Graced People Reap What They Have Not Sown; Lost People Reap What They Have Sown

One of the weapons used by legalists to keep people in line is the threat of standing before "the judgment seat of Christ." It is said by them that God will reveal the hidden agendas of the heart, every secret sin, and each action that transgressed the line of God's eternal law. For this reason, the legalist says, you should keep your walk holy, obey God completely, and ensure all your actions are righteous.

The only problem with this premise is that it contradicts the written word of God regarding the judgment of believers in Christ. The legalist is right, however, about the judgment for those apart from Christ. Every sinner apart from God's grace through Jesus Christ will give an account of his deeds and will be rewarded according to God's pure justice. The punishment of God's righteous wrath in hell will not be as severe for some sinners as it is for others (see Jesus' words in Matthew 10:15). The experience of righteous punishment will vary in intensity according to the depth and number of unrighteous actions of those who die without Christ. God will not be mocked. Whatever a sinner sows in life on earth, that will he reap at judgment (Galatians 6:7). In other words, Hitler will experience the wrath of God in a measure greater than a girl who dies in her teens without Christ. The sinner reaps what he sows. The Righteous Judge never errs in the meting out of His sentences for sin. Part of the wiping away of every tear in heaven very well may be the people of God saying, "Yes, Father, you are righteous in your judgments towards those of my family who have rejected Christ." There will be no complaints when all is revealed before the throne of God. For this reason, the person without faith in Christ would do well to live the most moral life possible--for he will one day reap what he has sown.

But those of us who have faith in Christ will never appear at this judgment seat. The book of life which contains our names forever decrees the sealing of the books that contains the sins of our lives (Revelation 20:11-13). The Scapegoat has removed our sins into the desert of forgetfulness (Lev. 16:22). We never answer for sin because as the brilliant Baptist theologian John Gill stated, "God sees no sin in His people." That does not mean God is not aware of our sin; it means that God has dealt judicially with our sin at the cross of Christ, and all the righteous wrath due our sins (hell) has been born by Christ. And it is our faith in God's grace in the person and work of Christ that is credited to us for righteousness (Romans 4:24-25).

But then the question comes, on what basis are we rewarded in heaven? Answer: We reap what we have not sown!

Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:17).

To be a co-heir with Christ means that we receive from God the inheritance Christ has earned by His obedience during His life, death and resurrection. The perfect righteousness of our Lord and Savior Jeus Christ in the complete and perfect obedience to God's law has obtained for us the unsearchable riches of God's great grace (Ephesians 3:8). Heaven is the eternal unfolding and enjoyment of these riches fpr all the ages to come (Ephesians 2:7). In short: We reap what we have not sown.

One of the tell-tale signs of the legalist is the inability to totally rest in the knowledge that the riches of God's favor are earned by Christ's obedience, not ours. It is impossible to be a co-heir with Christ if the rewards of God's people are dependent on our performance. We are rewarded for eternity by God's grace through the person and work of Christ. The knowledge of this will keep those of us with faith in Christ always ready to admit our faults, confess our mistakes, and be transparent to people around us. Why? Because our eternal reputations, our eternal rewards, our eternal reign is not dependent on our performance on earth--it is dependent on Christ's vicarious performance on our behalf.

But hell is just the opposite of heaven. In hell, you reap what you sow. In heaven, you reap what you have not sown. Why is it that we Christians preach, teach and relate to one another as if we are citizens of hell? Our citizenship is in heaven; and for this reason we ought to be very honest and transparent about our sins here. Our eternal inheritance and reward is dependent on His grace through Christ, not our peformance through works. We live powerful lives, led by the Spirit, when we no longer question His favor on our lives in terms of our merit or works by obedience to any law, but by faith in Christ who brings us a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees.

In His Grace,

Wade

To Some Southern Baptist Preachers Jesus Is Just Another Southern Baptist Preacher

Some Southern Baptist pastors have created an image of Jesus that is purely cultural. Jesus is a white male who loves grits, buttermilk and cornbread. He eschews beer with the boys, but he loves Nascar and football. He's in church on Sunday morning and night, visitation on Monday night, and prayer meeting on Wednesday night. He gives ten percent of his income to the church, and refuses to be friends with any church member who doesn't. He's a card carrying member of the National Rifle Association. He hates homosexuality (homos) more than he does adultery (people who have an 'affair'). He is silent about obesity caused by the overindulgence of food but loudly condemns anybody who even thinks of drinking one glass of wine. He speaks with sappy spiritual sentimentality about loving the world, but he is quick to grab a microphone and loudly condemn any person who doesn't see the world like he does.  He wants everyone to look like him, act like him, talk like him, be like him. In short, Jesus is a  Southern Baptist pastor to many Southern Baptist pastors.

We have lost any concept of the transcendence of God. Transcendence is defined as "a state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of material experience."  Jesus is, by virtue of His personhood, way beyond our experience. When we try to mold Jesus into our image, we get a "holy" and "righteous" anger with fellow pastors who don't look like us.

Some fellow Southern Baptist pastors are trying to make an issue of Al Mohler's statement that Southern Baptists have "lied" about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced "homophobia" (fear of homosexuals) in years past. These Southern Baptist pastors are in a frenzy (see here and here). What is absolutely absurd about this entire situation is that Dr. Al Mohler has written over 200 articles clearly detailing a sound, biblical view of homosexuality, and even has gone on Larry King to stand for biblical truth. The disagreement going on is not over whether or not homosexuality is sin (the Bible is clear that it is), but how Southern Baptists should relate to sinners who struggle with the sin of homosexuality. Those Southern Baptist pastors who see Jesus as a Southern Baptist pastor are demanding Al Mohler explain how Southern Baptists have lied about homosexuality and how Southern Baptists have been homophobic.

Dr. Mohler is capable of answering for himself, but allow me to point out just one example of homophobia in Southern Baptist circles. In 1992 the Southern Baptist Convention  changed Article III of the SBC Constitution (change is emboldened).

------------------------
Article III. Membership: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of missionary Baptist churches cooperating with the Convention as follows:
 1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior.
2. One (1) additional messenger from each such church for every two hundred and fifty (250) members; or for each $250.00 paid to the work of the Convention during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting.
3. The messengers shall be appointed and certified by the churches to the Convention, but no church may appoint more than ten .
4. Each messenger shall be a member of the church by which he is appointed.
--------------------------------
 
Do you see the homophobia? The issue of homosexuality becomes the defining factor of whether or not a church is in cooperation with the SBC. Why did we not change the consitution to say the following?

Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse adulterous behavior.
Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse pedophilic behavior.
Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse gluttonous behavior.
Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse drunkenness behavor.
Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse addictive behavior.
Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse arrogant behavior.
Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse gossiping behavior.
Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse hateful behavior.
 
We all are in need of a Savior. Yes, homosexuals fight hard to try to convince themselves their actions are not sin. So too do gossips. So too do the proud. So too do adulterers. So too do gluttons.
 
