I believe it should be Baptist Faith and Message - period, and not Baptist Faith and Message of a certain year. And I also believe, as it is stated, that it is a statement of faith - this is what we believe - but we are autonomous. I believe when we are saying we must set this as a guide - we are not using this as a guide - we are using it as a creed, and that goes up against who we are as Baptists. Thank you.

Wade Burleson's Commentary on Barbara's Speech: (Barbara is a very bright individual. She knew exactly what she was saying. However, what she may not have been aware of was that those who were AGAINST this recommendation desire to tighten the BFM even further, 'de facto,' by tightening the doctrinal parameters and narrow the definition of what it means to be a Southern Baptist by using trustees of Southern Baptist agencies changing the doctrinal parameters 'out of the view of the entire Southern Baptist Convention.' I promise you, if Barbara listened carefully to the two speeches by Bob Cleveland and Jeremy Green that followed hers , she saw it).

President Frank Page: Thank you Barbara. Let me ask at this time microphone number one you have pushed a button saying you have a motion, would you please give me your name and your church and clarify what you are asking please?

Messenger: Leroy Cole, West Tyler Baptist Church, Alabama, I call for the question.

Wade Burleson's comment on the call for question: (I do not know Leroy Cole, but his motion to cease debate and vote on the recommendation passed by a two/thirds majority raising their ballots in favor to end debate -- at least according to the ruling of the chair. It was at this moment that one of the lower points of the convention occurred. Several who were AGAINST the motion (and possibly a few who were for it) booed and hissed and shouted at the chair because they didn't feel the motion to end debate had actually passed. Dr. Page graciously ruled that debate would continue for five minutes because it was a close vote, but then he said, "Do not holler at me (applause). Do not holler at me. I have a litte bit of redneck in. Don't holler at me." (Good for the President).

The Continuation of Debate for Five Minutes

President Frank Page: Five more minutes. Microphone number three speaking for.

Messenger Bob Cleveland speaks FOR the motion

I'm Bob Cleveland, lay messenger from First Baptist Church, Pellham, Alabama. I came to the Southern Baptist Convention, to a Southern Baptist Church, from the United Methodist and the Presbyterian churches. In each case I was given, in those denominations, a book and they said "Here's what we believe." And I actually read it. And when I came to our church, I asked Bro. Mike before I ever joined, if we had such a book and he said, "Well, no. We have no creed but Christ." But here's the Baptist Faith and Message which is a consensus statement of our faith. And I read it. And I went back to him and said, "You know, there's a lot of things this doesn't cover."

And he gave me Hershel Hobbs book on the Baptist Faith and Message, and I read that, and I read about what Hershel Hobbs said the fundamental Baptist distinctive is and that's soul competency in religious matters. And I said, 'Woe' this is the most responsible doctrine I've ever seen because it says it's me and God and I'm responsible for what I believe. I cannot blame it on somebody else.

Now if I wanted to change what Southern Baptists believe confessionally I would never attack the Baptist Faith and Message, I would go to missionary sending organizations, both US and foreign, and change what they can be to be missionaries. And then I would just wait until the Southern Baptist Convention changed what they believed.

And if I wanted to accelerate the process I would go to some of the seminaries and change what you had to believe so that they would believe just like me to be a professor. And that would send out pastors into churches here that would believe just what I wanted them to believe. I would never have to touch the Baptist Faith and Message.

We are like the frog in a pot of hot water. You can put him in cool water and turn the heat up and the frog will literally boil to death before he knows he is in trouble. We will change the Baptist Faith and Message because we will change what Baptists believe if we don't vote for this recommendation. Now I know we can't tell the entities what they have to do, but we can tell the entities of the SBC what we believe being a Southern Baptist means, and this is it, and I urge you to vote for it

(Applause)

Wade Burleson's Comment on Mr. Cleveland's speech: (Bob, who is a layman, understands better than anyone I've ever heard that Southern Baptists better be very, very careful in handing over the ability to define what a Southern Baptist IS to either a seminary or an agency)

President Frank Page: Thank you Bob. Now, we will call on microphone number twelve and ask if you are speaking AGAINST this particular issue.

