When Aberrant Policy Births Inconsistent Practice

A November 25, 2007 news article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported on the missionary work in India of Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis, Tennessee. Bellevue is the home church of many professors and administrators of Mid-America Seminary - a seminary whose leadership that is pressing for far tighter and narrower doctrinal parameters on the authority of the baptizer and ecclesiology than Scripture demands and the Southern Baptist Convention has approved. Bellevue is the congregation that has acted as the patron and bankroller of the seminary (at least in its current location). International Mission Board Trustee Chairman John Floyd and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Trustee Chairman Vann McClain are employees of Mid-America.

Though I am not sympathetic with the anti-missionary viewpoint of the article’s author, I was struck by a little detail or two related to baptism and ecclesiology. It appears that women from many villages across the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh came to a training center run by an Indian evangelist named Sathuluri who hosted a training program for village women that was fully - and solely - sponsored by Bellevue Baptist Church. During the course of the training event, at least one village woman, and implicit within the article - many more women - were baptized. There was no local church involved in the baptism. Women from all over the state were baptized by an evangelist, but they did not become members of any 'local' church that day. The women identified themselves with Christ - baptized at the hands of the evangelist who led them to Christ. This non-local church based baptismal service raises questions of inconsistency when juxtaposed to Dr. John Floyd’s, Mid-America's, and the 'new' (2005) IMB Baptism Position Paper that all posit an inflexible insistence that proper baptism is to be conducted only as an ordinance of the local church.

The following is a direct quote from the Memphis newspaper article:

“Sathuluri [the Bellevue sponsored evangelist] isn't as easygoing as his neighbor. When he discovers that an interpreter, who is Hindu, is in the compound the day he [Sathuluri] is to perform baptisms, Sathuluri threatens to call police to remove her and a Commercial Appeal reporter and photographer from the property.” (p.4). And then this: “The Bellevue missionaries watch from a viewing area next to the pool. Some offer tears, others camera flashes. None get close to the baptismal pool and wet women.”

I find it hard to believe anyone could be opposed to the good work that Bellevue is doing. I praise God for this Indian brother, Sathuluri, who is advancing the Kingdom among village women. Unless you have been on the mission field yourself, and personally understand the dangers new converts face for being baptized upon their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, you cannot fully appreciate Sathuluri's concern for the Hindu interpretor's presence. The evangelist is concerned for the safety of the converts he is about to baptize.

Again, pay careful attention. There is no 'local church' involved in these baptisms. There is no 'local church' into which these woman are being 'baptized into.' They are being baptized biblically, into identification with Jesus Christ. What this newspaper article reveals is the ironic and incongruent position of anyone who insists upon imposing tight definitions and parameters on our IMB missionaries while then finding it impossible to implement such rigid norms when they actually find themselves on the mission field.

The 2005 Paper Explaining the IMB’s Position on Baptism reads as follows:

First, that the only biblical mode for baptism is immersion. Second, that the only proper candidate for immersion is a regenerate believer in Jesus Christ. Third, that the act is purely symbolic and distinct from salvation itself and has no saving merit. Fourth, that baptism is a church ordinance and therefore the only proper administrator of it is a local New Testament church that holds to a proper view of salvation.

Further, the IMB Baptism Position Paper states:

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

It is this last statement that baptism is 'in a church,' in conjunction with the fourth point above, which has created the baptism controversy at the IMB. This peculiar position on baptism is directly contradicted by The 1644 Baptist London Confession of Faith:

Article XLI

THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.

John Gill, the great Baptist theologian of the 18th Century says this about baptism:

Baptism is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it.

Where Scripture is clear (as in the mode and candidate of baptism), we should be clear and unflinching. But, likewise, when God has chosen for Scripture to be ambiguous or ambivalent, we must resist the temptation to become dogmatic and prescriptive (as in 'baptism in a church that embraces the doctrine of eternal security').

I think the Memphis newspaper has done all Southern Baptists a good service in showing the danger of establishing a policy that reaches beyond the 2000 BFM, adds to the sacred Word of God by placing additional qualifications regarding the administrator of baptism, and is in the end, impractical in terms of implementation on the mission field. What's ironic to me is that the benefactor church of Mid-America and the home church of many Mid-America seminary professors is being used to show us the inconsistency.

I think it would be helpful if we, the trustees of the International Mission Board, focused on our duties of giving oversight to the work of Southern Baptist missions, but we refrain from seeking to implement tight doctrinal 'policies' or 'guidelines' that far exceed the 2000 BFM and make it very difficult for actual missionaries on the field to implement. In my opinion, the 2005 baptism 'guideline' is far worse than the 2005 'private prayer language' policy in terms of its overall effect on our Southern Baptist mission work.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Bringing to Light Criticism that Seems Acceptable

I recently ran across a couple of articles that have been posted on-line and are very critical of the philosophy of the International Mission Board's emphasis on missionaries facilitating 'Church Planting Movements (CPM's).' Of course, facilitating Church Planting Movement's has formed the basic strategy of President Jerry Rankin, Regional Leadership, and the administrative staff of the IMB for the past several years. These articles, which are in The Spring 2007 Mid-America Seminary Journal of Evangelism and Missions, are both well written. They raise some issues that are worth discussing among Southern Baptists, but they are unquestionably - and very publicly - critical of IMB administration and the emphasis that has been placed on CPM's by IMB administrative leadership.

The first article, entitled "An Examination of Nine Key Issues Concerning CPM," quotes at least three 'anonymous' IMB missionaries who are critical of CPM. The writer acknowledges the article's criticism with these words:

Would discussing this issue (CPM) critically be frowned upon by many at the Board and the entities with which it works? Unquestionably.

The author then goes on to list several problems with the IMB Church Planting Movement including:

The movement often pushes missionaries to plant churches and disciple leaders more quickly than the biblical pattern.

Due to the emphasis on speed, CPM methodology opens up church planters to the dangers of heresy.

Current strategy leads to working with questionable Great Commission Christians groups on the field.

CPM methodology denigrates working with American volunteers who wish to build church buildings. Thus, thousands of volunteers are not utilized that would like to serve.

Wholehearted acceptance of CPM methodology has led to the IMB having a top-down strategy instead of a bottom-up strategy.

The second article, entitled "Is Church Planting Movement Methodology Viable? An Examination of Selected Controversies Associated With The CPM Strategy" also contains some very strong criticism of IMB strategy, including the belief that there are misleading reports from the IMB regarding the number of church starts that arise from CPM's. The author writes:

"Reporting churches that fit man’s definition (of a church) but do not fit the biblical definition (of a church) is a waste of time and dishonest toward the Body of Christ."

The Identity of the Associate Editor of this Journal

It might surprise some of you who have kept up with recent events at the IMB that one of the editors of the journal which contains these articles that are critical of the IMB is John Floyd, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the International Mission Board.

Like my blog, John's journal has some very good things to say about the IMB - alongside its public criticism of the IMB. However, the question that Southern Baptists should be asking is this:

Why is a trustee censured who is, (1). supportive of our IMB work, and (2). supportive of our IMB President, and (3). supportive of our IMB CPM strategy, and (4). supportive of a broader cooperation on the mission field with other Great Commission Churches, but publicly critical of an IMB trustee leadership decision to push a doctrinal policy that reaches beyond the 2000 BFM in order to exclude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary service?

Dr. Floyd was Chairman of the Personnel Committee in 2005 and pushed the new policy that excludes Southern Baptists from missionary service who admit, when asked, that they have a 'private prayer language' (as well as the policy that places qualifications upon the administrator of baptism that the local Southern Baptist church - supposedly the highest authority in the SBC - does not even see as necessary). Even though only a handful of trustees in leadership, including Dr. Floyd, pushed the new doctrinal policies that exceed the 2000 BFM, the inability for a majority of IMB trustees to see that if the 2005 Private Prayer Language policy were in effect when Jerry Rankin was appointed several decades ago, Dr. Rankin would not have been appointed as a Southern Baptist missionary, would not have given years of faithful missionary service to the Lord through the Southern Baptist Convention, and would not have been elected President of the International Mission Board remains a mystery to me. I ask for the 1,000th time:

How many other Jerry Rankins are out there, otherwise qualified to serve, but are now being excluded because of the new doctrinal policies that reach beyond the 2000 BFM?