Oh well. You get the picture. Why the homophobia? The problem we have right now in the Southern Baptist Convention is Southern Baptist preachers who honestly believe that Jesus would never sit down with a militant homosexual and have a cordial conservation with him over dinner (think Zacchaeus), or that Jesus would ever care to be in the presence of a loud-mouth radical lesbian who is known throughout the city for her activism much less offer to help the lesbian with repairs on her home or pay for her groceries (think woman at the well), or that Jesus would ever go to the homes of homosexuals and open the Scriptures and teach them about Himself. They don't think Jesus would EVER do that because THEY would never do that. This kind of legalism becomes the death knell of any spiritual vitality in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Jesus is not just another Southern Baptist preacher. Thank God He is not, and thank God He is God. Maybe Al Mohler has caught a glimpse of Jesus in ways his critics have not.

Christian Legalism Pushes Out Christian Love in Relationships

Legalism can be descriptively defined as "the expectation you have for others to meet a specific standard of behavior, that when unmet, leads you to denigrate those people who fail to adequately perform."

To meet the definition of legalism there must be both an expectation (standard) and an attitude (superiority or pride). The denigration of other people for their failure to perform to your expected standard of behavior is the sore that surfaces from the cancer of legalism. What's odd about legalism is that it can infect both the liberal and the conservative, the evangelical and the liturgical, the radical and the traditional, the young and the old. Legalism is no respector of persons.

Legalism is not discipline.To set a standard of behavior for yourself and meet it is discipline. Legalism is not accountablity. To set a standard of behavior for others who fall under your responsibility (children or employees), to love and encourage them when they don't meet the standard while enforcing stated consequences for their failure, is accountablity. Legalism is neither discipline nor accountablity. Legalism is cancer.

Legalism kills life. It destroys the marrow of Christianity. Rather than leading others to rest in the Person and work of Christ for their righteousness, legalism leads others to work to obtain their favored status with God. Oddly, the worst kind of legalism is that which finds its standard from the Bible. Whether it be the words of Christ, or the law of God, or an interpretation of a verse that leads to a demand for others to live a certain way, legalism that sounds like radical Christianity destroys.

The truth of grace is revolutionary. God's grace is given without measure to those who trust His Son. To the person who fails, the grace of God is sufficient. To the person who is weak, the grace of God is sufficient. To the person who lives life differently than I, the grace of God is sufficient.

Some might ask, "But is there not any standard to which God calls His people to live?"

Sure. He calls us to love others. To love those who are different. To love those who don't see eye to eye with me. To love those who fail to perform. "By this (love) all people will know that you are my disciples." Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

Legalism pushes out love in Christian relationships, including an understanding of God's love for us. With all our might, we ought to fight legalism. We should see it as THE enemy. We should recognize it as the stealthy, deadly spiritual ninja who sneaks up on us when we think we are safe. The legalists were the only people upon whom Christ used His whip and drove them from His Father's house. There is no room for legalism among the people of God.

The best defense against deadly legalism is to contemplate the incarnation of God in Christ and His work for us at the cross. In those moments you begin to think that you must do something to prove the radical nature of your love for God, it would do you well to remember what Charles Spurgeon said of God's love for us:

"We could almost think that God loved us more than He loves his Son.”

Until Spurgeon's statement becomes part of the imbedded fabric of your mind you may be losing your battle with legalism.

Moralism and Legalism Are Not the True Gospel of God's Grace and Love in Jesus Christ

My mother will periodically send me a devotion that has made an impact on her. The other day she forwarded to all her children the following devotion that precisely defines my theology and forms the substance of what I proclaim to others. I am intentionally holding off on giving the author of this devotion the credit he deserves until people have had a chance to read it and comment on it. However, before I move to another written post at Grace and Truth to You, I will give full credit and a commendation of the author.

The bold letters are my own emphasis. After the devotional, I will make a few brief comments of my own. As always, I am not trying to convince people that I possess the truth (though I believe I do), because there is always the possibility that I could be wrong. I base my beliefs on the inerrant Word of God, but I am not of the opinion that my interpretations and opinions are always correct. And, even though I believe the doctrine in this devotion is the heart of true Christianity, I give allowance for other Christians to disagree and point out my error. Here goes:

God always entices us through love.

Most of us were taught that God would love us if and when we change. In fact, God loves you so that you can change.

What empowers change, what makes you desirous of change is the experience of love. It is that inherent experience of love that becomes the engine of change. If the mystics say that one way, they say it a thousand ways.

But because most of our common religion has not been at the mystical level, we’ve been given an inferior message—that God loves me “when” I change (“moralism”). What that does is put it back on you. You’re back to “navel gazing” and you never succeed at that level.

You are never holy enough, pure enough, refined enough, or loving enough.

Whereas, when you fall into God’s mercy, when you fall into God’s great generosity, you find, seemingly from nowhere, this capacity to change.

No one is more surprised than you are. You know it is a gift.

It is because I believe God's love effectual produces change in undeserving sinners that I hold to the doctrine of particular atonement. In other words, the love of God in Christ Jesus effectually and eternally saves the sinners for whom Christ died.

It is the moralist and the legalist who must make salvation something other than the love of God in Christ Jesus. Our convention and churches are filled with moralists who try to convince sinner they must do something to get God to love them. The love of God for sinners arises from His heart like an artesian spring, it is never pulled from his heart by the pump of human effort.

If I believed that Christ died for every sinner that has ever lived, or ever will live, then I would by necessity believe in universalism. The atonement is too powerful, the grace of God too efficacious, and the love of God too omnipotent to not produce the change His love brings to sinners. I believe the Bible teaches that God has chosen to bypass a few sinners and has sovereignly chosen not to give to them His effectual, saving grace. You may ask, "For what reason would God choose to leave sinners in their sin if it was within His power to deliver them?" Or, "Why would God not give to every sinner His transforming love since it is His love that transforms sinners?"  I respond: "Who am I to answer for God for His eternal purposes?" (see Romans 9). I can only conjecture  that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy and He hardens whom he will harden for the praise of the glory of His justice. In short, His people wouldn't appreciate the grace and mercy they have received unless they knew His justice and righteousness as revealed in the punishment of reprobate sinners.

The Bible clearly teaches that some sinners will experience the righteous judgment of God in hell. It's their fault that they experience God's judgment because it is their volitional sin that brings to them the wise and judicial justice of heaven. God declares that He takes no pleasure in their punishment, but He punishes unredeemed sinners to reveal His attribute of justice. On the other hand, there is a vast, innumerable company of sinners from every tribe, every nation, every kindred and every tongue upon whom God has set His love through Christ Jesus--in short, the world. I believe these elect are saved by the eternal love of God, and as we experience His love, we are transformed by His grace.

Again, whether you agree with me or not is of no concern to me. But if you believe the tenets of the above devotion to be true, your only option is to be a universalist or a particular redemptionist.

Otherwise, you become you fall into the spiritual quicksand of moralism and legalism.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

P.S. The devotion is by Catholic writer and Christian apologist Richard Rohr.

Jesus Fulfilled the Old Testament and Became a New Lawgiver Better than Moses

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" Matthew 5:17-18.

These two verses are sometimes used to prove that everything in the Old Testament (the Law and the Prophets) is as binding on Christians as it was binding on the Jews in the Old Covenant. From the Sabbath law written on the tablets of stone, to the “storehouse tithing” laws, to the discipline and punishment of rebellious children, to the dietary and civil laws in Leviticus--some say all of these biblical laws of the Old Covenant are as binding upon Christians as they were the Jews. Jesus, however, is clearly teaching just the opposite. Jesus reveals to His disciples how He came to fulfill (plerosai) the Old Testament (the Law and the Prophets). He then proceeds to boldly declare that "the Law" will pass away when "heaven and earth" pass away because the Law will have been completely fulfilled ("accomplished" NAS).