Messenger Jeremy Green Speaks AGAINST the motion

I'm Jeremy Green, pastor of First Baptist Church of Joshua, Texas. According to the Preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message our confessional statement includes only those doctrines that we hold precious and as essential to the faith. If Southern Baptists believe that these doctrines are essentials, then why are certain trustees and employees now not even affirming the bare minimum doctrinal standards of our convention as adopted by each entitity. Baptist polity and our trustee system both necessitate that each individual trustee boards maintain the right and responsibility to employ other doctrinal paramaters as needed.

The Baptist Faith and Message is a sufficient guide, but it is not the ONLY guide. I believe that voting FOR this motion is the first step in the wrong direction. I encourage the messengers to vote against this motion. Thank you Mr. President.

(No applause)

Wade Burleson's Commentary on Jeremy Green's comments: (I thank Jeremy for making very, very clear - right before the vote - what a vote FOR the motion means, and what a vote AGAINST the motion means. He couldn't have said it any better. He's dead on. The convention heard it, and they voted. Contrary to his desire, and others, to move our convention way beyond the BFM to reflect their narrow doctrinal views on matters that are NOT essential to the Christian faith and Southern Baptist identity, the convention said let's keep our parameters of cooperation as broad as possible).

President Frank Page: Thank you Jeremy. Now, here is where we are. Our time is up. If you would like to extend the time, it will require a motion and two thirds majority to extend the time for discussion.

The vote to extend time to debate the motion to adopt the Executive Committee statement on the BFM failed.

Then, the vote occurred on the original motion.

It passed by a 58% majority.

I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can listen to the debate, or read the words of this transcript, and say anyone was confused on what we voted upon.

The convention told the International Mission Board that any doctrinal guideline or policy, based on the IMB trustee board's 'doctrinal interpretation' that has not been APPROVED by the SBC, is not appropriate. Especially when that guideline excludes otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary participation.

The Southern Baptist Convention has spoken. Boards are more than welcome to establish policies and guidelines on practical, ethical or moral considerations, but to move DOCTRINALLY beyond the BFM 2000, and exlude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary service unless who disagree with their demands for conformity to their additional doctrinal guidelines that exceed the BFM 2000, is not within their purview.

Only the entire convention sets the parameters for cooperation and true Southern Baptist identity. No seminary, no whitepaper, no trustee board, no President -- no one has the authority to narrow the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist cooperation but the convention as a whole.

Now, let's see if the boards are listening.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

P.S. Listen to Dr. Chapman's entire address here

The Practical Outworking of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention's Adoption of the Executive Committee's Statement Regarding the BFM 2000

"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

Adopted by the Messengers of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio, Texas, June 13, 2007.

The above statement, adopted without opposition by the entire Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention this past year, and pulled out of the 2007 Annual Book of Reports for adoption by the entire Southern Baptist Convention, passed by a 58% vote of the voting messengers in San Antonio, Texas.

The trustees of our agencies are elected by the Southern Baptist Convention. The convention cannot 'instruct' autonomous agencies what they can, or cannot do, but I have repeatedly stated that as a trustee of the International Mission Board, I am accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention for my actions on the International Mission Board, for the Southern Baptist Convention elected me, not the board of trustees of the IMB (at least I think: wink). Allow me to review the events of the past year and a half and show how this very important decision by the SBC to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM 2000 has now brought us full circle.

The Beginnings of the Controversy

The controversy at the International Mission Board began in November of 2005, when I questioned the authority of my fellow trustees to implement new doctrinal 'policies' that (1). Rejected Southern Baptist missionaries who possessed a 'private' prayer language, based upon a doctrinal belief that 'tongues' were not a gift given by God to any Christian for private edification, and (2). Rejected Southern Baptist missionary candidates who were baptized in churches, or by individuals, that 'did not believe in eternal security' even though those missionary candidates already were members of a Southern Baptist church that had 'accepted' their baptism, and the candidates themselves were baptized by immersion, trusting Christ alone for salvation.