The issue for me, however, has gone way beyond Dr. Jerry Rankin. Whether he remains President of the International Mission Board for the next five years is beyond the scope of my concern. I have chosen to publicly express my objection to back door narrowing of the parameter of doctrinal cooperation through the practice of adopting 'doctrinal policies' at respective SBC agencies - WITHOUT CONVENTION APPROVAL. Soon, SBC agencies, if left unchecked, could exclude other Southern Baptists by adopting other 'doctrinal' policies that exceed the 2000 BFM - and these new policies will be over something other than the tertiary issue of whether or not a Southern Baptist prays in tongues in the privacy of his prayer closet (i.e. it could possibly be over 'particular atonment,' 'elder rule,''moderation instead of abstinence,' 'etc . . . ' )

I have voiced my concerns over the deeper issue of SBC agencies moving beyond the scope of our responsibilities by implementing 'doctrinal' policies that exceed the BFM on my blog - always in a civil manner - and simply to get people to talk about the issue. I believe I have succeeded. But because of the nature of my public criticism over a couple of new policies adopted by IMB trustees, I have been censured.

But on the other hand, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, John Floyd, who pushed the new doctrinal policies as Chairman of the IMB Personnel Committee in 2005, who is an editor of a magazine that openly criticizes IMB administrative strategy in reaching the world through Church Planting Movements, and who seemingly ignores the Southern Baptist Convention's advise to view the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as the sufficient doctrinal parameter of Southern Baptist cooperation, is not even questioned about the criticism of IMB administration in the journal he edits?

Dialogue, Debate and Civility Are All Needed

Read carefully. I am not advocating anybody else, including John Floyd, be censured. John is simply doing what he believes is best for the IMB and the SBC - as am I. To censure a Southern Baptist for public disagreement is like cursing a dog for barking. I affirm Dr. Floyd's right to criticise and question IMB strategy and IMB administration policies. We simply need Southern Baptists to see the inconsistency in allowing trustees to participate in traditional criticisms of IMB administration through phone calls, magazine articles, and private communications - but forbid any trustee from publicly questioning or criticizing trustee leadership strategy or trustee decisions. I believe John Floyd, Paige Patterson, and any other Southern Baptist should be allowed to be as critical of the IMB administration's planning and strategy as their hearts' desire. But any trustee who chooses to publicly oppose Drs. Floyd's and Patterson's respective strategies and philosophies should also be given the same freedom.

Some may not wish to grant it, but this trustee is determined to create an environment in our Convention where people are not afraid to express civil disagreement. I believe this is what the Southern Baptist Convention desires, and in time, it will occur. I am a patient man.

In His Grace,


Wade

P.S. Today is the two year anniversary of my first post. I am happy to say I have stayed the course, and after a lengthy review of everything I have written over these past two years, I can say with assurance that I have focused on the issues, and I have done a pretty decent job of not attacking people - even when the heat has been turned on me quite intensely. Most importantly, my wife says I have not lost my sense of humor. Here is to another two years of blogging in order to keep Southern Baptists informed.

Do Bible Versions Reveal Levels of Conservatism?

I received an email from a missionary that asked me a question about the International Mission Board no longer approving the New International Version for publications. It seems that field personnel in at least one particular region were told . . .

'If quoting a verse from the Book, the NIV is no longer an approved version. To simplify things at the pr office, they would like verses used in this format: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16, NASB). This is only if you are quoting a whole verse. If you are paraphrasing part of a verse, you don’t have to put the version. (This is true for all company publications—not just C’net).

These are the approved versions:

ESV – English Standard Version

HCSB – Holman Christian Standard Bible

KJV – King James Version

NASB – New American Standard Bible

NKJV – New King James Version

I immediately called the International Mission Board in Richmond, Virginia to find out if this were true. The staff and administration of the IMB were very responsive to my questions and answered them thoroughly. I encourage any Southern Baptists with questions or concerns to call the respective agency's administrative personnel. I believe you will find them responsive, as did I.

I was told that the particular email in question conveyed a much stronger statement against the New International Version than the IMB administrative staff intended. The issue is simply one of being able to check to make sure that any verse that is used in IMB publications is quoted accurately. There is a style manual that the IMB uses to ensure proper grammar, and this manual has historically contained five 'approved' versions of the Bible. Rather than adding a 'sixth,' the IMB replaced the New International Version with the Holman Christian Standard. It was not meant to be a statement 'against' the NIV. The IMB has no desire to issue 'approval' or 'disapproval' statements regarding the NIV. It is simply a matter of internal style.

However, the senior administrator who spoke with me on the phone did tell me something interesting. He said that there have been a few Southern Baptists who have complained about to the IMB administration about the use of the NIV in official publications. I didn't press him to explain the complaints or even elaborate whether or not the removal of the NIV from the style manual is a desire to avoid any future criticism, but it did give me pause to reflect.

I was given the NIV on my eighteenth birthday and memorized the entire book of Romans from the NIV. When I preached through Galatians at Emmanuel I used the NIV. Many Southern Baptist churches use pew Bibles that are NIV. The NIV has been a highly used version of the Bible by many Southern Baptists in the last half century.

Many Southern Baptists may not be aware of the King James Version Only Baptists who dot the religious landscape. Though I still preach from the King James Version, I really get chills up my spine anytime I'm around people who suggest there is an inerrant and 'inspired' English translation of the God breathed, inerrant and infallible word of God. It is obvious that the IMB administration is not KJV Only -- but I think it would be well for all of us who are Southern Baptists to be on guard against any attempt to measure one's spirituality, conservatism or dedication to Christ by what version of the Bible we use.

In His Grace,

Wade

A Patrick Henry Colloquy for the SBC: "We Shall Grant Liberty, Or We Shall Be Given Death"

No man thinks more highly than I do of the Southern Baptist Convention, as well as the abilities of the very worthy men and women who compose our local Southern Baptist churches. Believers often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those Southern Baptists who view things differently if I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for pretense or ceremony. The question before our convention is one of serious consequences for our future. For my own part, I consider the issue as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the vigor of the debate. Forthright debate is the only way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and to fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, or worse, creating enemies of friends, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my God and of an act of disloyalty toward His kingdom, which I revere above all earthly honors or religious positions.

It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this wise for pastors engaged in a great and arduous struggle for the liberty wherein Christ has set us free? Are we to be counted in the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which shall bring about our destruction? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. We are in danger of exalting certain recent denominational traditions and Baptist shibboleths above the sacred Word of God.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of God’s word. I know of no way for judging any future course of action but by the sacred text. I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the leaders of our convention for the last ten years to justify the hopes of many that we are becoming a kinder, more focused convention with an aim toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission? Is it simply the proclamation that our convention is more missions oriented that convinces you? Words become simply a snare to your feet when you are led down paths that words have not constructed.

Ask yourselves how gracious proclamations of the desire to win the lost square with the repeated removal from ministry of those otherwise God-called and qualified Southern Baptist missionaries and leaders for tertiary issues which have nothing to do with the gospel. Are demands for conformity and separation for reasons of differences over tertiary issues necessary to a work of missions’ cooperation and world evangelism? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled followers of Jesus Christ and lovers of His Word that brute force must be called in to win back our alleged unity? Let us not deceive ourselves. Any attempt at bringing Baptists into subjugation over tertiary doctrinal matters is the last argument to which those who desire a creedal denomination resort. What does the effort to move our agencies beyond the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 mean, if its purpose be not to force us into spiritual submission and bondage? Can anyone rationally assign any other possible motive for it? Has the Southern Baptist Convention any enemy within her walls to call for all this accumulation of extra-biblical and extra-BFM 2000 demands for conformity? She has none. Any religious tradition or shibboleth that would bring Southern Baptists into a form of spiritual bondage is simply meant for those who live their lives free from the religious chains of man-made tradition.

Demands for tertiary doctrinal conformity are an effort to bind and rivet upon us those chains which Southern Baptist fundamentalism has taken so long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? We have been trying that for the last two years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been rejected as troublemaking. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? Of course, and we shall never exhaust it, but I beseech you all that we not deceive ourselves. We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have pleaded; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne of God, we have passed motions at the Southern Baptist Convention, and we have stood strong in the face of severe persecution at the hands of those who felt their positions threatened. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from many who see themselves as the doctrinal watchdogs and guardians of our convention. We must think carefully about indulging the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is but a little room for hope.

If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending as Southern Baptists--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged to exalt Christ, and evangelical cooperation around His Word, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious coming of our Lord Jesus Christ--we must redouble our efforts! I repeat it, to everyone, we must redouble our efforts! An appeal for participation at all levels of Southern Baptist life and an appeal to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us that we are weak, short in number, and unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we have totally lost our sense of mission, and when a denominational doctrinal watchdog shall be stationed in every church? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by looking solely at our individual churches and hugging the shadow of personal comforts, until our enemies shall have bound us into legalism and religious bondage hand and foot? We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The thousands upon thousands of Southern Baptist pastors and people, armed in the holy cause of gospel liberty, and in such a convention as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which can be sent against us. Besides, we are not alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and religious conventions, and Who will raise providential circumstances to aid us in our goal. He is zealous for the honor of His Son and His Son’s Bride, and shall not allow religious entity to subvert either. The struggle for the soul of our convention is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, we have no choice. If we were foolish enough to desire leave of the struggle, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but into spiritual submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Fort Worth and Louisville! The day of decision is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat, let it come.