Western Christians think of "heaven and earth" as the sky and the terrestial ball we call earth. But when Jews would refer to the establishment and/or fall of governments or covenants, their prophets would employ the language of creation and/or destruction of "heaven and earth." For example, God describes His agreement with the Jews in the Old Covenant in this manner: "I have put my word in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of my hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are my people'" (Isaiah 51:16). The Old Testament prophets said God promised to destroy "the heavens and the earth" because Israel "broke my covenant" (Isaiah 24:5). "Heaven and earth" in the context of Isaiah's writing is not the literal heaven or the literal earth, but the Jewish economy and the Jewish age. Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians were all Jews, and they would be familiar with the "heaven and earth" language employed by prophets to describe the judgment of God on nations or ages.

The great theologian John Owen writes about Peter's prediction (pre-70 AD) in II Peter 3 regarding the end of the "heavens and earth:"

"I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state".

The early Christians clearly understood that God was coming in judgment to end "the Jewish age" (Matthew 24:3). Jesus plainly told His disciples that "not one stone" would be left upon the other at the Temple in Jerusalem. He said that "the Jewish age" would be destroyed, and He used language of the destruction of the "heavens and earth" (Matthew 24:29) as the nomenclature for the end of this Jewish age. Within a generation of Jesus speaking these words (Matthew 24:34), Jerusalem, the Temple, the age of the Jews, and the destruction of the "heavens and earth" occurred (in 70 AD), fulfilling the prophecies of Matthew 24 and Isaiah 24 regarding the end of the Jewish age. Thus, the LAW OF THE OLD COVENANT WAS ABOLISHED--precisely the way Jesus said it would be in Matthew 5:17-18, because "heaven and earth" (the Old Covenant) passed away. All the Old Testament laws (613) associated with Israel's covenant with God were now gone. Why? Because Christ had fulfilled them. He was the Anti-type, fulfilling the types. He was the Substance, predicted by the shadows. He fulfilled completely what the Law and the Prophets declared. Nobody disagrees that the idea of "the Law" passing away or being abolished, even for Christian Jews, would be a drastic change for the age in which they lived. For "the Law" to pass away means there would be no more Temple, no more feasts, no more sacrifices--the world as the Jews knew it would be forever different. But it had to pass away--because Jesus fulfilled it.

Summary: When God established His covenant with the Jews, He described it as the establishment of "heaven and earth" (Isaiah 51:16). When Israel broke their covenant with God through unfaithfulness to His Law, God described the impending judgment as the destruction of "heaven and earth" (Isaiah 24, Matthew 24, II Peter 3). The destruction of "heaven and earth" occurred in 70 AD when the Temple and the Jewish age were destroyed by the Roman army, and the "Law" was abolished, just as Jesus predicted it would be in Matthew 5:17-18.

The question then becomes, post 70 AD, what "Law" is established and in effect for Christians to follow?

Matthew presents Jesus as the New Lawgiver

(1). The early Christians saw Matthew's writings to be five books, similar to the Pentateuch of Moses.
The first book (Matthew 1-4), tells the narrative of Jesus' birth and early years and has remarkable parallels to the narratives of Israel's forefathers and Moses the Lawgiver as God led His people out of the bondage of Egypt. The second book (Matthew 5-7) parallels with the teaching of Moses on Mt. Sinai etc… as found in the book of Exodus. The third, fourth and fifth books in Matthew point us to the instructions of Jesus to His followers and parallel the teaching of Moses to Israel in the books of the law called Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
(2). The Sermon on the Mount is preceded by baptism in water and forty days in the wilderness. Again, the whole narrative of Jesus (childhood, exodus, baptism, wilderness, mountain, law) is precisely the narrative of Moses and Israel (childhood, exodus, Red Sea, wilderness …). The parallel between Jesus' life and that of the old lawgiver Moses is clearly seen in the book of Matthew.
(3). Matthew calls Jesus greater than Moses (i.e. "hear HIM" not Moses 17:5), “greater than Solomon” (12:42), “greater than the Temple” (12:6), “greater than Jonah” (12:41), and the “Lord of the Sabbath” (12:8).
(4). It is disobedience to the Words of Christ that defines “lawlessness” (anomia) in Matthew (see 7:23-24).
(5). In the Great Commission, Jesus instructs to teach all that “I have commanded” (28:18-20).

The idea that we do not have "Law" as believers in Jesus Christ is ludicrous. Our Law is His Law. Our desire is to do His will, to hear His commands, to be His bondslaves, and to do as He bids. The Royal Law (James 2:8) of Christ is "to love one another as He has loved us" (John 13:34). Jesus, gospels writers and others of the apostles all write to help us understand how this agape love works itself out in our lives.

But now, when we read the Old Testament, we see Jesus. Our concentration is not obedience to Old Covenant "commands" or laws--we see Christ. We see Him in the narratives of creation and exodus, in the laws of sacrifice and festivals, in the prophets and the psalms--all the Old Covenant Scriptures point to Him. We, however, are not "bound" to any Old Covenant laws--including any alleged "Sabbath" day, because we are inlawed to Christ (I Corinthians 9:21). Every day is a day of rest. For those who cringe at the thought of no "Ten Commandments" for believers, we remind them that it is hard to commit adultery when you aren't lusting in your heart (Jesus' command in Matthew 5:28), or to commit murder when you don't hate (Jesus' command in Matthew 5:17), or to steal when you see a need and give to meet it (Jesus' command in Matthew 6:4), etc... It's also hard to keep any special day as a Sabbath day because every day is a day of rest in Christ (Colossians 2:16).

The Law that we follow is Christ's Law--and we willingly, cheerfully, and fully pledge ourselves to keep it as His bondslaves. But we reject any notion that our Lord's law is Moses' law. "Heaven and earth" has passed away, and a "new heaven and earth" (the New Covenant) with a new Lawgiver, a new age, a new people, and a new agreement with better promises has dawned (Hebrews 8).

In His Grace,

Wade

The Veil of Moses Hides a Fading Glory

"Moses used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away" (II Corinthians 3:13).

The other day Rachelle and I were eating at our favorite Italian breakfast eatery when the owner of the restaurant pulled up a chair and chatted with us. He loves the people of Emmanuel and all we do for the community and missions worldwide. He attends a small church that "celebrates the Old Covenant feasts" and worships "on the Sabbath (Saturday)." He explained that it would be impossible for his family to worship at Emmanuel until we offered a worship service consistent "with the law of God" (i.e. "Sabbath keeping"). We really enjoyed the fellowship with this local Christian businessman, and we respected his convictions, but his words got me to thinking about the common place legalism in churches that emphasize differing aspects of of the Old Covenant (i.e. "Sabbath keeping," "tithing," "patriarchy," "quiverfull theology," "kosher eating," etc...). It seems to me that the emphasis on "law keeping" by many Christians is akin to Moses hiding God's glory by the imposition of a veil. The Apostle Paul tells us that Moses "didn't wish the people to see that the glory was fading."