I asked privately, repeatedly, and eventually publicly the following question:

'Who has given us trustees at the IMB the authority to reject missionary candidates from our cooperating Southern Baptist churches based upon a refusal by those missionary candidates to conform to a specific interpretation of a tertiary doctrinal issue that the only consensus Southern Baptist confession of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, is silent about?

The Tipping Point Is Reached

The post that upset so many people was written in December of 2005, one entitled Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The Battle for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention. The quote that summarizes that post is this two sentence paragraph:

The Southern Baptist Convention, through the trustees of our boards and agencies, is narrowing the parameters of fellowship and cooperation to the point that real, genuine conservatives are being excluded as unfit for service in the SBC.

Our convention hated liberalism twenty years ago and we expelled it from our midst, but at this hour we better hate legalism and Fundamentalism as much as we did the former liberalism or we will find ourselves so fractured and fragmented that we no longer have the ability to cooperate about anything, including missions

Again, the above comment was written a over a year and a half ago, right here on this blog. My feelings have not changed.

A Conservative Foot Soldier Wakes Up From a Ten Year Nap

I was a foot soldier for the conservative resurgence in the early 1980's, driving Paul Pressler around Oklahoma, rallying people to go to Dallas to take back the Bible. I was elected as Chairman of the Denominational Calendar Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1994 and still have framed in my office an original copy of the program of the first Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, in Augusta, Georgia, right beside the 150th Anniversary Program of the 1995 Southern Baptist Convention with Dr. W.A. Criswell, Dr. Herschel Hobbs, and myself on the program. In 1995, I took a decade off from participating in the SBC. My four kids were ages 1 to 8, and I needed to invest time in my family, my church (which was involved in a building program), and my state. During those ten years I served two terms as Vice-President of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and two terms as President. During June, my wife and I would either be on vacation or in Israel, and we only attended the Southern Baptist Convention three times from 1995 to 2005. In other words, I was out of touch with the SBC.

In 2005, when I was contacted to serve as trustee of the International Mission Board, I accepted. I hadn't sought it, but I was honored to serve. During the orientation and first few meetings, I really enjoyed getting to know my fellow trustees and especially the missionaries, but I quickly began to feel like Rip Van Winkle. I had awakened to a convention that in some ways I did not recognize.

The Grand Old Lady Was Being Crippled

For example, I knew that when Dr. Jerry Rankin had been hired as President of the International Mission Board, the fact that he spoke in tongues during his private prayer times, had been raised. However, the chairman of the search committee at the time, Dr. Joel Gregory, had said that Dr. Rankin's private prayer language was not an issue. Dr. Rankin became President of the International Mission Board and quickly became one of the most respected men in our convention.

In 2005, as a new trustee, I was told that it was now deemed best by IMB trustees that Southern Baptist missionaries NOT have a private prayer language. Beside the fact that the sitting President of the IMB would have been rejected as a SBC missionary were the new policies to have been in effect during his interview process years earlier, as an IMB trustee, I felt I needed to know why this new policy prohibiting a private prayer language was needed. I asked for anecdotal evidence that there was a 'charismatic' problem on the field not being properly handled by administration or staff. I asked for the evidence time, after time, after time. I never received it.

Finally, I was told that no anecdotal evidence was needed. This was a DOCTRINAL matter and the board was implementing the policies based upon a doctrinal interpretation that a 'private prayer language' was not Biblical. Of course, I was told that 95% of Southern Baptist churches believed the way the trustees believed, and it was 'our right' to implement whatever doctrinal standard we trustees desired. Of course, now we know, according to an independent survey conducted by Lifeway, over 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believe that a private prayer langauge is a legitimate gift from God.