It is in vain to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The next gale that sweeps from the north in Indianapolis will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that we wish? Liberty! What would they have? Bondage! Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! Victory in the struggle for the soul of our convention means that all Southern Baptists will be granted liberty in the non-essentials. Defeat means our certain death as a cooperating convention for the cause of Christ and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. In short, we shall grant liberty, or we shall be given death.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Wording, style, and major theme from Patrick Henry's speech at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, on March 23, 1775.

Christ Alone Gives the Authority to Baptize

Kevin Sanders is a missionary, the author of Kevsworld and a fellow Southern Baptist who works among the people in the Philippines. Kevin has a heart for the lost and has provided for us an illustration, from the mission field, on how a non-Biblical understanding of baptism can be harmful.

Wade,

You are 100% correct about this baptism issue. It has impacted us directly here in Manila, Philippines. I'll explain:

Last year, one of our students came to know Christ as a result of our campus
evangelism (for those who are not familiar with us, we do campus-based evangelism and discipleship). This student joined one of our campus cell groups, and they eventually studied our lesson on baptism. We teach baptism as a step of obedience to Christ, not as a way to join a church or denomination. This student gladly agreed to be baptized.

We usually do our baptisms at the swimming pool here at my apartment building. We do a simple “ceremony”: we give the students some final instructions, pray for them, then precede with baptism by immersion. Afterwards we give the students a Bible. Normally whoever leads the student to Christ is the one to do the baptism. It is also normal for the student’s friends or cell group members to be present.

This student wanted to attend a Baptist church where one of her friends attends. We encouraged this because we want her to be connected to a Christian church (she would also be welcome at our worship service). Here's the problem: the Baptist church she attends initially wanted to re-baptize her.

Their argument was that she was not baptized under the "authority" of any church. I explained to the student that the Great Commission (among other Scriptures) was our authority for doing the baptism. I also wrote a letter and baptism certificate to the church, explaining that she had been scripturally baptized (although I still don’t understand why the student’s testimony alone was not enough). The church has since backed down a little, but it still remains to be seen if they will fully accept her as a member without another baptism.

Some may argue that she should just get baptized again. Well, this is short-sighted. What happens when she wants to share her testimony to other students? What happens if she wants to teach them about baptism? Won't students be confused when she tells them she was baptized three times (infant baptism and two believer's baptisms)? Will she teach baptism as a step of obedience to Christ or as a “Baptist membership” requirement? Such issues could seriously hinder the work of God on our campuses.

I recently had a long talk with this student. It turns out that this particular church is an independent Baptist church with some legalistic practices (KJV only; etc). We discussed several issues and hopefully I’ve helped her to distinguish biblical principles from legalistic practices.

Where did this church inherit such Landmark theology and legalistic tendencies? Most likely from American missionaries! Is this the kind of thing that Southern Baptists also want to propagate to other countries? Recent IMB policies are pointing us in that direction.

I live in a country where people are bogged down by man-made religious traditions. I find it painfully ironic that I now have to deal with this same issue from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Kevin Sanders

Well said Kevin. Go give him a visit at Kevsworld

In His Grace,

Wade

Why Some Baptists Stumble Regarding Baptism

I have repeatedly said over the last several months that some Southern Baptists are attempting to push our convention to a completely erroneous and faulty view of baptism. A few get upset when I identify the faulty view as 'Landmarkism,' so I will attempt to highlight the concerns I have without the nomenclature in this post.

There is a very subtle and dangerous movement within the Southern Baptist Convention to make people accept the belief that baptism is the 'door of entry' into the local church. In other words, some are teaching the false doctrine that when a person is baptized he 'joins' the local church. This view is dangerous because it is a distorted view of the teaching of Scripture, it erroneously identifies believer's baptism with the believer's relationship to the 'church' rather than to Christ, and causes proponents of this view to have a very narrow, sectarian view of what constitutes a 'true' and suitable church in which a Christian ought to be baptized (i.e. 'only in a Southern Baptist church or one like it').

This view is so historically non-Baptist it is reflection of our poor understanding of our own history as Baptists that anyone would even begin to think this view even approach being biblical. Rev. Samuel Howard Ford, LL.D., the 19th Century Southern Baptist pastor and editor of The Western Recorder has written a clear, concise and corrective article on this subject. Dr. Ford was a Hebrew and Syriac scholar and one of our forefathers who ought to respected and heard. My father recently reminded me of this article on the subject of "Does Baptism Admit to Membership in a Gospel Church" and I offer to every Southern Baptist pastor as the definitive answer to anyone who would attempt to make you believe it does.

Does Baptism Admit To Membership In A Gospel Church?
By Samuel H. Ford, 1899

We must turn to the other general misconception of what constitutes a person a member of the church of Christ.

The Reformers, and Protestants generally, with all their apologies for and explanations of the term invisible as meaning the unseen work or "door" into that church, fell back on the patristic doctrine that "The Sacrament of Baptism was the door into the church" with no term to distinguish it. "In baptism wherein I was made a member of the Church," read the Episcopal Catechism, "whereby they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church." But we need not quote from the confessions and disciplines of the Protestant communions to prove this. It is admitted by {them} that Baptism admits into, or is the door into the Church.

Now, according to the teachings of the {New} Testament and the essential nature of and obligations of church membership, this (which some Baptists hold) is a misconception.

Dr. Dagg has well said: "Baptism is not like the Lord's Supper, a sacred rite. It signifies the fellowship of individual believers with Christ, not the fellowship of believers with one another. The obligation to be baptized is independent of the obligations to form sacred relations, and is prior [to it]. Baptism is therefore a qualification for admission into a church of external organization, but it does not confer membership." (in J. L. Reynolds', Church Polity..., p.48.)

The plain statement in regard to the church in Jerusalem should at once end all controversy about this: "They that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Not that all these were baptized on that same day. Many, perhaps most of them, may have been baptized previously, but they were added to the church in fellowship. Baptism, as well as conversion, or receiving the word, was an indispensable prerequisite, but neither the one nor the other added these thousands, nor Lydia, nor the Jailer, nor the Eunuch, to the church. This was a distinct thing -- the expression of fellowship and assumption of mutual covenant obligations.

If the following condensed objection to the general record, especially of pedo-baptists, be considered, we feel assured that the dogma of baptism, as the door into the church, will be abandoned.

1st. If baptism be the door into the Christian church, then all whom John baptized (allowing his baptism to be Gospel baptism) were, by the reception of this ordinance, made members of some church; but no such intimation is given in the Scriptures. The object of John's baptism is declared to be, "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

2nd. If baptism be the door into the church then there is no such thing as putting a person out of the church; for in order to do this, he must be unbaptized, But his cannot be done.

3rd. If baptism be the door into the church, can one person constitute a church? The Christian public have answered, "no." And, "no" responds {in} every passage of the divine oracles, wherever the name church is mentioned. To what church, then, did the first disciple, whom John baptized, belong? To what church, the first, in every instance, where none had been previously constituted? The answer is obvious, "to no church." If then, the first person, whom John baptized, was not, by the reception of this ordinance, constituted a member of some church; the second was not, nor the third, nor any subsequent subject.

4th. In the account of the Eunuch's baptism, Acts 8, no mention is made of his being added to any particular church; nor have we any reason to believe, that he considered the ordinance in this light. Indeed, as he was traveling, and at considerable distance from his own country, such a relation, if we suppose it to have been consummated at that time, could be of but little avail to him. Nor, is there anything in the account of other baptisms, which make this an initiatory ordinance, or door into the church. It is said, Acts 2:41: "Then they that gladly received the word, were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." In the 47th verse: "And the Lord added to the church daily, such as should be saved." But how were they added? Here we are not informed. We are told, "they that gladly received the word were baptized," that, "they were added to the disciples" and the Lord, "added to the church;" but, it is not said, that they were added "by baptism," any more than "by gladly receiving the word." Both were prerequisites; but neither initiatory.

If then, baptism be not the door into the visible church of Christ, it may be asked, "What is? We answer, nothing more nor less, than fellowship. By fellowship we are admitted; and by disfellowship, we are excluded. "Is then a person, who is received into fellowship as a Christian, to be considered as a church member?" We answer, no; but he must be fellowshipped, as an orthodox, baptized, and regular Christian.