Initially, Moses placed the veil on his face to "help" the people. Exodus 34:30 tells us that the people "were afraid" of Moses' shining face because he had been with the Lord. The presence of God in our midst often brings discomfort, not comfort. To comfort the people, Moses put a "veil" (garment) over his face to "hide the glory." But Paul tells us that the veil ended up hiding the fact that "the glory was fading."

So it is with religious laws, traditions and rituals. They may have been instituted for benevolent, good reasons. But that which initially comforts God's people winds up hiding the fact that God's glory is gone. The only way to be sensitive to the presence of God is to resist the temptation to build a mechanism (tradition, ritual or law) intended to hide the fact that God is not present. In other words, we Christian leaders ought to do everything in our power to facilitate freedom and liberty among God's people. When people are free--truly free (i.e. the veil or the law is removed)--it's easy to see the evidence of the Spirit's power and presence.

But many of us--instead of celebrating, facilitating and enjoying this freedom that Christ brings--try to hide the absence of the glory of Christ's presence in our midst by imposing religious laws. II Corinthians 3:14 directly compares the veil of Moses to religious people attempting to impose Old Testament "laws" on Christ's people. Christian people, like Israel, often seem afraid of the power and liberty that comes from experiencing the presence of God. It scares us. We need to keep control of God's people by imposing religious laws. We need to maintain authority over our religious environment by spiritualizing our comfortable traditions, exaliting our static rituals, and demanding conformity to our personal picadillys rather than depending on God's people to simply spend time with Jesus to hear God themselves. We want all our people to give the same, dress the same, talk the same, look the same, act the same, be the same. We feel more comfortable with the law than we do the Spirit. The veil diminishes the glory of God in the individual's life.
"But where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" (II Cor. 3:17). II Corinthians 3 forms the foundation for Christians never needing to fear what it means for all God's people to experience the real, meaningful and full freedom that comes through abiding in Christ's presence. New Covenant believers will resist any imposition of religious laws on God's people. We will view all religious "laws" as a veil used to hide the brilliance of Christ's glory in our lives.

When a person, a family, a Christian group or a church begins to experience the surpassing glory of Christ, things begin to happen that can only be explained by the power of His presence. I hope to share a few narratives in the month of January that illustrate the glory of New Covenant living as compared to Old Covenant Christianity.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Irony and Humor of Teaching What the Bible Actually Says About Alcohol

Dr. Randy Jaeggli is Professor of Old Testament at Bob Jones University. Last year Dr. Jaeggli published a paperback book entitled The Christian and Drinking where he examined all of the verses in the Bible dealing with alcohol. Dr. Jaeggli's personal conclusion, as one would expect, was that every Christian should totally abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages. However, his scholarly and academic conclusion was a tad different. He wrote that the Bible itself does not command abstinence. Indeed, Dr. Jaeggli points out several places in the sacred text which seem to imply that alcohol is associated with some positive Christian values or serve as a metaphor for foundational Christian truths. He personally advocates total abstinence but writes the Bible prohibits excessive drinking only. To the horror of some fundamentalists, Dr. Jaeggli writes convincingly that Jesus turned the water into actual alcoholic wine at Canaan. An excellent review of Dr. Jaeggli's book is given by Jonathan Taylor.

Yesterday, a blogger going by the name Ektachrome made me aware of an email sent by the President of Bob Jones University a couple of months ago. The email read:

The sensitivity and complexity of the topic of (Dr. Jaeggli's) book, combined with the brevity and inductive arrangement of it, have caused confusion for some readers. They have concluded from some select portions of the text that Dr. Jaeggli condones a Christian’s moderate use of alcohol, which is the opposite of what the book actually teaches.

I'm not sure about the confusion to which the President refers. Dr. Jaeggli was quite clear he personally advocated abstinence. Could it be that his impartial, scholarly, and conservative approach to the sacred text brought about the confusion? Could it be that some readers realized that the good professor's convictions went beyond the commandments of Scripture? In other words, did people read his book and become clear about what the Bible actually says about the subject, but confused about the grounds for total abstinence for every Christian?

It seems the President's email didn't slow the firestorm over the book. Now, Bob Jones University has pulled the book from its shelves, and has decided to no longer make it available to the public. Hmmmm.

Now, if you wish to purchase the little $10.95 paperback you will have to shell out $999.00 to Amazon for the privilege.

Laughing,

Wade Burleson

Decline of LM and CP Offerings Due to Legalism

The 2008 Lottie Moon Offering goal was $170 million dollars. The final total of LM collections for 2008 equals $141,315,110.24. The decline of 6.05% in receipts compared to last year LM receipts translates into the largest dollar decrease in the history of the offering. The decision has already been made to suspend the ISC and Masters Program in the IMB and restrict the number of new long-term personnel and journeymen. Because the IMB will not be replacing short-term personnel completing their term of assignments, the International Mission Board's missionary count will be reduced by up to 400 by the end of 2009, and will eventually be reduced by approximately 700 missionaries.

However, rather than blame the economy for such a drastic downturn in Lottie Moon and Cooperative Program giving, one might wish to take a look at a Southern Baptist church in Louisville, Kentucky to identify problems we face in the Southern Baptist Convention. Macro problems always have micro sources. To know what is going on in the SBC at the national level, one must understand what is taking place in local
SBC churches.

Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, Kentucky is doing a great deal for the community of Louisville and gospel missions around the world. However, while the church's support of mission causes has exponentially increased the last decade, support for the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon offerings has declined. When one inquires of leadership at Sojourn why they fund missionaries directly from their church, and why they have decreased on a percentage basis their giving to CP and LM, they have an answer. They do not point to the financial burden of constructing a new building the church needs to contain the crowds, nor do they point to any disagreement within their local Southern Baptist association or state (in fact, they have a great working relationship with the Kentucky Baptist Convention), nor do they point to any theological differences within the SBC. Rather, they will tell you about a missionary family that Sojourn is supporting overseas as an example of why they must fund missions directly. This family does not qualify for appointment to the IMB for two reasons.

(1) The couple uses real wine during communion, so they could not say they "abstain" from wine. Abstinence from wine, according to some Baptist Identity radicals, is "obedience to Christ and holiness before God." This missionary family is considered "unholy" and ungodly for drinking communion wine. Ironically, they do not drink wine on any other occasion.

(2)The wife has not been baptized in a Baptist church. Never mind she was baptized by immersion as a believer in a Christian church, her baptism simply wasn't in a Baptist church.

There comes a time when Southern Baptists need to realize that some growing, conservative, evangelical churches such as Sojourn are refusing to support the Southern Baptist Convention because of our silly extra-biblical traditions and our tendency toward codifying our legalism in institutional policies that become post de facto edicts to SBC churches.

If we wish to grow CP and Lottie Moon during difficult economic times we will denounce all attempts by Baptist Identity radicals to define "obedience to Christ" and "holiness to God" in a manner that goes way beyond the truth of Scripture.

Sojourn is hosting an interesting forum regarding the SBC on Tuesday of the Southern Baptist Convention. Let's hope that we all can get to the place in the SBC where we can tell the truth about what is really happening in our Convention because we place loyalty to Christ above any fear of offending strategic people in high places of authority in the SBC.