I affirm every Southern Baptist's right to believe that a private prayer language is not a legitimate gift -- as I do every Southern Baptist's right to believe that a private prayer language is a legitimate gift of the Spirit. What I don't affirm is a board of trustees meeting behind closed doors and adopting a 'doctrinal' policy that exceeds the Baptist Faith and Message, excluding otherwise qualified Southern Baptist missionary candidates from service.

I don't have the time to deal with my problems with the baptism policy except to say it bothered me more than the private prayer language policy. The BFM 2000 is silent on the authority of the baptizer, or the need that the baptism should take place at the hands of one who believes in 'eternal security.' The controversy at the IMB was never about baptism by any method other than immersion, but rather, the demand that the IMB tell churches what was 'an appropriate' baptism in terms of 'who' baptized the church's member. I personally believed the new policy reflected a very strong Landmark tendency - a doctrine that often threatened to divide our Southern Baptist Convention in years past, and wrenched the very important ordinance of Christ from the local church into the hands of a board of trustees of a SBC agency.

Where Were These Demands For Doctrinal Conformity Coming From?

Through various events that I have documented over the last year and a half, including my own election as a trustee of the IMB, I was under the opinion that many of the demands for doctrinal conformity were emanating from our Southern Baptist seminaries, particularly one seminary President who believed that orthodoxy could only be defined by his own personal views on Landmarkism, cessationism, anti-Charismaticism, anti-Calvinism, hyper-dispensationalism, etc . . .

Nothing wrong with these doctrines - unless you begin to demand that every Southern Baptist believes the way you do. My motion to investigate the controversies at the IMB, which was referred back to the IMB by the convention, included requests to investigate the following:

(1). The manipulation of the nominating process of the Southern Baptist Convention during the appointment of trustees for the International Mission Board.
(2). Attempts to influence and/or coerce the IMB trustees, staff, and administration to take a particular course of action by one or more Southern Baptist agency heads other than the President of the International Mission Board.
(3). The appropriate and/or inappropriate use of Forums and Executive Sessions of the International Mission Board as compared to conducting business in full view of the Southern Baptist Convention and the corresponding propriety and/or impropriety of the Chairman of the International Mission Board excluding any individual trustee, without Southern Baptist Convention approval, from participating in meetings where the full International Mission Board is convened.
(4). The legislation of new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. (emphasis mine)
(5). The suppression of dissent by trustees in the minority through various means by those in the majority, and the propriety of any agency forbidding a trustee, by policy, from publicly criticizing a Board approved action

I only point out to you these 2006 recommendations to show that the vote this past Tuesday night at the 2007 SBC was not taken in a vacuum.

What the Adoption of the Executive Committee's Statement on the BFM Means

(1). Any policy or guideline at an agency, that is based upon a doctrinal interpretation that EXCEEDS the Baptist Faith and Message, is not in line with the convention's vote to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM.

Some might argue that the BFM, by the statement itself, is not a COMPLETE statement of faith. As Dr. Mohler said today, it is not sufficient for the hiring of seminary professors.

I agree. There are some agencies, like seminaries, that need tighter, narrower, and more defined confessions - like the Abstract of Principles. The Convention has already approved the Abstract for Southern and Southeastern (not to mention it predates every BFM), but if Southwestern Seminary were to desire to 'tighten' her institutional confession, the proposed doctrinal confession would need to be voted upon by the convention as a whole.

(2). If trustees of any agency, particularly convention wide agencies like the International Mission Board or the North American Mission Board, were to refuse to abide by the convention's wishes of not demanding conformity on doctrinal interpretations not found in the BFM, then those trustees should be answerable to the convention -- since the convention elected them.

This does not mean there cannot be guidelines or policies that are implemented for moral, ethical or pragmatic reasons (weight, homosexuality, adultery, etc . . .), but new 'doctrinal' guidelines that exceed the BFM 2000 cannot be implemented unless there is a convention-wide consensus.