We have endeavored to state as clearly and briefly as we could the two errors -- the one of the Protestants, the other of the Romanists, in regard to what constitutes any one a member of a church. The one affirmed that it was the internal work of grace, the other that it was the sacrament -- baptism. The first, however, was so explained as to mean admission into an "invisible church," because the "door," or that which conferred membership, was invisible. This was borne out by the presence of sponsors, who answered for the infant: "I believe, I renounce the devil," etc., and then as by this profession of faith FOR the infant, who, already a member of the invisible church, was baptized as the door into the actual one.

O, it's all wrong, unscriptural, misleading, and absurd. A church of Christ is a company of baptized believers in faith and fellowship, united to edify each other, and advance the cause and kingdom of Christ. Nothing else is a church.

[From a microfilm copy of the Christian Repository, November 1899, pp. 652-4.}

It is absolutely essential that Southern Baptists return to our historic roots and a Biblical perspective on baptism and steadfastly resist any temptation to move beyond our BFM 2000 on the requisites for Christian baptism.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Line Has Been Drawn for Us in the SBC

This morning I was returning to Enid from delivering a couple of books to my friend Harold Holden, whose studio is located north of town, when I noticed a new sign on the side of Highway 81 about five miles north of the city limits of Enid.

The sign said:

The Historic Missouri Compromise Line of 1820
36°30' Latitude

I had forgotten that the Missouri Compromise Line reached into modern day Oklahoma (what was in 1820 part of Arkansas Territory).

The Missouri Compromise was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The free states were becoming concerned that too many slave states were being entered into the union, and the balance was shifting toward slavery because of the number of congressional delegates from these new slave states. The Missouri Compromise insured that any new states from the Western Territories would be free states.

The little strip of what we now call Northern Oklahoma, where slavery was forbidden, is where I live. Even when Congress created Indian Territory, slavery was barred in the land of the red people north of the 36°30' Missouri Compromise line (the Choctaw word for 'land of red people' is "Oklahoma").

In an April 22, 1820 letter to John Holmes, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the division of the country created by the Compromise line would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union. He predicted, forty years before it occurred, what we know as the Civil War. Jefferson wrote:

"... (This Compromise), like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."

Pay close attention to Jefferson's words: A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.

I believe there are some extraordinary parallels with the 1820 Missouri Compromise and the 2007 SBC. A line has been drawn in the sand and many in the SBC are saying, "You will go no further in an attempt to enslave us to your views on secondary and tertiary matters." The angry passions of men and women have been aroused and every new irritation seems to make the division only deeper.

How will it end? Only the Lord knows, but it is my prayer that rather than a civil war, Southern Baptists will be able to move forward in a spirit of cooperation as we fulfill our gospel mission. But make no mistake - the line has been drawn - and it is effectively known as the Garner motion.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

My Commitment Not To Exclude The SBC Minority

_______________________________________________

Now that Lifeway has affirmed that my views on the gifts of the Spirit are held by the majority of Southern Baptist pastors and churches, I affirm my commitment to not remove those Southern Baptists who hold to the minority view of cessationism from future SBC leadership, missionary assignments, or trustee service.

There is room in the SBC for us all, even those of you who disagree with what the majority of Southern Baptists believe. By the way, I have a tendency to put more trust in a Lifeway study - an official, scientific survey of the 'majority opinion' - than I do a subjective fiat from an institutional leader of what 'most' Southern Baptists believe. Of course, some might now argue that the 'majority' opinion is not what counts, but what Scripture teaches. I think I have proven over the last two years that this doctrine of 'gifts' is a tertiary issue, one in which Southern Baptists disagree, but one over which we as Southern Baptists should not divide. However, I happen to believe the majority have it right as far as our interpretation. But I say to those of you in the minority, there is room for you in the SBC.

I promise not to make the gifts an issue.

Now that Lifeway has revealed the actual majority position on 'private prayer language,' I call upon all of you who are also in the majority to join me in not seeking to remove 'cessationists' from leadership. I love all my fellow Southern Baptists and will work hard to maintain a spirit of cooperation and fellowship with those SBC brothers and sisters who hold to the minority viewpoint.

Amen?

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

P.S. Alan Cross has written a brilliant analysis on this survey.

Solid Food For Thought from Drs. Luter and Storms

I have had a very long week and a long day of travel home from Kansas City. There are several very interesting posts that I will publish next week about the time in KC. The commissioning service brings tears to my eyes every time I see all the missionaries lined up giving their testimonies, and the service Wednesday night was no different. Further reflections will be forthcoming after the first of the week. Until then, I have chosen to post two comments on yesterday's post, one from Dr. Sam Storms, and the other from Dr. Boyd Luter. Both comments are worthy of serious reflection. The issue over the adoption of the new guidelines at the IMB is over. These men's comments are posted to help you understand some of the larger issues that will be coming before the convention at large.

Dr Sam Storm's Comment

Wade and others,

I am not writing to address the denominational or political issues that are provoked by the recent decision of the IMB. My aim is simply to address what I perceive to be the theological naiveté and exegetical imprecision of the IMB statement posted on your blog.

Several points need to be made.

First, in its statement on Glossolalia the “Guideline” affirms that glossolalia “is considered to be a legitimate language.” This isn’t at all helpful, given the fact that most Continuationists acknowledge that all glossolalia is linguistic in nature. All tongues speech, whether exercised in public or private, is “language” that communicates cognitive content. The Apostle Paul makes this clear when he declares that the one who speaks in a tongue speaks “to God” (1 Cor. 14:2) and in doing so prays (1 Cor. 14:14), praises (1 Cor. 14:15), and gives thanks (1 Cor. 14:16). Praying, praising, and giving thanks are all meaningful, substantive communication between the believer and God. So yes, of course tongues is a “legitimate language.” But what this statement fails to address is whether the language is human, such as Russian or Chinese or English, or a language of heaven or an angelic dialect or a uniquely spiritual language constructed by God to constitute this particular spiritual gift.

Second, the Board refers to “ecstatic utterances” in spite of the fact that nowhere in the New Testament is this vocabulary used of tongues speech. Why is it so difficult for the IMB Board or Christians in general to recognize that tongues speech is not ecstatic? It never has been. It never will be. Nowhere in the NT portrayal of tongues speech, whether public or private, is it ever described as entailing the loss of control, loss of consciousness, loss of awareness of one’s surroundings, or loss of will on the part of the one speaking. Tongues speech in the NT never entails the individual experiencing some sort of altered state of consciousness or disengagement with his/her surroundings. May I ask that we all, once and for all, drop the adjective “ecstatic” from our descriptions of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. I make this appeal to Continuationists and Cessationists alike.

Third, the Board stated that according to the New Testament “prayer is to be made with understanding.” This also is ambiguous and misleading, and in one particular case, patently false. My first response is to ask, “Whose understanding?” Is the Board saying that the person praying must have understanding of what he is saying? In all instances of prayer, except for the gift of tongues, the biblical answer to that question is Yes! But the very nature of tongues as a spiritual gift is that one is enabled to pray and praise in a “language” (whether human, heavenly, or angelic) that one does NOT understand. That is why God graciously and appropriately provides the spiritual gift of interpretation. If the person praying always and automatically understands what he/she is praying via tongues, what would be the point or need for the gift of interpretation? What would be the point of Paul exhorting those who pray in tongues to pray also that they may interpret (1 Cor. 14:13)? If they necessarily always understand what they are praying, interpretation would be superfluous.

On the other hand, perhaps the Board was referring to the understanding of others, those who hear someone pray. If that is what they meant, then I agree. So does Paul, which is why he always insisted on interpretation if tongues is used in public. Without interpretation, no one understands, neither the speaker nor the listener. And without understanding there can be no edification (1 Cor. 14:2,5,27-28) for others in the body of Christ (although the person praying in tongues is still edified; see 1 Cor. 14:4). This is the reason for Paul’s meticulous regulation of the use of tongues in public. It is wonderful for tongues to be used in public IF and ONLY IF there is interpretation. In the absence of interpretation, it must be restricted to one’s private “prayer closet” (so to speak).

Look carefully at 1 Cor. 14:14-15. Paul says that when he prays in a tongue his s/Spirit prays but his mind is unfruitful. That is to say, he is praying well enough but neither he nor anyone who might be listening understands (this is what Paul means by the word “unfruitful”). What then should Paul (and we) do? According to the IMB, he should keep his mouth shut. Since there is no understanding, Paul should never again pray in tongues, either in public or private, and he should prohibit all others from the same. But that’s not what Paul concludes! Keep reading. He says: “What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit [i.e., in tongues], but I will pray with my mind also [i.e., in the vernacular, so that all can understand]; I will sing praise with my spirit [this is simply tongues speech put to music or melody], but I will sing with my mind also [as do we all when we sing hymns and psalms, etc.]” (v. 15).