In His Grace,


Wade

Denouncing Baptist Identity Fundamentalism

Southern Baptist pastor Wiley Drake of California (pictured to the left), is the former Vice-President of the SBC. Drake is quoted by Associated Baptist Press as saying he is glad Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor from Wichita, was murdered last week while attending church. Drake confessed to having been personally praying "imprecatory" Psalms over Dr. Tiller for the last year.

Drake goes on to say that he has been praying "imprecatory" Psalms over President Obama and the same fate awaits Obama that befell Tiller if he does not repent.

My friend, Dwight McKissic, has called on Southern Baptists to repudiate Wiley Drake's words. I join Pastor McKissic in denouncing what Wiley Drake has said. Our Southern Baptist Convention should take official action as well. Drake's words should be a reminder to all of the logical end of Baptist Identity Fundamentalism.

The world should know that Drake's words, nor any other Baptist Identity radical viewpoints, represents the views of the vast majority of Southern Baptists.

(Update; Please note that this post is a denunciation of Wiley Drake's WORDS and not his person, and it is a caution against Baptist Identity ideology, not BI people).

In His Grace,


Wade

The Measure of Fundamentalism in the SBC

A Southern Baptist named Peter Lumpkins has recently announced the publication of a new book he has written entitled Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence. Peter's position is that total abstinence from alcohol is the only Christian, Baptist and truly biblical position on alcohol. Any believer in Jesus who believes consuming alcohol is not the sin, but rather the sin is the violation of the biblical commandment against "drunkenness," is called a "hedonist" by the book's promotional materials. The men who promote the book are a "who's who" of the Baptist Identity movement, men who have a very specific list of what defines a true "Baptist" - a list which includes a mandatory belief in total abstinence. Lewis Moore, former trustee of the International Mission Board, operates Hannibal Books. Paige Patterson praises the book by saying:

"Abstinence is not merely wisdom, it is obedience to Christ and holiness before God"

Patterson's quote is an example of the problem Fundamentalism causes in the Southern Baptist Convention today. Patterson, like Lumpkins, places abstinence in the non-negotiable category of "obedience to Christ" and "holiness before God." To disagree with their Baptist Identity convictions is to argue with God Himself. This is precisely the reason the SBC is having a hard time in keeping young pastors engaged in Convention matters. The newest generation of evangelicals have more in common with the conservative theologian Gresham Machen who opposed Fundamentalism over fifty years ago because of what he called "the pietistic, perfectionist tendencies which include hang-ups with smoking, drinking alcohol, etc . . . ". I commend Peter Lumpkins on publishing his new book. I also applaud his personal conviction of total abstinence. No Christian should question either Peter's commitment to Christ nor his personal convictions regarding alcohol. However, what Southern Baptists must resist is any attempt by Peter Lumpkins, Paige Patterson, John Sullivan and other Baptist Identity leaders to present total abstinence as the only view of alcohol compatible with "holiness." We all should respect total abstinence as a personal conviction of a brother in Christ, and we all should consider it an essential Christian conviction among those believers who are unable to drink alcohol without getting drunk, but if we allow any Baptist to present total abstinence as the "only" Christian and Baptist view on alcohol we are in danger of succombing to Fundamentalism in the SBC. I would much rather be personally led by the Spirit than by a man who claims his view is law for me. For those who wish to comment regarding this post, please pay close attention to the subject matter. I am not writing about the pros or cons of total abstinence. The point of this post is that all of us must resist the easy temptation of equating our personal beliefs regarding tertiary matters on par with obedience to Christ, and demanding others comply with our views. Only Fundamentalists do that. In His Grace, Wade Burleson

Personal Opinions Given as Mandates from God

This morning, in response to a question asked by one of this blog's readers regarding legalism in the SBC, I spent forty minutes listening to a message preached by Dr. Thomas White at the October 7, 2008 chapel service of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Two years ago, in October of 2006, Dr. White was elected by SWBTS trustees as the new SWBTS Vice President of Student Affairs. At 33, he was the youngest administrator ever elected to such a position at the seminary. Dr. White received his education, both his Master of Divinity and Doctor of Philosophy, at Southeastern Theological Seminary while under the tutelage of Paige Patterson. Dr. White is considered by his superiors to be one of the bright, young leaders of tomorrow for the SBC.

I have met Dr. White just one time. He introduced himself to me in San Antonio prior to the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. He was extremely polite and had sought me out after the Sunday morning service at Castle Hills Baptist Church, a service we both had attended to hear Dr. Frank Page preach. I have nothing but positive things to say about him, his personal charm, and his ability to communicate his views.

The message he preached at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, however, precisely illustrates the trouble we are having in the Southern Baptist Convention. We have SBC leaders, including seminary professors like Dr. White, Southern Baptist agency Presidents, SBC trustees and other leaders who are preaching personal opinions as if they were mandates from God. This type of legalism will destroy not only the fabric of cooperation upon which our Convention was built, it will ultimately destroy the powerful message of the gospel because tertiary matters are elevated to a primary status of debate within the SBC, and people who disagree are excluded.

I listened to Dr. White's message from beginning to end. I would like to say I was shocked by what I heard, but frankly, my experiences these past three years have taken the edge of surprise off. One of our SBC missionaries who had been overseas for several years emailed me his concerns about what he heard Dr. White say in the message. The missionary confessed to me both shock and sadness. He wondered if Dr. White represents the direction our Convention is headed. I honestly believe that unless other conservative Southern Baptists besides myself begin to speak out and participate in Convention matters, Dr. White's opinions will shortly become mandated for the entire Convention.

The message he preached was about birth control. Can you imagine a policy requiring SBC missionaries swearing that they do not believe in birth control before they are appointed to the mission field? If you think that sounds far fetched, I simply remind you of other "doctrinal" policies being passed by Southern Baptist trustees infatuated with pushing their personal opinions on all others. Read carefully what Dr. White is saying about birth control and those who use it. The transcript begins at the 19:10 minute mark of the message.

"Behold children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward . . . Blessed is the man whose quiver is full” (Psalms 127:3,5a).

There is perhaps nothing in America that we have misunderstood as much as the fact that children are a blessing from the Lord. It says right here - “Behold children are a heritage from the Lord: the fruit of the womb a reward.” Think about what we do in our society, though, to undermine this one principle that’s taught here in Scripture. There is an entire industry that is built up on stopping or preventing children. We call it birth control, but we should call it contraception. We do not want to conceive and so we attempt to stop (it). In fact, we do this in so many different ways. We have sex education to teach our kids know how to do it properly. The newest survey was upset because the rising amount of people not on contraception had grown to seven percent rather than five percent. Think about those statistics. The nation is upset because seven percent of our population is not using contraception. We have the pill. We have the patch. We even have rods you can stick in your arm now that lasts for three years. We have all of these things built up to prevent children from being formed or born . . .

I’m not here this morning to go off on you, I‘m here to tell you something because I’ve made the mistake. When my wife and I were married in 1999, whether it was because of my own selfishness or because of improper information, we were on birth control. Birth control, they tell you, is not abortive in nature. But birth control has three functions. I won’t go into detail of those three functions because I don’t know how many kids we have (here), but the third function in that birth control is to prevent implantation on the uterine wall. And if it reaches that third function, that third function does not take effect until the seventh day. The seventh day is seven days too long, and its murder of a life. When the egg and the sperm meet, you have life. If you ask theologians they’re going to tell you that the egg and the sperm meet when the souls implanted. There’s no other time to say that God creates the soul and puts it in than that point in time. And so at that point you have life. You have at the moment of conception life, and yet the third aspect of birth control is to say that life cannot implant on to the wall as it normally would, and so that life is going to be flushed down, and that my friends is wrong.