(3). I am in agreement that any trustee or employee who signs the BFM, but makes known any variance or disagreement with the BFM, should make that known publicly and in writing. The convention, then, has the right to remove that trustee, just as they have the right to remove trustees who do not follow their wishes in NOT establishing new doctrinal guidelines or policies that exceed the BFM.

I have made it known, from the very beginning of my service with the IMB, that I have two very minor disageements with the BFM. Since the 2007 SBC convention voted last night that the BFM was not infallible (thank the Lord for that one), I feel quite comfortable with my wholehearted affirmation of the BFM with only these two very minor disagreements over 'closed communion' (I believe in modified open communion as do many other Southern Baptist pastors and churches) and the innocency of infants until they personally sin (I believe the Bible teaches infants are guilty before they actually sin). Actually, there may be only ONE minor disagreement because I keep having professors tell me the BFM doesn't teach infants are innocent before they sin, but I have a hard time seeing their logic.

But, since all Southern Baptists believe the BFM is a consensus CONFESSION and not a mandatory CREED, then minor disagreements should be appropriate. That, in fact, is the nature of the difference between a confession and a creed.

I have also pointed out three other minor wording problems (the 'Spirit baptizing rather than 'Christ,' making every effort to end war, etc . . . ), but those minor disagreements were not my own personally, but written by Sam Storms and used to illustrate a point over 'minor' doctrines vs. 'major' doctrines of the faith.

Nevertheless, if someone believes that someone, similar to me, can't wholeheartedly affirm the BFM 2000, while at the same time expressing disagreement over closed communion and the innocency of infants, well then, that person ought to make a recommendation for my removal from the International Mission Board.

That's consistent. If you wish to ADD to the BFM -- the convention should make the decision. AND, if someone thinks closed communion is a 'major' and 'primary' doctrine, necessary for Southern Baptist missions and ministry service, then by all means, bring that person before the convention and let the convention decide if they should serve.

I think you will find that the convention will make the decision that this is a minor doctrine, one over which Southern Baptists should not divide. I'm very willing to be the guinea pig in order to show, by living example, the difference between a creed and a confession.

In fact, I was hoping that motion would come from the floor at THIS convention. It would serve well as an illustration between essentials and non-essentials, local church autonomy vs. denominational hierarchy, etc . . . I do not believe closed communion defines who is, or who isn't, a true Baptist.

(4). I do believe everyone in the SBC, on both sides of this issue has a good heart. But, I can't understand why anyone in a position of authority within the SBC would take such a flippant, even careless attitude toward the wishes of the entire convention.

My post yesterday was the strongest post I've ever written. I think I was simply taken back by the attitude and the words I heard by a handful of the seminary Presidents in reaction to the convention's vote to adopt the BFM statement. I am hopeful that in time, a more humble and soft attitude will prevail toward the ultimate authority of our convention -- the majority vote of messengers. Authority does not ultimately reside in the President's office, nor even ultimately even in the boards of trustees, but in the people who put the trustees in place.

(5). Finally, prior to 1979 our convention cooperated for the purpose of missions. Since 1979 the focus has become an attempt at bringing doctrinal purity to our convention. It is now time to refocus on the very reason we became a cooperating convention -- missions!

I am hopeful that the next year will help us refocus.

This post shall be my last one until the weekend.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

A Historic Vote No Amount of Spin Can Change

Last night the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio passed by a clear majority the recommendation to adopt the Executive Committee statement on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. The official tally has not been released, but I was sitting in the back of the convention and saw with my own eyes the recommendation passed by a clear majority. The convention adopted the following statement:

"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

This statement is clear, concise and incredibly important.

In essence, the convention said that the agencies and institutions of our convention do not have the right to narrow doctrinal parameters beyond the BFM 2000.

This does not negate agencies establishing policies because of 'moral,' or 'ethical,' or pragmatic concerns -- but it does let the agencies know that no tightening of the doctrinal parameters shall occur without full convention approval. The agencies are children to the mother (the convention), and the children do not tell the mother what is, or is not, a Southern Baptist in terms of doctrine.