The IMB is under the mistaken assumption that for any experience to be beneficial it must occur via the cerebral cortex of the brain. They seem to believe any experience that transcends the rational comprehension of the person in whom it is happening is useless. Paul disagrees! He obviously believed that it was possible for the human spirit to commune and communicate with the Divine Spirit in a way that transcends rational comprehension. However, he also believed that if no one is present to interpret such “speech” for the edification of other believers that the person with tongues should keep silent in the corporate assembly.

So, as you can see, I don’t think the IMB is going to progress very far in this matter until they come to grips with the actual language of Paul concerning tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. Blessings to all!

Sam

Dr. Boyd Luter's Comment

Wade and others,

Sam had a lot of solid exegetical insight to offer, but it is not going to change the decision of the IMB BoT. They do not appear to be willing to listen to a critique of their supposed exegetical basis at this time. Rather, they are comfortable in the fact that those who have been their behind the scenes advisors in this process are curently willing to sign off on what is now commonly called 'Semi-cessationism' (see my further explanation below), if for no other reason than they believe that they can make the same stand over Charismatic Continuationist candidates as they could with a full Cessationist position.

But, I honestly believe that there is a "the glass if half full perspective" that is worth noting here, to at least partly balance the large number of "the glass is half empty" opinions that have been expressed. Here it is: for the first time, there is an official statement that recognizes that some kind of "tongues" (i.e., glossalalia) do in fact exist.

Yes, the way things are worded in point 3 and the applicational angles are highly skeptical. But, points 1 and 2 add up to the recognition that there is, in fact, biblical reason to believe that there is a legitimate form of tongues at work in the world today.

What does that mean from a "glass is half full" perspective? Even though, in the IMB BoT's view, there is much out there that is not legit. tongues, THERE IS AlSO SOME THAT IS. In other words, the wording of their statement can be just as accurately described as "Semi-Continuationist" as it is "Semi-Cessationist" (since the prefixed 'semi-' means "having some of the characteristics of"). That is why, when I did my presentation in Arlington, even though I used the common term "Semi-Cessationist," I also put in parentheses "Skeptical Continuationist?". You see, the view reflected in the IMB BoT decision is at least as much akin to the Continuationist side of the aisle as it is to Cessationist side EXEGETICALLY, though not ATTITUDINALY. The door has been opened to some degree from an exegetical standpoint (i.e., mild Continuationism), but there is skepticism attitudinally (i.e., practical Cessationism).

Think about this and gain perspective: the Conservative Resurgence saw conservatives calling the other bunch Liberals, which they felt was MORE ACCURATE, when they wanted to be called Moderates and the broader group calling their opponents Fundamentalists, which they felt was MORE ACCURATE, when the other bunch insisted on calling themselves Evangelicals. Similarly, is it really in any way inaccurate to call the newly expressed IMB BoT position Semi-Continuationism (or Skeptical Continuationism)? After all, their statement clearly allows for the continuation of tongues, though the application quibbles about the legitimacy of its its manifestations.

What an amazing thing? To be able to construct what they fell is a safe 'fall-back position' biblically, the IMB BoT had to slide across to a view that, exegetically, is at least equally Continuationist as it is Cessationist. Their application of their exegesis is indeed inconsistent (and tragically so for certain missions candidates). But, even if unintentionally, the exegetical ground beneath the controversy within the SBC has clearly shifted in a positive direction, just not far enough (yet).

Call me an "optimist" if you like, but I'm not a "blind optimist"--I'm a "see the big picture" optimist." Something of a significant incremental nature happened right under our eyes and, because it wasn't all some people wanted to see, they missed it completely.

Boyd

Good insight from two brilliant Southern Baptist theologians.

Have a Great Weekend!


Wade

IMB Policies Now Guidelines: Tuesday at the IMB

Yesterday, May 8, 2007 was a very busy day. In subsequent days I will post reflections on . . . (1). A visit to FBC, Independence, Missouri and her pastor, Dr. Kevin Payne, (2). A trip to the Harry S. Truman homeplace and Presidential Library and Museum (May 8 is the late President's birthday), (3). A great time of fellowship with Dr. Sam Storms of Kansas City and an experience of midnight worship with about 250 young people at the Kansas City International House of Prayer. IHOP began this 24/7 worship and prayer meeting on May 7, 1999 and it has continued unbroken, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week for a total of eight years. Many thousands of young people have been pulled off the streets, converted from backgrounds of drug abuse, and now serve the KC community through IHOP. It may not be how you or I would do ministry, but one has to admire what God has done through IHOP and Pastor Mike Bickle to bring thousands to Christ, including many Kansas City Chiefs professional football players. (4). I will also post about one of the strangest conversations I have ever had with another human being. It was with a man who is a high priest in the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints -- now called "The Community of Christ" and it took place at the RCLDS headquartered outside Kansas City -- a conversation that led me to witness to this high priest on the essential nature of the atonement of Christ.

But the important information for today is what happened in the trustee plenary session of the International Mission Board on Tuesday night, May 8, at 6:30 p.m. at the Hilton Airport Hotel in Kansas City. Trustees approved the following report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Tongues and Baptism.

Report of the Mission Personnel Ad Hoc Committee
May 2007

In March of 2006 an ad hoc committee of Mission Personnel Committee received the charge to revisit the approved board policy on tongues and prayer language and the approved board guideline on baptism, both adopted in November 2005. The ad hoc committee has met over the past year during board meetings as well as a two-day special meeting to consider the vast amount of material gathered from leaders, scholars, and pastors across our denomination. The committee solicited this material in an attempt to be faithful to its task. The committee has also spent considerable time praying, fasting, and seeking God’s heart on these issues. The committee has no desire to create further controversy. Rather, our desire is to bring this study to completion and allow the board to maintain its focus upon our world mission task.

The ad hoc committee has concluded that even though field related data and consultation with regional leaders has not indicated a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel, the rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on the new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates. Furthermore, the diversity of denominational backgrounds among missionary candidates requires a clear baptism guideline to guide the work of our candidate consultants as they consider the qualifications of candidates.

Therefore, we recommend that the full board adopt the following two guidelines to replace Policy 200-15 and Guideline 200-3a. The Mission Personnel Committee approved this recommendation on March 20, 2007 by a three-fourths majority.

Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language

GLOSSOLALIA

1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language.
2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.
3. In terms of worship practices, if glossolalia is a public part of the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 & 2 above, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

PRAYER LANGUAGE

1. Any spiritual experience must be tested by Scriptures.
2. New Testament teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3. The board is not persuaded that ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer.
4. Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterances as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

APPLICATION

1. This guideline is not retroactive.
2. Any exceptions to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.

Proposed Guideline on Baptism

THAT each candidate’s baptismal experience be examined, during the application process, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message statement and the points listed below:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VII


POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS

1. The individual

a. Believer’s baptism by immersion.
Baptism by immersion follows salvation.
b. Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.
Baptism does not regenerate.

2. The Church

a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of a believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.

b. A candidate who has not been baptized under the authority of a local church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his or her Southern Bapist church.

3. The Candidate

The candidate is responsible for requesting their home church to assist them in meeting this doctrinal commitment to the above points.


4. The Consultant

While the candidate consultant should have a working knowledge of many denominational groups, he or she is not expected to investigate every church.

APPLICATION

1. The guideline is not retroactive.
Any exception to the above guideline must be reviewed by staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.

(End of Ad Hoc Committee Report)

The debate that occurred on the adoption of these guidelines was cordial. People spoke on both sides of the issue. After about 45 minutes of debate, the guidelines were approved. Because of the vote tonight, the former policy on private prayer language is now, with the baptism guideline, a guideline, and not a policy.

I spoke only once during the debate and made the following two points and concluded my remarks by asking a question of Paul Chitwood, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee.