I made the mistake. I’m not standing here telling you anything other than this: I don’t want you to make the mistake because of lack of knowledge. I want you to know that the third form of birth control known as the pill, that third form that it has is wrong – it is not correct according to Scripture.

Now I learned. We stopped. I also learned this: It was in 1956 that the pill was created by the person who founded Planned Parenthood. It was in 1976 that the definition was changed. And the definition was changed to say that life began not when fertilization took place, but that life did not begin until implantation on the uterine wall took place. That change in definition allows the doctors to tell you that the pill has no abortive feature. That change in definition allows them to print in their literature the pill is not abortive in any way. And so it markets and sells better to our nation. It eases our conscience. But the truth of the matter is our consciences do not need to be eased, we need to recognize that children are a blessing from the Lord. I confess to you this morning the reason that I was on - we were on birth control - I didn’t take it, but I was the spiritual leader of my house and it’s my fault that we did; the reason that we did it was my own selfishness. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids in God’s . . . not God’s timing, but my time. I didn’t want kids while I was in my M.Div. program where I was going to have another mouth to feed and it was going to inconvenience my ability to finish my course work and maybe move on and do a Ph.D. and all these type things. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids my way, my time, the way I wanted to do it so I could plan my family out. Folks, you are not in control of your destinies, God is! And the sooner that we recognize that we are sinning when we say, “I’m going to control every aspect of my family,” and we’re not giving control to God, we don’t trust Him, we don’t believe that He knows better than we do, we think we know better than God does. And just like I did, some of you are involved in that exact same sin!

I thought you could control it. I thought as soon as we made the decision to come off, we would have kids immediately. It wasn’t that way. My wife and I have never had natural children. We were married in 1999. The Lord is the giver of life. It’s not us. I’ll tell you more about that story later.

It continues on here after it says, “Children are a heritage from the Lord and the fruit of reward.” It says in verse four: “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” Now I tried to think who in the world around here would have a quiver full, and Dean Nichols came to mind. Dean, how many kids do you have? Three? Four? Five? Six? Seven? Now you can’t afford seven kids. Eight kids? Nine kids? Nine? Or Ten? Nine?

Do you have a quiver I could borrow? (A quiver with arrows is brought to the stage – laughter). How about that? Anybody needs a quiver you just go see Dean Nichols, he’ll take care of you. Now this is an interesting thing. “Blessed is the man whose quiver is full.” Nine kids? And he’s still alive, how about that? (Laughter) You see we joke, but this is the attitude that this verse is against. It’s my attitude too. I think about ten kids running around the house and I think to myself, “O Lord, is that really a blessing?”

That’s what His word says, “Children are a blessing . . .”

(Dr. Thomas White then goes on to explain the characteristics of an arrow and how they compare to our children. He describes how a warrior prepares an arrow by bending and curing the wood, and how that compares to parents training their kids. Dr. White then speaks of the sin of pushing kids off to daycare, public schools or youth groups, when it is our primary responsibility to train our kids, just as the biblical warrior would construct his arrows).

Society tells us that children will make a rich man poor, but the Bible tells us that children will make a poor man rich. And that’s the attitude that we need to have. It is the Lord who controls our life. He is God and we are not. He is the one in control, and we are not. If He gives you twelve kids, twelve blessings you have received. If He gives you three kids, three blessings you have received. It is not for us to plan our parenthood, it is for God to be the giver of life.

(Dr. White closes his message with a story of how he and his wife adopted a child in 2005 and a challenge to "let God be God" and acknowledge that we are not God by refusing to use birth control).

There are three sobering judgements I would like to make about Dr. White's message:

(1). When SBC seminary professors, SBC agency Presidents, and other SBC leaders preach their personal opinions as if they were mandates from God, then anyone who ever dares disagree or dissent is considered a sinner, or even worse, a liberal who denies the Scripture. This attitude by the legalists causes the pool of Southern Baptists deemed qualified to serve in leadership or cooperative missions ministry to shrink. This legalism also destroys the cooperative Southern Baptist ministry, and it is for this reason that these kinds of legalists must not be allowed to control the Convention. By the way, Dean Nichols, the man illustrated as having a 'quiver full' of kids is head of security of SWBTS and the husband of Mary Nichols, one of the International Mission Board trustees and member of the IMB trustee caucus who forced through other personal opinions as "doctrinal" policies that exceed both Scripture and the Baptist Faith and Message.

(2). Dr. White seems to be unfamiliar with the teaching of our Baptist forefathers on this issue of the creation of the soul. The claim that "all" theologians hold to his view that the soul is created by God at conception is a claim either built on misperception or misunderstanding.

(3). Here's hoping that our preachers are being taught the primacy of the gospel at our SBC seminaries and not the primacy of birth control. What changes lives is not the claim that Christians taking birth control are sinners, but the claim that God sent His Son to die in the stead of sinners.

Thy Peace (one of this blog's readers and commentors), you asked me for an illustration of legalism in the SBC.

I hope this post helps you understand why I write what I write.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Legalism Is A Cancer on Both Ends of the Scale

This past Saturday at the O-Club before the Oklahoma University vs. Kansas University football game I ran into a former Southern Baptist minister, his wife, and two children. They told me that they had recently moved back to the Norman area after having served at a Southern Baptist church out of state. They have left the ministry temporarily, experiencing symptoms of a burnout due to the treatment they had received at the two previous Southern Baptist Churches where they had served. They are now attending a non-denominational church and, at least according to the wife, will have a hard time stepping foot back into a traditional Southern Baptist church because of the hurts they've experienced. When I asked them to be specific, they spelled it out for me in terms that made perfect sense.

Their battle in the churches where they ministered was with legalism. People in the SBC church had an image, or a standard, of what this couple should be as a family, minister, and friends. This standard was not the character qualities of Scripture, but one of their own creation. This Southern Baptist couple did not meet that standard, and the hurt, pain and rejection was more than they could bear, and so they have temporarily left the ministry. Then, in recounting to me the story, the husband made an interesting statement to me:

"I was saved from my sin and discipled to be a legalist myself. When I began to discover what it means to know Christ and the freedom of loving others where they are in their walk with Christ, I began to throw off the bondage of legalism. What that means is I started accepting people where they were in their journey. My confidence in the work of Christ in my heart, and in their hearts, increased. I realized that God was a far more abler Shepherd of His people than I. Yet, an interesting thing began to happen. The more I began to reject my former legalism, the more descipable I became to the legalists."

When I asked him about attending a Southern Baptist Church in the Norman area, he mentioned several churches they had visited across the theological spectrum in the area and then made an observation that caused me later to reflect on its profundity. He said,

"Legalism is not a problem of just the far right. It is as much a problem in those who pride themselves in theological liberalism. The spirit of legalism in its purest form is your rejection of people who do not meet your standard."