It seems to me that trustees of our agencies must take into account the action of this convention before they attempt to narrow the doctrinal standards of their insitution through policies, guidelines, or additional doctrinal confessions.

The mother has spoken.

I would encourage everyone to watch the debate at the SBC.net video archives. There was no confusion over the issue from those debating the motion, and there was no confusion on what the convention was being asked to vote upon. Some people are very upset because they believe the wheels have fallen off the doctrinal bus of the SBC (not true, but that's how they feel).

Some of us are absolutely ecstatic because the children of our convention (the agencies) have been given a little spanking by the mother. They have been told they have no right to say who is, or isn't a Southern Baptist. If agencies draft policies or guidelines that go beyond the BFM 2000, and then exclude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from participation in missions or evangelism ministry based upon those policies or guidelines that reach beyond the Baptist Faith and Message -- then they are violating the very convention who elected them to serve as trustees.

Now, let's see if the kids listen.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

P.S. The vote was 57% in favor of the recommendation.

The Most Important Vote at the SBC in 10 Years

Some might believe that the most important vote at the SBC this year will be the vote for First Vice-President between missionary David Rogers and SBCT Executive Director Jim Richards. Though this vote is important, it is not the most important vote.

Some might believe the ballot cast Wednesday for any number of resolutions that will be presented to the SBC tomorrow could be the most important vote at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. Though there are several worthy resolutions, no vote for a resolution will be the most signficant vote cast by messengers at this 2007 convention.

I believe the most important vote of the Southern Baptist Convention this year, not to mention the last ten years, will take place sometime Tuesday night, during the previously scheduled business portion of the agenda, when the seated messengers of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio will debate, and then ultimately vote for, or against, the adoption of the Executive Committee statement regarding the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which reads:

"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

The above statement was adopted by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention this past year in response to a motion made at the 2006 Greensboro Southern Baptist Convention by Dr. Boyd Luter, former Dean at Criswell College.

If the Convention herself adopts this statement, it will send a strong and irrefutable message to the trustees of Southern Baptist boards and agencies that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the only consensus statement of doctrinal belief approved by the SBC, and to establish doctrinal guidelines or policies that exceed the BFM 2000 is an act contrary to the wishes of the Convention herself.

Again, in my mind, this recommendation to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the most important vote to come before the SBC in many years. I pray that the adoption of the statement passes at the Convention, as it did in the Executive Committee of the SBC, WITHOUT opposition.

Why Should The Executive Committee Statement on the BFM 2000 Be Adopted by the SBC?

(1). It will give trustees the authority to lead out in the prevention of any SBC agency from demanding absolute conformity on interpretations of tertiary doctrines, doctrines that are not addressed by the BFM 2000, before there can be participation in SBC missions and ministry.

(2). It will communicate to men who pray in tongues like Dwight McKissic and Jerry Rankin, and men who believe in Calvinism like Al Mohler and Tom Ascol, and men who believe in cessationism like Paige Patterson and Russ Moore, and men who believe in Arminianism like _________ (fill in the blank), and pastors who hold to Landmarkism in their local church, and pastors who don't hold to Landmarkism in their local church, that there is plenty of room in the SBC for both interpretations of these tertiary doctrines, and that not one side, or the other, is free to demand that others take their position in order to cooperate in missions and ministry in the SBC.

(3). It will help us focus on the main thing - sharing the gospel - and will stop cold the continuing narrowing of the parameters of cooperation by insisting we Southern Baptists unite around the essentials and cease making tertiary doctrinal interpretations issues over which we divide.

Probably the more significant question one might ought ponder is this: "What does it mean if people speak out against - or vote against - this Executive Committee statement on the BFM 2000?"