The First Point I Made: The rationale for the guidelines states that there is not 'a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel', but the committee felt it necessary to adopt the private prayer language guideline. I pointed out that The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the Abstract of Principles, and the 1925 and 1963 Baptist Faith and Message are all silent regarding a specific interpretation on the gifts of the Spirit, and to go beyond our major confessions and demand a specific doctrinal interpretation on a matter not addressed in the BFM should be the sole responsibility of our entire convention, and not the trustees of the IMB. I also expressed concern that we were being asked to vote on the guidelines without hearing from the Regional Leaders of the IMB on what they thought of the new policies. One trustee, John Click of Kansas, had asked, prior to me speaking, that Rodney Hammer, a Regional Leader for the IMB be allowed to speak, but the chair ruled that request out of order. John Floyd was very gracious in his spirit when he ruled the motion out of order, but I was confused as to why it was said there was no 'systemic problem,' and the RL's were not allowed to address the full trustee board before we voted, but yet we felt the need to establish a guideline prohibiting 'prayer language' from those wishing to serve as missionaries for the SBC. I asked, again, if it was wise for us as a trustee board, or any SBC board for that matter, to press beyond our confessional statement and exclude people who affirm the BFM 2000, but disagree on specific interpretations of doctrines not addressed by the BFM 2000. If a ban of private prayer language is needed on DOCTRINAL grounds, since there is no anecdotal evidence that a problem exists on the field among personnel, then maybe we should wait for the SBC to speak on the matter.

The Second Point I Made: I also said that though the baptism guideline was worded better than the original one voted on in November 2005, the new baptism guideline, unfortunately, still made the baptism of a believer an identification with a specific church and not Jesus Christ. However, since there was no alternative to the proposed guidelines, nor a recommendation to rescind the November 2005 policies, at least it was a step in the right direction. I, again, cautioned us as trustees that implementing any doctrinal standard that exceeds the BFM, though we can do it as trustees, just might not be the wisest thing to do.

I then asked my question:

What is the difference between a policy and a guideline?

Dr. Floyd pointed out that this question was asked yesterday, and then said, "Wade, you must have not been in the meeting to hear the answer." I didn't have the heart to tell Dr. Floyd publicly that I was in the meeting, and it was I who had asked the question yesterday, but the question and response occured in the closed door forum, and it was best for us as a convention that the answer be on the record since other Southern Baptists could not hear the answer in the closed door meeting.

Matt Bristol, Attorney for the IMB was called upon to answer the question, as he was also asked to do in the forum yesterday. He said a policy is 'dogmatic' and a 'guideline' is flexible in its implementation. Later, the attorney said that functionally there was no difference, but that the word guideline conveys a spirit of flexibility (the word he wished to emphasize) in the application of the policy.

After further discussion, all in a good spirit, the vote was taken and the new 'guidelines' passed.

I have tried to give you simply the facts of what occurred without going into any commentary. I am pleased, however, that progress is being made to understand that there are different viewpoints on these matters within the SBC and for us to function as a cooperating convention, we must not exclude anyone from missionary cooperation and participation those who disagree on tertiary doctrines like the authority of the baptizer and the importance of what a person does in his private prayer closet.

All the officers of the IMB were reelected without opposition.

I pray that we as trustees of the IMB will put this matter behind us, focus on the mission challenges ahead of us, and trust that, in the providence of God, all that has occurred in these last two years on the board has been good and healthy for us all.

I'll blog tomorrow night about the most important part of this trustee meeting -- the commissioning service.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Can Continuationists and Cessationists Co-Exist in the Southern Baptist Convention? Dr. Boyd Luter

Dr. Boyd Luter, former dean of Criswell College, a highly respected New Testament and theological scholar within the Southern Baptist Convention, and currently a pastor in the SBCT of Texas, has given me permission to publish his recent presentation on the subject 'Can Continuationists and Cessationists Co-Exist in the Same Church and in the Southern Baptist Convention?' I found Dr. Luter's presentation on cooperation in the SBC among those with different views on the gifts to be the most cogent, practical and balanced view on the subject I have seen. If everyone thought like Dr. Luter and valued missions cooperation and living peacably among people with various theological views as he does, there would be no controversy in our convention over the issue of private prayer language.

CAN CONTINUALISTS AND CESSATIONISTS
CO-EXIST IN THE SAME CHURCH
AND IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION?

A. Boyd Luter, Ph.D., Pastor
Comal Country Church (SBTC)
New Braunfels/Canyon Lake, Texas

My simple up-front answer to the questions in the assigned title of this session is “It depends… .” Previewing the areas I will be discussing before directly answering each question in more depth, it is my carefully considered conclusion that whether the wider groupings called “Continualists” and “Cessationists” can co-exist in the same local church or in the S.B.C. depends largely on three factors:

(1). What flavor of Continuationist or Cessationist you are.

(2). What kind of doctrinal statement you have (with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 notable here) and how such a statement functions in regard to the biblical ideal of 'unity in the faith' (Ephesians 4:2-3).

(3). What you understand 'co-exist' to mean and how you relate to the biblical priority of 'the unity of hte Spirit' (Eph. 4:2-3).

I. IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CATEGORIES:

BLACK AND WHITE AND SHADES OF GRAY

The title assigned to this session might leave the impression that all persons holding either of these two viewpoints are in more or less complete agreement. That would be a major misunderstanding. Allow me to briefly define the general categories, then fill in a number of shade distinctions that have been—or should be—made, which will help us greatly in answering our two questions with adequate perspective:

GENERAL DEFINITIONS

- Continualist: Believes all spiritual gifts have continually operated in church history (including, for some who use this term, revelation equal in authority with Scripture)

- Continuationist: Believes all spiritual gifts have continued through church history, even if not found in every generation.(Note: Dr. Luter points out that he prefers the term 'continuationist' over continualist to distinguish those who believe in the 'continuation' of the gifts but would never put any current revelation on par with inspired Scripture -- the position of most SBC continuationists).

- Cessationist: Believes sign gifts' ceased either at the end of the apostolic era or in early church history.

- Semi-Cessationist (or “Skeptical Continuationist?”): Believes the gift of speaking in tongues is a known language and very rare.

SHADES OF DISTINCTION

- Complete Cessationist: Believes all spiritual gifts ceased.

- Dogmatic Continuationist: Believes anyone who does not believe that all spiritual gifts continue is unspiritual (and may not be Christian).

- Dogmatic Cessationist: Believes anyone who believes that the sign gifts continue is either emotionally/psychologically unstable, demonically influenced, or faking it.

- Cautious Continuationist: Believes all spiritual gifts continue, but not all manifestations are of the Lord.

- Non-Charismatic Continuationist: Believes all spiritual gifts continue, but has not experienced, or possibly not even observed, charismatic gifts in use.

- Open Cessationist: Does not believe the sign gifts continue, but is willing to rethink with persuasive evidence.

THE POLARIZING POSITIONS ON THE GIFTS

Continualism, Full Cessationism, Dogmatic Continuationism, Dogmatic Cessationism.

When people in leadership hold either one of these for views, it polarizes the agency, institution or church because the doctrinal relationship with others is too far apart to even dialogue. In fact, proponents of the four views above erect 'straw men' to win their arguments.

THE FLEXIBLE POSITIONS ON THE GIFTS

Cautious Continuationism, Open Cessationism, Non-Charismatic Continuationsim, Semi-Cessationism

These positions are close enough to each other, and open enough to dialogue with others to understand and learn.

(1). The polarizing views on the gifts, listed above, are held by people who often seem to have one of two attitudes: Others must buy their view 'hook, line and sinker' or the views of those who hold to a different belief must be dismissed by 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater.'

(2). The flexible views on the gifts, as listed above, are held by people who seem to want 'to save the baby and throw out the dirty bathwater.'

II. DOCTRINAL STATEMENTS SPEAKING ON THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION:
“UNITY IN THE FAITH”

- Abstract of Principles (1858): It is silent on spiritual gifts.

- 1925 Baptist Faith and Message: The same wording used as the Abstract of Principles

- 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (Amended 1998): "[The Holy Spirit] bestows the spiritual gifts by which [believers] serve God through the church."

- 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (2000): The same wording is used as that in the BFM 1963.

CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES ON THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF BFM 2000 SINCE ITS PASSAGE

Whatever “unity in the faith” BFM2000 seemed to provide for conservative Southern Baptists when it was overwhelmingly passed, there have developed significantly conflicting “takes” on the authority/parameters of BFM2000 since then

Dr. Al Mohler (BFM 2000 Committee Member: June 14, 2000) - "This statement is a regulative document for use by the agencies and institutions and seminaries . . . The Convention has said, 'This is what we believe' and we expect that those who serve our agencies to believe this . . . The individual boarrds of trustees have taken that action as a matter of accountability and faithfulness to the Convention." (Notice: The BFM is 'regulative.' Since the BFM is worded so that different views on the gifts are acceptable, cooperation should not be determined based upon conformity to specific interpretations on the gifts).

IMB TRUSTEES (Fall of 2005, following the NAMB policy) - Outlaws the use of private prayer language by missionary candidates as 'policy.'