I do believe the cancer that eats away at cooperative ministry among Christians, whether it be at the local church level or the national denominational level, is the spirit of legalism. Would that God give us the grace to accept one another in the various ways He has created and gifted us to be a part of His body, and refrain from demanding everyone be like us.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

A Slap on the Hand that Has Stung for a Lifetime

Yesterday I walked across the street and had a Sunday afternoon visit with our next door neighbor Homer Paine and his wife Frona. Most fans of Oklahoma Sooner football know Homer Paine, now 86 years old. Homer is part of what Tom Brokaw called "The Greatest Generation," and what we are experiencing as a dying generation. Homer is a World War II veteran and Battle of the Bulge participant, a two-time all Big-Seven tackle (the Big Seven was the forerunner to the old Big Eight Conference) for the Oklahoma Sooners football team (1946, 1948), a football player that Barry Switzer and Jim Dent profiled in their book The Undefeated, and only one of 338 Oklahomans ever to be drafted to play professional football (Philadelphia Eagles).

Homer is a modest man and has been married to his wife Frona for fifty-eight years. He met Frona while at the University of Oklahoma and after marriage and a brief stint in the National Football League, Homer and Frona moved to Enid where Homer worked for Johnston Grain until his retirement twenty years ago. They have lived across the street from our home since 1968. Both Homer and Frona are a treasure trove of facts regarding Oklahoma Sooner football, Oklahoma politics and Oklahoma history. They know what church everyone attends on our street and they have informed me quite clearly that they like me personally, even though I'm a Baptist pastor. They will discuss anything and everything with me - until I ever try to "make them a Baptist." Then, Frona has informed me, our conversation will always end.

Frona told me yesterday that she shivers every time she hears the word "Baptist." When I asked her why she holds such disdain for Baptists, she told me this story. When she was dating Homer while attending the University of Oklahoma, she was part of a female quartet that sang in all the churches around the Norman area. One Sunday the quartet had been invited by the famous and beloved Southern Baptist pastor, Dr. E.F. Hallock (affectionately known as "Preacher Hallock), pastor of First Baptist Church, Norman Oklahoma, to sing at the services there.

Frona said that in the morning service, just before they were to sing, communion was served. As the plate was being passed to the four guests who were seated on the front row, Frona took the plate and reached for the communion bread. Frona said she was startled to experience a "slap on the hand" by the woman seated next to her. The woman, a member of First Baptist Church who knew Frona, said, "Frona, you can't take that here. It's only for us who are members."

Frona told me that from her Christian tradition (Methodist), communion was for all believers. Frona said what bothered her the most was not the fact she didn't know "Baptist" tradition, but that this Southern Baptist woman felt the freedom to slap her on the hand and tell her what she could not do in the middle of a worship service that Frona had been invited to attend.

From that Sunday morning sixty five years ago in Norman, Oklahoma until this day, Frona said she gets a sick feeling in her stomach when she hears the word "Baptist." Her story has made me pause to consider if we who are Southern Baptists have spent far too much time telling people what it is what we are against, emphasizing those things that differentiate us from them, and slapping the hands of every person who is not like us that we have lost sight of the greatest commandment to love one another.

If I could articulate a simple reason why I continue to blog it is to convince the Fronas of this world that though there may be a few Southern Baptists who wish to continually slap other Christians on the hand, there are far more of us Southern Baptists who wish to emphasize those things we have in common with other evangelicals and we accept the differences without any slapping. I wish to help the Fronas of this world to see that most Southern Baptists view our identity as Christian first, and if our Baptist identity ever causes us to slap people who disagree, then it's time for us to take a fresh look at whether or not we have lost sight of who we are in Christ.

That, in short, is why I blog.

In His Grace,


Wade

Which Pastor Is Actually Preaching the Gospel?

When Martin Luther launched the Reformation by posting of his 95 Theses Against the Sale of Indulgences on October 31, 1517 the recently invented printing press became the tool of the Reformation. Both sides of the conflict, the Reformers and the orthodox Roman Catholics, claimed to be on the side of truth. It was the power of the free, unfettered flow of information through print media that allowed the Reformation to spread.

In the same manner, any reform or gospel resurgence in our modern day will be facilitated by the internet. Whereas some Christians would desire to separate and isolate over doctrinal minutiae, when Christians are able to visually see the differences between the actual implementation of the various interpretations regarding tertiary doctrines, a tipping point for one side over the other may very well be reached. One such example is offered below through a couple of videos sent to me by Jack Beavers. The first video portrays the story of a female associate pastor who preaches the gospel at her church in Mississippi. Compare her humility, faithfulness and gentle spirit with the pastor in the next video who describes in graphic detail his view that all the problems we face in the world are caused by men acting like women. In this case, we might all agree that the male in the second video might want to act more like the woman in the first video. The kingdom of Christ would be better for it.

The Centrality of Jesus Christ for Our Fellowship

This morning a group of about twenty five men met at the Grace Place here in Enid for our weekly discipleship meeting. The group is composed of businessmen, farmers, doctors, Air Force pilots, and other men from Emmanuel who meet for the purpose of discipleship and encouragement. This morning we studied the first two chapters of I Corinthians and discussed the causes of divisions within the body of Christ. Corinthian Christians were divided. Paul sought to unite them by reminding the church of the centrality of Jesus Christ and His death on the cross. The Apostle reminded his readers that when we lose sight of 'Christ and him crucified' we lose the basis of our fellowship, for it is the gospel, as applied to our hearts by the Spirit, that forms the basis of our spiritual power and unity.

Almost two years ago I wrote a post entitled Conversion to Christ Over a Glass of Wine. That particular post recounts leading a Roman Catholic woman to faith in Christ, and restoring her marriage to her husband over a meal she had prepared in their home for my wife and me. Though it is my usual custom to practice abstinence and I have never even tasted 'beer,' the recounting of the story of how this woman was brought to the place of recognizing the power of Christ to transform her life has been the focus of a great deal of attention over the past few months in the blog world. Because of it, one blogger concerned with Baptist identity has written an entire series on the sin of drinking wine. Another blogger has posted an email that I am a 'beer-guzzler.' Much has been written about the post, but nobody critical of it has ever asked me about the woman and her husband.

Let me introduce you to them. If you have about five minutes, I would encourage you to watch this past Sunday's worship service at Emmanuel, April 13, 2008. After the first set of worship songs, Kyle and Carol Williams, whose marriage was transformed and lives turned around by the power of Jesus Christ over dinner in their home, share their testimony of involvement in small group ministry at Emmanuel. During their testimony time you will hear how they are currently working with a group of Christians in Poland to establish a Christian Radio Network that will reach every city of that country. They continue to be active leaders in our church, evangelistic in their outreach to Enid's business community, and now use their wealth to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ around the world.

Our discussion in small group discipleship reminded me of this couple. Kyle Williams was there. He shared that his understanding of the gospel caused him to only use his wine collection in moderation, always avoids drunkenness, and has been able to lead others to Christ through his testimony. Another man at the discipleship group, Brent Price, shared how he used his personal conviction of abstinence has been used by God to lead basketball teammates to Christ. The professional basketball players around whom Brent spent several years of his life had no concept of moderation, and as Brent would eat dinner with them, and abstain, his abstinence would cause conversation to turn to Christ. Brent was a wonderful example to his teammates of the power of the Spirit to control fleshly appetites. I know the difficulties Brent faced as a Christian in the professional basketball world because when I was with Brent in Houston in the mid 1990's, his Houston Rockets teammate, Charles Barkley, invited me to go with him to the strip club - and that was after he found out I was Brent's pastor.