It would seem to me that opposition to this statement would represent a belief by some that the BFM 2000 IS NOT sufficient, and there is definitely a movement afoot by some in the SBC to narrow the doctrinal standards of cooperation by doctrinally adding to the BFM 'post de facto' by changing agency doctrinal policies and guidelines without Convention approval --- a charge that I have consistently made over the past two years.

We'll see how right I may have been by watching carefully the debate. Notice closely 'who' opposes the Executive Committee statement. Listen to the reasons 'why' a person opposes it. You will learn a great deal by just listening. You can watch (and listen) to the convention LIVE by clicking here.

Other Items of Business On Tuesday at the SBC

There will be several interesting reports from our agencies, not the least of which are the Lifeway Report, where I have already heard some are attempting to question the President of Lifeway on the tongues survey released a week before the convention. As most of you know, the Lifeway survey found that over 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believed that tongues was a legitimate gift of the Spirit.

The International Mission Board report will be offered Tuesday night, and the Southwestern Theological Seminary report will be given Tuesday afternoon at 4:45 p.m. There will be other interesting items presented to the convention in the form of recommendations and resolutions. I will update everyone Tuesday night.

The Election of First Vice-President

Tuesday afternoon, right before the supper break the election for First Vice-President will be held. There is a clear choice this year between ideologies of conservative cooperation vs. fundamentalist separation. David Rogers, IMB missionary to Spain and son of legendary Southern Baptist Adrian Rogers represents the fresh wind of cooperation among conservatives around the essentials of the gospel, and freedom to dissent on the non-essentials. Jim Richards represents the ideology that there are no tertiary doctrines in the Bible, and you must agree with me on every issue or you cannot be considered a true Southern Baptist.

Jim Richards is in his home state of Texas and he is expected to win because of the huge number SBCT messengers in San Antonio -- but don't rule out David Rogers pulling off what would be the biggest upset in recent memory.

A Review of the Events at the SBC on Monday, June 11, 2007

Due to the lateness of the hour, I only wish to highlight a couple of events that occurred today at the SBC. Though the Convention officially begins tomorrow, many thousands of Southern Baptists are already here enjoying the Pastor's Conference and the fellowship with other Southern Baptist people.

First, Dwight McKissic did a phenomenal job in debating Dr. Russ Moore of Southern Seminary on the issue of tongues. In the portion of the debate where the two positions were defended from Scripture, Dwight was the hands down clear winner. Someone told me later that Dwight reminded them of Luther at the Diet of Worms where the Catholic bishops excoriated Luther on his lack of knowledge of Catholic history, only to be handed their own heads on the proverbial platter when Luther expertly defended his views on justificaton from Scripture.

I also listened to the talk given by Dr. Patterson on KCBI Radio as he was asked questions by Jerry Johnston, President of Criswell College, about his 'concerns' over the SBC. I couldn't help but smile as Paige articulated his belief that the new enemy in the SBC (again)is the 'liberals.' I was around during the early eighties when Pressler and Patterson made stump speeches about how to 'rescue' the SBC (I was Pressler's driver in Oklahoma), and I really believe if you were to take today's tape and play it against one made by Dr. Patterson 25 years ago, the two would have sounded the same.

Of course, a great deal has changed in the SBC over the past quarter century, not the least of which is the fact that all the liberals are gone.

People are beginning to wake up to the fact that the old mantras don't work anymore.

Finally, it was my pleasure to eat dinner with all the messengers from my church, three of which are attending their first ever Southern Baptist Convention. One of those three, Dr. Cyril Kumar, heads up our orphanage and school in Bangalore, India. I have never seen a man work harder than Cyril, and literally thousands of lives and families have been saved through his ministry called 'Touch India.'

Sometimes I get concerned that Cyril might get jaded by what he sees. However, today, I was thankful to learn that he was excited to be at the SBC and he learned a great deal about Southern Baptists, including that there is propensity in all Southern Baptists to say, "Have a good day" even when it has gotten dark, is night, and the 'day' is almost over.

I pray that tomorrow is 'a good day.'

In His Grace,


Wade