SWBTS TRUSTEESS (Fall of 2006) - Outlaws the encouragement of and the employment of professors and adminstrators with a private prayer language as 'policy.'

SBC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (February of 2007) - "While not a 'complete statement of faith,' the BFM 2000 is 'the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies . . ."

Note: The SBC Executive Committee seems to issue a caution to SBC boards and agencies. At the very least, the questions raised are these:

(1). Is the BFM 2000 really the sufficient (SBC Executive Committee wording), regulative document (Mohler's wording) that provide 'unity in the faith' for Southern Baptists, or nothing more than an agreed-upon miminal doctrinal framework?

(2). Even if it is permissible for SBC entity trustees to make de facto doctrinal additions to the BFM 2000 through 'policy' is it wise and - more important - is it in keeping with the expectation of 'accountability and faithfulness' to the Convention at large?

III. CAN CONTINUATIONISTS AND CESSATIONISTS CO-EXIST IN THE
SAME (LOCAL) CHURCH OR CONVENTION?: “THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT”

Before briefly reviewing the above discussions for their helpfulness in answering the first question in our session title, it remains for us to define “co-exist.” There are two widely-held definitions of the word:

TWO WIDELY HELD DEFINITIONS OF 'CO-EXIST'

(1). To exist together, at the same time and place.

(2). To live in peace with another or others despite differences.

"With all humility and gentleness, with patience, accepting one another in love, diligently keeping the unity of hte Spirit with the peac that binds us" (Ephesians 4:2-3 HCSB).

REASONS CONTINUATIONISTS AND CESSATIONISTS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CO-EXIST IN THE SAME CONVENTION OR CHURCH

(1). Leadership holds an inflexible and polarized attitude toward the gifts.

(2). Leadership is unquestionably top-heavily controlled and totally dominated numerically by a polarizing position on the gifts.

(3). The convention's or church's doctrinal position is a narrow, polarized statement on gifts.

(4). A doctrinal amendment would be sought, either through back-door policy, or convention wide through the BFM 2000, that would take a polarized position on the gifts.

(5). The convention's or church's approach to 'co-existence' is unloving isolation of anyone in disagreement with the power brokers.

(6). If the Convention condoned or allowed any unloving fleshly attitudes by those championing a polarized position on the gifts so that they 'ran off' those holding ot more flexible views.

REASONS CONTINUATIONISTS AND CESSATIONISTS WOULD BE ABLE TO CO-EXIST IN THE SAME CONVENTION OR CHURCH

(1). Leadership holds a flexible, humble view on the gifts.

(2). When there is a substantial proportion numerically of leaaders who hold to the more flexible views on the gifts.

(3). The convention's or church's doctrinal position does not rule out either view.

(4). There is an effort to intentionally keep a 'purposeful silence' on the gifts (i.e. 'leaving room to agree to disagree agreeably' in peaceful co-existence').

(5). The convention's or church's members pursue biblical 'co-existence' (i.e. 'humility, gentleness, patience, acceptance, love and peacefulness toward one another despite differences').

(6). If Southern Baptists as a whole choose to lovingly apply the biblical priority of 'the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds us.'

Wade Burleson's Conclusion About Dr. Luter's Presentation

I would consider myself a 'cautious continuationist' as defined by Dr. Luter. I have no desire for any polarizing view on the gifts to dominate the SBC. It is my sincere belief that those who champion full cessationism must be very, very careful seeking to impose this polarized view on Southern Baptists. I would be thrilled to follow the leadership of those who hold to cessationism --- 'as long as they did not demand conformity to this interpretation.'

Once demands for conformity begin, the SBC becomes polarized.

In missions cooperation we should strive to live peacably, cooperate fully, and love unconditionally those who disagree with us on tertiary doctrinal issues.

I don't think this is hard for most to understand. We'll see.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Skiing, Spring Break, and Your Sincere Opinion

While I am skiing with my wife and two youngest kids in Breckenridge, Colorado through the weekend, I thought I might use the occasion to run a contest. The prize is not worth much (a personalized and autographed copy of my book "Happiness Doesn't Just Happen"), but the better prize will probably be reading the various and sundry excellent thoughts of your fellow Southern Baptists. Two questions.

(1). A Southern Baptist once told me that 'blogs' were like internet pornography. To be fair, this person did not know what a blog was at the time. In your opinion how have blogs run by Southern Baptists helped or hurt the Southern Baptist Convention?

(2). Some believe that the new policies at the IMB are great, some believe they are no big deal, and others believe they are horrible. What do you believe will be the long-term effect on the SBC if the policies are not reversed and why?

E-Mail, Missionaries and Mid-America

Today was a very busy day for Rachelle and me in Memphis, Tennessee. During the morning Rachelle continued her studies for her approaching NCLEX, the national nursing boards. I used the time to correspond with a number of people via email, and one particular exchange is pertinent to this blog.

Dr. Hershael York, a man that I respect and mentioned in my post yesterday as having a sympathy for Landmark tenets emailed me and graciously requested that his views not be labeled ‘Landmark.’ I really appreciated Dr. York’s dialogue today and do desire to represent his views accurately, so the following is a sample of the brief email exchange between Dr. York and myself to insure his views are portrayed by me accurately.

Dr. York wrote:

I don't question either your intent or your understanding of my position, but I really do hate that Landmark label because it allows people to fill in the blank and assume things about me that are untrue. I find the whole thing ironic because I was so ostracized by the Landmarkers when I pastored in Lexington. They even voted to not recognize my church's baptism, so you can see why I cringe a little bit when the same label that they wear is applied to me. So I don't mind being identified as completely supportive of the IMB policy, nor a restrictive view of the ordinances (which I defend exegetically more than historically), but I just don't think the label is fair.

I responded to Dr. York:

Thank you very much for your humble email allowing me to see into your heart. Now I realize you understand the depths of my feelings to have my own convention agency, no less than the very mission arm of the SBC -- the IMB -- reject my member’s baptism and his service on the mission field. I will be more careful with the label Landmark in the future and thank you for calling me out on it.

Is there a word that would describe your position? You would be hard pressed to say "Baptist" because Gill represents the traditional Baptist view. Maybe 'American Baptist' view? I'm just asking. Obviously, I would reject calling your position the "Biblical view" of baptism label as well.

Dr. York then emailed back:

I don't mind my view being called a restrictive view of baptism or the authoritative baptism view. I do believe that the authority of the administrator is as important as the intent of the subject. I would not object to anything along those lines.

I will close the review of the email exchange with my edited response to Dr. York:

I do appreciate the dialogue -- I find your spirit refreshing.

When Baptist Elias Keach baptized people in colonial America, and then was later converted while preaching a message he had taken from his father's notes (Benjamin Keach), were the earlier baptisms performed by Elias 'unacceptable' because the administrator was a 'lost man?' If you say, 'no' - the authority for the baptism was found in the commission of Christ to the 'church' not the 'person' doing the baptism -- then I think you will find we are saying the exact same thing.

The 'church' has the privilege and, yes, authority of baptizing converts to faith in Christ. But the definition of the church is the key when it comes to baptism. I would define the church as the universal body of the elect -- those whom the Father has redeemed -- therefore, any professing disciple of Christ has the privilege of baptizing his convert -- this was Dr. Gill's view. We Southern Baptists use pastors to baptize often out of convenience, but it is not necessary. The authority is given to all Christians by Christ. It is an ordinance (command) of Christ, not 'the church.' It is possible that some 'professors' of faith in Christ who baptize others are not actually converted, but that does not negate the validity of the baptism of the person who was baptized at the hands of a lost man, because baptism identifies a person with Christ, not a 'doctrine' or a 'local' church, and the 'authority' of the administrator does not make or break a 'Christian' baptism. The authority for baptism comes from Christ -- it is His ordinance.

The 'local' church is important for discipline reasons, accountability, etc . . . But admittance into my 'local' church is through examination of one's faith and baptism --- faith must be faith in Christ alone and the baptism must be by immersion, after having come to faith in Christ, identifying the believer with 'the universal body' of the Lord Jesus.

These are our differences. I would hold to the old English Baptist (and dare I say 'biblical' view) of baptism. You would hold to a modern, Americanized view that the 'authority' of the baptizer is important, but you believe that authority is NOT given to the baptizer by Christ, but by the ‘local’ church. Therefore, it is hard for you to see how Gill says 'baptism takes place outside the church (i.e. 'local' church) but is a prerequisite to membership. I believe, though, we both would agree baptism is not a prerequisite to becoming part of the 'universal body of Christ.' I would just simply say baptism identifies a person with Christ and His universal body --- you would say it should identify him with the ‘local’ church.