Kyle and Brent take different approaches on how they relate to the world around them. Both Kyle and Brent are Southern Baptists and two of the finest Christian men I know. During our meeting this morning Kyle affirmed Brent in his convictions and Brent affirmed Kyle in his. To me, that is an example of Christian unity. The ability to rally around the essentials of the faith and give freedom to tertiary issues is the key to Christian unity. There are areas where Scripture does not give either a direct command or clear prohibition. We will be healthier as a convention when we base our Southern Baptist fellowship and cooperation on the centrality of Jesus Christ and him crucified and resist the urge to demand others conform to any other identity of our own making.

In His Grace,


Wade

Desiring the Death of the Death of Dissent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until it happens,

Wade Burleson

Those Who Make the BFM Say What It Doesn't

H.G. Wells once said, "I write as straight as I can, just as I walk as straight as I can, because that is the best way to get there." The best way to get to an understanding of the role of women in the SBC should be the straighforward wording of the Southern Baptist Convention's Confession of Faith. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message makes the following statement about women under Article VI entitled The Church:

"While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

This statement is clear. Whether or not one agrees with the premise, it should be granted that the 2000 BFM prohibits women from serving in the office of pastor ; which is defined in Article VI as an office within a church. There is no prohibition regarding women serving as Hebrew professors at our seminaries; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Vice-Presidents or even Presidents of our Southern Baptist agencies; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Strategy Cordinators with the International Mission Board; there is no prohibition regarding women teaching men; and as and there is no prohibition regarding women serving as chaplains. The only confessional prohibition is that women cannot serve in the 'office of pastor.'

The 2000 BFM Committee also used clear language to express their belief in the possible fallibility (error) of their interpretations of the sacred text. The 2000 BFM Committee displayed the same humble approach that the 1925 and 1963 Committees exhibited in acknowledging their ability to err in interpretating biblical doctrines - while at the same time believing the Bible itself is without error. This acknowledgment is spelled out in in their report to the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention:

As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time. Any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so. The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

If this generation of Southern Baptists does not understand the significance of such humble language and experience heartfelt gratitude for it, there will one day arise another generation who will express appreciation that their Southern Baptist forefathers had such wisdom. All Southern Baptists readily concede that unless the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is revised, women are officially prohibited from serving in the 'office of pastor' within a church that wishes to cooperate with other Southern Baptists churches or be identified with the Southern Baptist Convention. My goal is neither to revise or amend the 2000 BFM; I desire to show Southern Baptists how the phrase 'office of pastor' has now been taken by hard-line complementarians in the Southern Baptist Convention and used as the basis for the removal of women from performing any Christian function or ministry that involves men. These ministries from which Southern Baptist women have been prohibited include, but are not limited to, the 'indulgence' of exegeting Scripture in the presence of men, participating in any public leadership or administration of the ordinances with men present, and serving in Southern Baptist positions or jobs that require supervision of men. Integrity demands that we Southern Baptist should say what we mean. The intentional and clear phrase 'office of pastor' means what it says. To now use it to justify the complete removal of Southern Baptist women from any ministry involving men is both deceptive and unacceptable.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Southern Baptists, including Dorothy Patterson, Al Mohler, Danny Akin and others, serve on the Board of Directors of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. There are some fine men and women across the evangelical spectrum who serve on the board of directors, council and board of reference of CBMW. They write some excellent articles and materials from a complementarian perspective, and I have profited from them. I am grateful for Christians like those who serve on the Council, including the Southern Baptists named above, because they think seriously about such issues as manhood and womanhood and write for the profit of others. There are as many other conservative, evangelical men and women who write for Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization that holds to egalitarianism, and I have profited from their scholarly approach to biblical manhood and womanhood as well. Contrary what some assert, not only is it possible for a conservative, Bible-believing Christian to hold to egalitarianism. thousands of inerrantists do.

It is interesting to me, however, that complementarians often seem to lack either consensus or precision related to the question of whether or not it is only the senior pastor position that is banned for women. Hard-line complementarians on the CBMW have not reached a consensus with softer complementarians on whether or not women can lead worship, serve on pastoral staffs, teach men in the academic setting, etc . . . Unfortunately, it seems as if those advocating the hard-line complementarian position, which limits women far beyond the role of 'pastor' or 'elder,' may be currently winning the day at CBMW. I would love to be proven wrong by the CBMW revealing publicly which ministries they believe to be barred to women, with clear biblical warrants given. Otherwise, the kingdom is harmed by a kind of blanket discouragement for women to think of themselves as being able to minister according to their gifts, or to pursue ministry positions within the church other than the 'office of pastor.'

It is time that we Southern Baptists recognized that there may be a few people in leadership positions within our Convention who would seek to force upon the convention things regarding women that we have never offically adopted - like prohibitions on missionaries possessing a private prayer language, or prohibitions on women teaching Hebrew in our seminaries, or prohibitions on women serving as chaplains, etc . . . In my next post (I'm still researching for it) I will tell you the story of Regimental Army Chaplain, Major Paige Heard, who is now stationed at historic West Point Military Academy. Major Heard is a life-long Southern Baptist, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, New Orleans Seminary, and has faithfully served Christ as an endorsed chaplain of the Southern Baptist Convention. Paige is a conservative. She believes the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and sufficient. Yet, she is now only one of five female Southern Baptist chaplains left in the Army. In 2004 the trustees of the North American Misson Board voted to stop endorsing female chaplains. Major Heard had been endorsed prior to the 2004 prohibition and was 'grandfathered' in.

Ironically, the North American Mission Board in 2003 had initially said they would not 'ordain' women. But when they learned that the Army did not require ordination for a woman to serve as Chaplain, just an endorsement from NAMB, the trustees scrambled to stop the endorsements in 2004. In explaining why the trustees would no longer endorse 'women' to be chaplains for the Army, the NAMB Chairman of the Trustee Board said, "we will not endorse a woman where where the role and function of the chaplain would be seen the same as that of a pastor."

Do you notice the difference in language? The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message prohibits a woman from 'the office of pastor' in the local church. Somebody, somewhere, drove the NAMB trustees in 2004 to change the prohibition from 'office' to 'function' or 'ministry.' Now, a Southern Baptist woman, according to those who wish to force this narrow view on the rest of us, cannot minister or serve in any manner that might smack of what a pastor might do. As in . . .

(1). Indulging in the exposition of Scripture with men present.
(2). Having 'authority' over men in ministry.
(3). Leading men to faith in Jesus Christ.
(4). Leading in the observing of the ordinances in the presence of men.
(5). Leading worship in a worship service with men present.
(6). Teaching Christian history to men who will be pastors.
(7). Teaching anything spiritual to a boy over the age of twelve.

At the rate we are going to have some leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention who may very well take this prohibition of women holding the 'office of pastor' and do something ridiculous like establish a homemaking program at a seminary to teach women to sew, cook, clean, iron, etc . . . since they are prohibited from doing anything else in terms of ministry. Oh, wait, that's already happening.

More Monday.

Wade Burleson