Where have I misrepresented your views?

Dr. York graciously responded that ‘I think you represent my view correctly.’

Missionaries

Rachelle and I had the privilege today of visiting with some absolutely wonderful missionary candidates for the International Mission Board. We were standing outside the Hilton, Memphis and ran into Jon and Reagan G______ from Oklahoma. They reside about thirty miles from where Rachelle and I live, and though I had met Jon before, it was the first time for me to meet Reagan and for Rachelle to meet them both. I cannot begin to share with you how much knowing missionaries like Jon and Reagan inspires me to lead our church and others to strengthen Cooperative Program giving. This good looking husband and wife are bright, articulate, and passionate about their call to missions. We enjoyed our brief but delightful fellowship with this wonderful couple.

We also were able to visit with Ryan and Laura W____ another young, very bright Southern Baptist couple who represent the future of Southern Baptist missions. Laura was raised Methodist and was baptized as an infant, but at the age of eighteen came to the conviction that believer’s baptism by immersion was biblical baptism and she was baptized in her church accordingly. However, in order to be appointed a missionary with the IMB, she was told she needed to be ‘rebaptized’ in a ‘Southern Baptist Church’ though her Southern Baptist Church had years earlier received her baptism as ‘biblical’ and she was a leader, mentor and teacher in her local Southern Baptist Church. Frankly, it was embarrassing to do what she was forced to do (be rebaptized) and she really struggled with the demand it be done, but her love for the mission field is too great, and so she consented. We had an interesting discussion over her acquiescing to the demand that she be ‘rebaptized’ in order to be appointed on the mission field, and without going into details, let me just say I am very, very proud of Laura and her husband and their ability to search the Scriptures for themselves and hold to their own convictions in a gracious, but firm manner. I will be praying for them in their IMB assignment which will begin in mid-July 2007.

We met several other missionaries during the day, and had a great time of fellowship with many of them, including Brian and Becky H_____ and Sarah and Bill M_______. It’s best not to use their last names or places of assignment even though not all are in security three zones.

Every time I come to one of these IMB meetings, I am reminded about the purpose of the Southern Baptist Convention – cooperation in missions around the world.

Mid-America Seminary

Tonight our trustee, staff and missionary dinner was hosted by Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. Mid-America was founded by Dr. Gray Allison in the early 70’s as an alternative to the traditional six SBC seminaries. It is located across the street from Bellevue Baptist Church and sits on 35 acres donated by Bellevue. The $15.5 million dollar complex is stunning. Dr. Mike Spradlin is the current President and the current trustee chairman of the IMB, Dr. John Floyd, is Vice-President of Mid-America.

Dr. Floyd gave Rachelle and me and Dr. Allen McWhite of North Greenville University a personal tour of the facilities. Dr. Floyd was project manager on the construction of the facility and I must say, he did a superb job. The classrooms, preaching labs, auditorium are not only fitted with the most modern technology, they are all spacious, efficient and pleasing to the eye without being too luxurious. Frankly, Mid-America will draw even more than their current 542 students because of the superb facilities. Rachelle and I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Floyd’s hospitality and tour. A week before Dr. Adrian Rogers died he drove around the facility with Dr. Spradlin and was asked, “Does it meet your expectations” to which Dr. Rogers responded, “Oh, it far exceeds them.” Mid-America will produce some top quality Southern Baptist scholars and preachers in the years to come.

Rachelle and I ate dinner with Dr. Matt Acres, Professor of New Testament Greek at Mid-America. He is trained in Hebrew and Old Testament, but is teaching Greek, telling me he enjoys Greek as much as he does Hebrew. I was very impressed with Dr. Acres. We discussed the history of Baptists and views regarding ‘The Trail of Blood,’ the Baptist Missionary Association (whose members make up the second largest group of students behind Southern Baptists at Mid-America) and various and sundry other issues. Dr. Acres is dead on theologically and because of faculty like him, I have absolutely no hesitation at all recommending Mid-America to any Southern Baptist interested in serious theological study.

The Forum

Tonight all trustees met behind closed doors for what is called the forum. Again, the meeting was filled with prayer, praise, and encouragement to all.

The very kind of thing that should always happen behind closed doors in the SBC.

In His Grace,


Wade

Judge Pressler, What Happened To The Hill?

Dwight McKissic is one of the godliest men I have ever met. He is a prince of a gentleman with a genuine compassion for all believers and possesses a strong inner desire to be at peace with all men. Dwight McKissic also has prayed privately in tongues since his days at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. If you have attended his church for the last two decades you have never heard 'tongues' spoken publicly in any of the worship services, but the wonderful and highly respected pastor feels that the gift of tongues in his private prayer time is part of his spiritual journey with Christ. He didn't ask for it, nor does he demand others have it. Dwight rejects the Pentecostal doctrine that tongues is a 'sign of the indwelling of God's Spirit' and maintains the traditional Baptist (and Biblical belief) that the Spirit of God indwells all who trust in Christ.

Dwight, however, is one of many leaders and laymen in our convention who are beginning to feel disenfranchised and perceived as outcasts because of their view on the gifts. As I have stated on several occasions, I do not have the gift of tongues, nor do I desire it, but I have absolutely no problem cooperating with my fellow Southern Baptists who pray in tongues in private (a private prayer language), nor do I have a problem cooperating with any Southern Baptist who believes all the gifts of the Spirit continue to this day. Like any other third tier doctrinal interpretation held by Southern Baptists, the only time problems with a particular interpretation arises is when there is an overemphasis on the doctrine or a demand that everyone believe the same. The old IMB policies prevented this from happening.

The controversy in our convention began a year and a half ago when missonary candidates began to be rejected for possessing a 'private prayer language' or those who were members of Southern Baptist churches, having their baptism accepted by their respective Southern Baptist church, but rejected from being missionary candidates because their baptism did not take place in 'a church that believed in eternal security.' I have voiced my opposition to the two policies on this blog, and of course, it was that opposition that eventually led to a recommendation for my removal from the board of trustees of the International Mission Board. Though this recommendation was later unanimously rescinded, the policies remain in effect.

Rachelle and I will be attending the International Mission Board meeting this next Monday through Wednesday in Memphis, Tennessee. I have been praying for the two ad hoc committees of the board that were appointed by Chairman John Floyd to review the policies. There may be a report and/or recommendation from this committee to the full board regarding these two new policies. My objections from the beginning have been based upon the belief that the IMB is unwise to narrow doctrinal parameters beyond the BFM 2000, because the churches who cooperate in SBC mission efforts disagree on third tier issues. If there were concrete anecdotal evidence that these policies would make our mission field better, or if these policies were enforcing fundamentals of the faith, I would be for them without hesitation. But when people like Dwight McKissic and members of his church (and mine) begin to feel disenfranchised by the new policies, then the tent of cooperation is being narrowed in the SBC and this will ultimately spell trouble.

The other day Steve Davis, an associate pastor at Parkwood Baptist Church in Concord, North Carolina sent me some quotes from Judge Paul Pressler's book "A Hill On Which To Die" (Copyright 1999). All quotes are from page 158 and describe Pressler's views on the conservative resurgence. These statements also form the reasons why I am concerned about these new policies, which are based upon disputable interpretations of the sacred text, and lead to the exclusion of otherwise well qualified Southern Baptists from missions service or leadership. Pressler's statements lead me to believe our convention has become even more narrower than we were a decade ago. Here is what Pressler said about the resurgence.

"The issue in the convention was neither an interpretation of Scripture nor an effort to create unity of thinking on theological issues ....The liberals had said that after the conservatives finished with those who held different views of the nature of the Bible, they would begin attacking the charismatics (neo-Pentecostals). They also alleged that conservatives would later attack various other groups until they "purified" every aspect of Christian life. They said conservatives wanted to make everybody think just as they do."

"Such a charge was ludicrous, but it did worry some people such as my friends .....Charismatic worship and understanding of spiritual gifts is an interpretation of Scripture. That was not our concern. Our concern was the nature of Scripture."

"The liberals have tried to make much of the fact that some Calvinists exist within the conservative movement. Calvinism also is an interpretation of Scriptures. Although I am not a five-point Calvinist, I am perfectly content with persons who seek to convince others to have Calvinist convictions form the teaching of the Word of God."

"An interpretation of Scripture is a derivative issue and not a primary one. Interpretation is not a hill on which to die. In fact, the presence of such persuasions as Calvinists and charismatics in the conservative ranks merely shows that conservatives never sought to have all Southern Baptists think exactly alike. All we wanted was for people to base what they believe on an intelligent study of what the Bible says."

Judge, what happened?

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson