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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In His Grace,

Wade

A Decision Based on Conviction Enables One To Embrace Any Disgrace

Last week I published on this blog an email written by a fellow Southern Baptist pastor to Southern Baptist seminary administrators. The pastor suggested in the email that it would be "helpful" if two professors were removed from their respective faculty positions because they published a scholarly article on "tithing" that took a view contrary to "the majority of Southern Baptists." That email, interpreted by some friends of the two professors as a call to remove the professors from their faculty positions, caused one of those friends to inform me that there was pressure being placed on seminary administrators to remove the professors. I called the author of the email to ask him if this allegation was true. He denied it. But then a friend of the professors sent me the pastor's email and it was clear the author of the email was being less than forthright with me. It has been the tactic of Southern Baptist ideologues to publicly act as if SBC employees had their support (think Russel Dilday, Ken Hemphill, Al Shackleford, Dan Martin, Sheri Klouda, Karen Bullock, and a host of others), while at the same time privately bringing about pressure behind the scenes to have these people removed from their positions of SBC service for doctrinal differences that have nothing to do with the essentials of the faith. Though in this last's weeks instance, the pastor in question had neither the authority nor the pull to bring about the termination of the two professors, the principle at play remains the same--the private, secret attempt by an ideologue to intimidate and/or bring pressure to remove a Southern Baptist from cooperative ministry because of a disagreement over a tertiery biblical doctrine.

I had a decision to make.

Do I make public the email to expose the tactic used to intimidate Southern Baptists who had dared to publish a paper with a doctrinal viewpoint different than that of the majority? Or, do I remain quiet? It was not an easy decision. Our church's Cooperative Program gifts pay the salaries of seminary professors. They are our employees too. I have a responsibility to be involved if I am aware that someone is being pressured by ideologues to conform to one view (i.e. "the ideologue's view") of a tertiery doctrine over which Christians often disagree. Personal considerations, including a vow I made to never again be silent when I saw employees of the Southern Baptist Convention under attack, were thought through carefully. I knew that if I chose to publish the email that a number of Southern Baptists would consider my action unethical, that many would not be able to comprehend my view that all Southern Baptist cooperative ministry business should be public and transparent (particularly efforts to remove SBC personnel over questions of doctrinal integrity), and that a few Southern Baptists would even question my personal integrity and Christianity. I knew all that before making the decision.

I chose to publish the letter because of a greater good than my reputation. People in the Southern Baptist Convention must be willing to cherish and protect the freedom needed by our SBC professors, pastors, teachers, leaders and/or laymen to believe, teach, preach, write, and publish different interpretations of the sacred text without fearing repercussions or intimidation from ideologues who demand absolute conformity. We are a Convention built on cooperation. By the very definition of the root word cooperate, demands for conformity must be resisted. It's time that we Southern Baptists push back against those who want everyone to look like them and believe like them; and my decision to publish the email was part of that push back. The decision to publish the email was thoughtful, intentional and convictional.

When a Decision Is Based on Conviction, One Is Enabled to Embrace the Disgrace

I do not begrudge any criticism or strong condemnation that comes my way as a result of my decision. I neither fault, nor desire to discourage, any of my fellow Southern Baptists from publicly questioning my integrity, my honor, or even my Christianity.

When Shadrack, Meshack and Abednigo defied the king's law, there is no record of them yelling and screaming at the king for putting them in the fiery furnace. They walked into the fire calmly because they lived on the basis of conviction and made their choices on principle. When Daniel defied the king's order and continued to pray, he quietly went to the lion's den. His decision to defy the law, based on a conviction, led him to not whine about his punishment. When Peter defied civil authorities and preached Christ, there is no record of him complaining about the jail term that came his way. He sang in jail rather than passing notes around about how he shouldn't be there. When John the Baptist was sentenced to capital punishment, you have no testimony that the Baptist bemoaned the fact he spent his life bowing his knee to the Lordship of Christ rather than kissing the ring of the king. When you do what you do because of conviction, then you embrace any disgrace that comes your way because of your decisions. Likewise, you pay little attention to any praise, which is easier, since most convictional choices are countercultural and bring little praise. Convictional people do not make good politicians. There's never any finger up in the air seeking the wind direction of public opinion. Our chosen path comes from within, as we are led by the Holy Spirit. And if the Holy Spirit leads us down an unpopular, unlawful (think Hitler's Germany, modern Iran, the rescue of orphans in Haiti, etc...), or difficult path, then we above all people should never complain when others seek to shame us or disgrace us.

Let me illustrate how this plays out for me in practical ways these last couple of days.

(1). The author of the email I published writes that he is receiving supportive and encouraging emails at the rate of 50 to 1. For his sake, I can wish it were a million to zero in support of him. Nothing in me is affected or changed by any ratio of support.

(2). One man wrote that Wade Burleson was "a pile of human excrament (sic) with the integrity of belly button lint." If I remember right, Paul called everything in his life "dung" (reputation, career, etc...) for a greater cause. To me, that's pretty good company. In other words, no offense taken with this man for his words. He feels them; I receive them.

(3). One SBC lawyer opined "It is a serious ethical breach for lawyers (which I am) to receive mail from other people like this. Ah, if only you preachers would live up to the standards set by the bar associations. I freely acknowledge that my decision does not live up to the ethical standard of attorneys, and were I one, I would welcome any censure or punishment handed out.

(4). One SBC pastor charged I had a self-perceived messianic complex. Others have alleged I desire adulation or want to be a hero. I admit a tad bit of confusion on those charges since it's been indicated support is running 50 to 1 against me. Messiah's and heroes usually have the 50 on their side. Of course, those pastors' charges actually go to the motive, not the results, of my decision to publish the letter. I feel quite comfortable knowing God and I are the only ones who can know my true motives, and even I am sometimes blind to them. For my motives to be considered suspect or sinful because of my decision is something I accept.

(5). Others have weighed in with their opinion that "they would not have done it the way Wade Burleson did it." That's absolutely true. Nor should they have. Were the whole world to choose a different path, that would not change any decision I make based on conviction.

Back when I saw the same pattern of forcing a specific ideology on all Southern Baptists through new doctrinal policies at the International Mission Board, I made the decision to make public my concerns. Trustees at the IMB were backdooring the new doctrinal requirements by bypassing a vote from the Convention, and then trustees were removing from service anybody who disagreed. In addition, trustees in charge changed the trustee guidelines in an attempt to keep me quiet. They passed a policy that stated any trustee of the IMB who publicly criticizes a board approved policy will be censured. I voted against the "no dissent" policy, and at the time stated that "it was the worst policy ever passed by any Southern Baptist board of trustees in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention," violating the no dissent policy within five minutes of its passage. When I chose later to continue my criticism of the new doctrinal policies implemented by IMB trustees, policies that exceeded the BFM 2000 (see The Garner Motion), trustee leaders moved to publicly censure me. When a reporter asked me how I felt about the censure, I responded in this manner:

The board of trustees have every right to censure me, and should--because their new trustee guidelines call for it. I welcome their censure and any future censures. I am choosing to criticize these new doctrinal policies publicly because I believe a greater good will come from my criticism. We must cease narrowing the doctrinal parameter for Southern Baptist cooperative mission efforts by refraining from demanding interpretative conformity on biblical doctrines that are not essential to our salvation. Southern Baptists must be free to disagree."

I've not changed my views on this in the last five years. When I come across secret attempts to intimidate or threaten fellow Southern Baptists for disgreeing over tertiery doctrinal matters, I will contact the person who initiates the intimidation privately, but if there is no remorse or repentance, the intimidation will be publicly exposed and publicly opposed--every time. The attitude "you must agree with all my interpretations of the Bible or get out of the SBC" is neither historically Baptist or essentially Christian. I will at all times, and on all occasions, publish any private emails or written communications from SBC ideologues that seeks to intimidate into silence any Southern Baptist employee who believes, teaches, or publishes a contrary or dissenting doctrinal viewpoint.

Ideologues in the SBC need to know that any and all attempts to intimidate other Southern Baptists who view things differently will continue to be exposed and opposed. Nobody who intimidates, bullies or threatens others in the Southern Baptist Convention--a Convention built on cooperation-- gets a free pass.

Lord willing, Southern Baptists will once again experience the true measure of Baptist identity--the freedom to believe, teach, preach, write and serve others as God leads. Our willingness to work with other Southern Baptists with whom we disagree is the essence of SBC cooperation. Those who can't cooperate, or won't cooperate, shouldn't be allowed to lead the SBC or determine who will be employed by those of us who pay the bills.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Preventing the SBC from Becoming the One View Baptist Convention

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

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

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

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

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Why Southern Baptist Cooperation through SBC Conventions, Associations and Entities Is In Trouble

Webster's Dictionary defines "cooperation" as "the action of association for a common effort or benefit." Southern Baptist churches have associated together for the common effort of missions since 1845. In fact, the "Southern" before Baptist identifies the cooperative nature we Baptists bring toward our mission efforts; otherwise, we would simply be a part of the tens of thousands of other independent Baptist churches in America. Jim Richards, the Executive Director of the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas, was recently quoted as saying, “I believe one of the greatest threats to the mission of today’s church among Southern Baptists is a departure from cooperation.

He's right; but he's also part of the reason cooperation in the SBC is unraveling.

Southern Baptist conservatives who demand absolute conformity on all doctrinal matters, or worse, tamper with broad doctrinal confessional statements by adding tertiary doctrines to them and then demand that all other Southern Baptists pledge allegience to them, are destroying the fabric of cooperation. Ironically, my conservative friends are intelligent enough to see that when thousands of Baptists ceased identifying with the SBC after passage of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, it became prudent not to tamper anymore with the BFM.

So conservative leadership decided to change, behind the scenes, the doctrinal statements that served as the standard for cooperation and service within individual SBC agencies. These changes in the doctrinal statements of SBC entities were approved and implemented without SBC convention wide approval. Designated trustees began changing the doctrinal statements to reflect the core of organized Fundamentalism (anti-spiritual gifts, Landmark, pre-millenial, etc.). There is nothing necessarily morally wrong with Fundamentalism if the adherents to that particular ideology love those who disagree with them. The problem with Fundamentalism, especially in the Southern Baptist Convention, is when people of cooperation become more interested in doctrinal conformity than missional cooperation. When that happens, Baptist people, pastors and churches who used to identify with the cooperative efforts of Southern Baptists will CEASE cooperating.

That seems to already be happening.

The Southern Baptist Convention is in trouble. Finances will continue to decline. Leadership may wish to point to the economy, but the truth is, until we stop giving lip service to cooperation, and actually treasure it, we have nowhere to go but down.

I am on my way to the meeting of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. Our cooperative efforts are important, but growing demands that all SBC churches identify with Fundamentalist ideology in order to cooperate in mission effforts must stop.

In His Grace,

Wade

There Is a Huge Difference Between Homosexual Sin and Women Preaching the Gospel

The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention will meet on Monday, June 22, 2009 and more than likely approve a recommendation seeking to officially disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.

Bill Sanderson, a pastor in North Carolina and a trustee of the International Mission Board, made the motion to disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church at last year's Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis. The messengers referred Sanderson's recommendation to the Executive Committee, requesting the EC to report back to the 2009 Convention. It seems gay couples who were attending Broadway asked to have their portraits appear in the church directory. Broadway's leadership, rather than taking a stand against homosexual relationships, led the congregation to vote in February of 2008 to publish a directory without individual or family portraits — simply candid snapshots of people instead. This solution, said church leaders, would allow members to recognize one another without making a judgment regarding homosexual relationships.

It is my belief the motion from the Executive Committee to disassociate from Broadway Baptist Church, if presented to the Convention, will pass. In the mid-1990's the Southern Baptist Covention voted to change Article III of the Convnetion's Constitution.

The Southern Baptist Convention's Constitution now reads:

___________________________________________

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. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention's work during the fiscal year preceding.

____________________________________________

If in fact, it is reported that Broadway Baptist Church and her members are affirming homosexual relationships, I will vote to disassociate from Broadway. The Convention's action will be big news, particularly in light of President Barak Obama's push to overturn the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which prevents the federal government from recognizing "gay marriage." However, the SBC has disassociated from churches that affirm homosexuality before, and we will simply be following our Constitution. You will be hardpressed to find Bible-believing, evangelical believers who would disagree that homosexual relationships are sin.

The Bigger Problem We Face as Southern Baptists

The much larger issue we face as Southern Baptists is not the disassociation from Broadway Baptist Church, but rather, the probable attempt by some to disassociate from churches that recognize and call women to vocational ministry, such as First Baptist Church, Decatur, Georgia. This historic Southern Baptist Church called Julie Pennington-Russell as their lead pastor, and have a number of women in ministry positions.

Though evangelical, conservative Christians agree that homosexual and adulterous behavior is sin, there is disagreement among inerrantists on whether or not women preaching the gospel to men, women teaching the Bible to men, or women spiritually leading men is actually sin. One conservative, inerrantist Southern Baptist pastor has written an excellent paper, while in seminary no less, entitled A Biblical Primer on Women in Ministry. Jon Zens, a fellow conservative evangelical Christian has written, Are the Sisters Free to Function?, an extraordinary defense of women in ministry, based on a very high view of the sacred text. Many conservative scholars write for Christians for Biblical Equality, defending their belief from Scripture that nowhere does God restrict women in ministry.

Sure, there is disagreement among Southern Baptists on this issue. But I predict that if someone from Georgia offers a similar recommendation to disassociate from First Baptist Church, Decatur because they have hired a female pastor, then the Southern Baptist Convention will face an extraordinary crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in a very long time.

The world may not understand our firm view on homosexuality. So be it.

But when half of conservative evangelical Christianity doesn't understand why we would disassociate from churches that call women as pastors, then we lose as a Convention.

Let's debate the women in ministry issue. Let's disagree with one another amicably. But for heaven's sake, let's not make fools of ourselves by equating women preaching the gospel with homosexual sin.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

True Baptist Identity Is One of Cooperation

For the past several years some in our Southern Baptist Convention have been leading us down a road of isolationism and separation from the evangelical community at large. For lack of better nomenclature, the Baptist Identity movement has become the name for isolationists and separatists among Southern Baptists. However, the official Baptist Identity movement is not truly Baptist. For centuries Baptists have been known as Christians first, followers of Jesus who would accept no creed but the Bible, and give freedom to others to disagree. The modern Baptist Identity movement, however, has a philosophy that is just the opposite of our Baptist forefathers. Modern Baptist Identity adherents are Baptists first, and if that gets in the way of being Christian, then so be it.

The best example of the identity crisis of modern Baptist Identity philosophy is seen in this comment from a Southern Baptist Baptist Identity adherent on another blog:

If one ever does come to the place were he must, for conscience sake, no longer be able to affirm the BFM, in its current rendering as approved by the SBC, he should resign from his position of service in the SBC.

In resigning he will retain his personal integrity as a believer. He does not have to be a Southern Baptist to maintain his integrity as a Christian. He does not have to affirm the BFM to have integrity as a Believer. He does have to maintain his integrity to maintain a proper fellowship with the Lord of his life, Jesus Christ. That is far more important than being an employee of the SBC.

Think about that comment for a moment. The writer (unnamed) is saying that one should follow Jesus and leave the SBC than to follow Jesus - disagreeing with the BFM in its current form - and staying in the SBC.

I trust one sees the convoluted nature in the comment above. Baptist Identity adherents put being a Southern Baptist BEFORE being a follower of Jesus. That, in essence, is how cults are formed.

The implications of this Baptist Identity philosophy are far reaching and severe. If a change in the SBC bylaws or a change in the SBC BFM occurs, then the Baptist Identity adherents say you should maintain your Christian convictions and GET OUT of service to the SBC, rather than making other Southern Baptists aware of the problem within your conscience and staying in the SBC. Do you disagree with closed communion? Leave. Do you disagree with the BFM statement on war? Leave. Do you disagree with the statement that nobody is guilty of sin until they actually sin? Leave. Do you disagree with ___________ (fill in the blank)? Leave. That, in essence, is the spirit of Baptist Identity these days.

That is also the kind of spirit we Southern Baptists must resist. We are a Convention of cooperation, not conformity.

The true Southern Baptist, confident in his identity as a Christian first, would stay in the SBC, maintain his integrity as a believer by voicing his disagreement with anything he sees as unbiblical and unchristian, and then letting those brothers and sisters in Christ who see things differently know that the disageement will neither affect his love for, service to, or cooperation with, those Southern Baptists of a different persuasion. That is the true identity we need as Southern Baptists.

In His Grace,

Wade

What the Animal Kingdom Can Teach the SBC

Tom Ascol has articulated quite well the great issue before us as Southern Baptists. In a post lyrically entitled What Shall We Be in the SBC?" Tom comes to the following conclusion "I really do believe that, despite our differences, Southern Baptists can work together if we can agree on the centrality and power of the gospel for all of life. I am convinced that a growing number of Southern Baptists believe this, too. Because of this, I anticipate better days ahead. My SBC missionary mother-in-law from the Far East sent me the following video that illustrates fellowship despite extraordinary differences. If the animal kingdom can do it, so should we Southern Baptists!

The Wildness of Vitality or Thought Conformity?

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. J.L. Dagg: Unable to Teach at SWBTS?

Dr. John Leadley (J.L.) Dagg (1794-1884) was the first Southern Baptist systematic theologian to be widely read and accepted by Southern Baptists as a whole. J.L. Dagg pastored the Fifth Baptist Church in Philadelphia for ten years (1825-1834) and would later serve as President of Mercer University in Penfield, Georgia (1844-1854). Mercer enjoyed tremendous growth and recognition during Dagg's presidency, eventually moving to its current location in Macon, Georgia.

Dagg's writing career as a theologian had more influence on Southern Baptists in the 19th Century than any other Southern Baptist. His Manual of Theology (1857), Treatise of Church Order (1858), Elements of Moral Science (1859), and Evidences of Christianity (1869) all continue to stand testament to Dagg's theological acumen and breadth of biblical understanding. The Southern Baptist Convention in 1879, just five years before Dagg's death, passed a unanimous motion (when is the last time that has happened?) that requested the "venerable J.L. Dagg (to) write a catechism . . . . containing the substance of the Christian religion" for the benefit of future Southern Baptists.

Southern Baptists held Dr. J.L. Dagg in high esteem. This is the same Dr. Dagg that had no hesitation to write that Christ atoned for the sins of the elect only. Dr. Dagg firmly believed and taught that Christ died as a Substitute for His people alone. The Father, according to Dagg, has chosen and loved from eternity a certain number of sinners from every tribe, nation and tongue (the world) and given these ungodly sinners to His Son to redeem. Dr. Dagg taught that the Bible promises that Christ will effectually and perfectly accomplish His intended work, and not one of the elect would - or could - ever be lost. Salvation is of the Lord. Thus, Dr. Dagg would never say to every single human being "Christ died for your sins," because he didn't believe Christ died for every single human being. Christ died as a substitute and atoned for the sins of the elect only. The evidence of God's love and saving grace is the sinner's brokenness and repentance over sin and a willingness to place personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Dr. Dagg wrote in Manual of Theology, Book 7, Chapter 4, "Doctrine Concerning Divine Grace:"

The supposition that Christ bore the sins of the whole human race is attended with much difficulty. Multitudes died in impenitence before he came into the world, and were suffering for their sins in the other world, while he was hanging on the cross. How could he be a substitute for these, and suffer the penalty for their sins, when they were suffering it in their own persons? And if he endured the penalty for the sins of all who have since died, or shall hereafter die in impenitence, how shall they be required to satisfy justice a second time by personal suffering?

J.L. Dagg had earlier set forth the Scriptures that indicate Christ died for particular sinners, those that God chose from eternity to redeem and sanctify for the praise of His grace.

The Scriptures teach that the Son of God, in coming into the world and laying down his life, had the salvation of a peculiar people in view: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins."[Matt. i. 21] "The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."[John x. 11] "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church."[Eph. v. 25-27] The Scriptures also teach that the expectation of the Redeemer will be fully realized, and that not one of all whom the Father gave him will fail to be saved: "He shall see his seed. He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied."[Isaiah liii. 10, 11] "All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."[John vi. 37, 39] "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am."[John xvii. 24]

For those who would want the reason why God would redeem a certain specified number of sinners through Christ for the praise of His grace and determine to righteously judge other sinners outside of Christ for the praise of His glorious justice, Dagg would offer:

Those who are not included in the election of grace, are called, in Scripture, "the rest,"[Rom. xi. 7] and vessels of wrath."[Rom. ix. 22] Why they are not included, we are as unable to explain as why the others are included; and we are therefore compelled to refer the matter to the sovereignty of God, who, beyond all doubt, acts herein most wisely and righteously, though he has not explained to us the reasons of his procedure. His absolute sovereignty, is the discrimination which he makes, is expressed by Paul in these words: "He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy; and whom he will he hardeneth."[Rom. ix. 18]

Dr. Dagg believed, as have tens of thousands of Southern Baptists throughout our Convention's history, that those for whom Christ will be effectually redeemed, because Christ saved them through His work of atonement. In other words, it is the work of Christ that saves - not faith. Faith only evidences we have part and portion in the work of Christ. As Dr. Dagg so eloquently states:

In Rom. v.11, the only place in the New Testament where the word atonement occurs, the Greek word for which it stands, is the same that is rendered reconciling--reconciliation, in other places.[Rom. xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19] The reconciliation is not between God and sin in the abstract, for such a reconciliation is impossible. It is a reconciliation of persons; and such a reconciliation as secures eternal salvation. "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."[Rom. v. 10] In Paul's view, all those for whom Christ's death made reconciliation or atonement, will certainly be saved; and therefore atonement cannot be universal, unless salvation be universal. It is possible to use the word atonement in such a sense, as to render the question respecting the extent of the atonement one of mere definition: but it is best to use the words of Scripture in the Scripture sense.

I read the incredibly precise and biblically saturated doctrine of grace articulated by Dr. Dagg and am blessed. But then I read statements from our current leaders at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary like the following:

"Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS, February 5, 2009

“A consistent five-point Calvinist cannot look a congregation in the eyes or even a single sinner in the eye and say: “Christ died for you.” What they have to say to be consistent with their own theology is “Christ died for sinners.” Since Christ did not die for the non-elect, and since the five-point Calvinist does not know who the elect are, it is simply not possible in a preaching or witnessing situation to say to them directly “Christ died for you.” Dr. David Allen, Dean of SWBTS School of Theology, SWBTS Center for Theological Research, November 2008.

In light of the extraordinary narrowing of the doctrinal parameters of the Southern Baptist Convention in the last 15 years, a narrowing that has led to an emphasis on Landmark, independent, Fundamental ecclesiology and soteriology - which by its very nature leads to separation from those who disagree - I can't help but ask the following question:

Would Dr. John Leadley Dagg be able to hold a faculty position within the school of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2009?

I have absolutely no problem with SWBTS having Landmark, independent, Fundamental separatists as faculty members, particularly since this is the ideology of the President. My problem is the notion that one is not truly a Southern Baptist deserving of ministry unless you happen to be ideologically in conformity with them.

Thousands of Southern Baptists are not, and neither was Dr. Dagg.

In His Grace,

Wade

Divisions Reveal Those Approved For Leadership

For the last twenty-five years I have met every Tuesday morning with a group of men for discipleship purposes. These men come from all walks of life and are very astute in Scriptural matters. One of the men pointed out to us this week that the Bible has something very interesting to say about divisions and disagreements in the church, whether they be doctrinal, political or personal in nature.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19

18. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

19. For there must (dei - "it is necessary") also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. NASV

The last phrase of these two verses gives us the reasons why divisions and disagreements are necessary in the church. " . . . so that those who are approved may become evident among you."

It seems quite clear that the kind of leadership that is approved of God, the kind of leaders that the church should follow, are those who are tolerant of other views, who graciously and lovingly accept people of different persuasions and opinions, and who place charity as the highest value within the church (I Corinthians 13).

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Conflict Among Baptists Is Not Always Bad

The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention just completed their three day board meeting (September 8-10, 2008) in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Hershael York from Kentucky, a new trustee appointed last year, recently blogged about what he calls "this very historic meeting." I would like to agree with my friend Hershael and use his own words to show that the IMB is better off than they were three years ago because of controversy between trustees from 2005-2008.

Hershael's blog is called Confessions of a Pastor. Here are five reasons, using York's own words (in quotations below), why I know the IMB is better off than it wsa three years ago.

(1).

"I am just now returning from an historic meeting of the International Mission Board"

When Grace and Truth to You first began nearly three years ago, blogging was compared to trafficking in "internet pornography" by several IMB trustees during trustee meetings. It's refreshing that those kinds of things are no longer being said.

(2).

"Staff, trustees, and a special task force are working closely together, perhaps more than ever before"

An extraordinary turn of events for which every Southern Baptists ought to be grateful. The trustee system was never designed to be manipulated by outside parties in order to thwart the implementation of IMB administrative staff's vision. Trustees are not called to RUN the IMB. Trustees are called to support the vision of administrative staff (for heaven's sake, that's why we hired them), hold accountable the expenditures of budgetary monies, and offer support for those missionaries called to do the work on the field. Trustees are NEVER to micro-manage the IMB, but the closed door sessions involving trustees and staff in 2005 and 2006 usually denigrated into certain trustee leaders questioning the day to day decisions of administrative staff (i.e. (1). "Dr. Rankin, I heard you said 'this' in chapel with your staff? Is that true? (2). "Dr. Rankin, your Candidate Consultants don't seem to know how to "screen" candidates, so we'll help them. How about a couple of new "doctrinal" policies to help your staff weed out certain 'un-Baptistic' missionaries your staff of Consultants seem to be sending us?" (3). "Dr. Rankin, we are going to place an offer on your desk for early retirement? Don't you think it is time to step down?" This last one was behind closed doors that were behind the 'official' closed doors.) Sounds to me like there is a renaissance of trust among trustee for administative staff.

(3).

"We serve churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries to bring all peoples to faith in Jesus Christ."

Every Southern Baptist ought to be doing back flips over the adoption of the above Core Value. Though it has been a core value before, trustees seem to have forgotten it. In 2005, SBC churches were not being 'served' when the missionary candidates the CHURCHES sent to be appointed were REJECTED by trustees who felt they knew MORE than the CHURCHES about baptism. The idea that a group of trustees would reject a biblical baptism of a missionary candidate - that the candidate's OWN CHURCH HAD ACCEPTED - because the candidate's baptism was not performed in a Southern Baptist Church (or one that 'believes' in eternal security) - IS NOT SERVING THE CHURCH. Thank God the trustees are now understanding their servant's role of "serving churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission is changing." It can't be long before the silly "doctrinal" policy change that arose out of a misconcepton of trustee "authority" will be overturned as well.

(4).

"We partner with Baptists and other Christians around the world in accordance with IMB guidelines."

Of course we do. That's why we better be doggone sure that we don't narrow those "guidelines." In 2005 we were going down the road of allowing certain idealogical trustee leaders to "backdoor" the Southern Baptist Convention into believing that the only GENUINE Christian is one who looks like this: (a). A Southern Baptist, baptized in Southern Baptist Church, and (b). one who renounces all belief in the possibility of the continuation of spiritual gifts,and (c). one who abstains from any belief in the "orality" of the gospel and always insists on using the 'written,' inerrant Word to share the gospel, and (d). believes that 'the church' is an institution established with 'officers,' who alone have the authority to dispense communion, baptize converts, etc . . . and, (e) any other "guideline" the IMB wishes to establish.

Kind of hard to cooperate with other "Christians" on the mission field who believe in those things when you can't even find but a handful of strident Southern Baptists in the United States who hold to such convictions. Maybe trustees are now seeing the danger of such narrow "guidelines."

(5).

"We took some positive steps to show greater trust in our Richmond staff as they work with missionary candidates and present them to the Board."

On a scale of 1 to 10 - this one is a 10.

Greater trust in Richmond staff in 2005 would have meant the "doctrinal" policies that exceeded the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message would have never passed. ALL OF THE RICHMOND STAFF OPPOSED TO THEM. The President, the Vice-Presidents, the Candidate Consultants, the Regional Leaders - all of IMB'S administrative staff were in unanimity that the policies were detrimental and harmful to the mission of the IMB.

So, maybe - just maybe, the conflict at the IMB over the past few years has made our IMB better. Trustees now know their place, and it is to be supportive of the people we hire to do Southern Baptist mission work and not to try to do the work ourselves.

Grace and Truth to You will be watching closely to see if the excellent progress made in Atlanta continues in the months to come.

In His Grace,


Wade

A Network Is Not a Convention or Denomination

Dwight McKissic called me today and wanted to discuss a response we would give to media or individuals who were asking questions about the Antioch Network. It seems a handful of people have had questions about whether or not churches with 'women pastors,' or churches that practiced baptism in a manner different than immersion, or churches that were believed in the continuation of the gifts, etc . . . would be 'allowed' into the network.

It seems that some of the questions were asked in the spirit of a top-down denominational structure and the tightly controlled centralized authority viewpoint of a religious bureaucracy. Denominations - and in time 'conventions - can become bogged down in structure, rules and regulations, and efforts to maintain 'control.'

A NETWORK is different. In a NETWORK there may be 'leadership,' but they are not any employees of the NETWORK. The NETWORK'S highest authority is the local church. The NETWORK only fosters cooperation between churches through fellowship, equipping and partnership; but the LOCAL CHURCH maintains ultimate authority. For this reason, I suggested to Dwight that we respond to questions about Antioch as follows:

"We do not speak for the Antioch Network. In fact, if you have a specific question about 'women in ministry,' 'baptism,' or other issues, we can only answer you in regards to the way our church views these subjects, but we cannot speak for other churches or pastors in the NETWORK. To know what others in the Anticoh NETWORK of churches think, you will need to call and ask them. There are no 'official' positions on issues that are not laid out in the brief confession of faith. Every local church will have very specific views on these areas of which you ask - but conformity in belief on tertiary matters will not serve as the basis of fellowship in the Antioch Network. The NETWORK'S purpose is to cooperate for the sake of gospel ministry. We have no intentions of forming any new denomination or convention, but to foster greater cooperation and fellowship across racial, economic and demoninational lines within the kingdom of Christ."

I believe NETWORKS like the Antioch Network will continue to spring up all over evangelical Christianity and soon networks may very well be networking with other networks - all the while emphasizing cooperative ministry, and resisting demands for conformity and tendencies toward separatism over tertiary matters. For some reason, this seems to look like what the early church was.

To have a very good, practical view of what a NETWORK looks like, I would encourage you to go read ,a href Paul Burleson's blog. He himself was at the Antioch meeting this week and his down home way of explaining what a network is - and how it functions - will make you realize that a NETWORK is the furthest thing away from a convention or a denomination. I close with one of Paul Burleson's observations on how networks of churches handle differences:

Were someone to join in worship with any one of the fifteen local fellowships represented in that group (or network), they would hear the clear articulation of the variously held views on such things. But this little group of fifteen is not trying to be a local church, a denomination, a religious institution of any kind. They just want to be a part of a few people who want to love Jesus together, give money so that Jesus may become known, and love on one another as different as we all happen to be, and believe me, hypothetically, those fifteen are different.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Antioch Network of Churches; March 4, 2007

Introductions were made this morning during the 8:30 a.m. session this morning. It was interesting to hear the background of the men and women present at this Antioch Netwrok fellowship. The senior pastor of the largest multi-racial congregation in Arkansas sat beside me and spoke from the heart about his excitement of being in a multi-racial meeting of pastors. Across the room the pastor of a large evangelical church in Kansas City shared about his vision for a network of churches that would work together across economic divides. A small church Southern Baptist pastor from northeast Oklahoma spoke of the move across the country to establish networks of churches that operate in ministry without centralized structure or authority. A Southern Baptist couple, with six degrees from Southwestern Theological Seminary between them, and who co-pastor a large 'Cowboy Church' spoke of the excitement of being involved in a network of churches that was not afraid of spiritual gifts or genuine revival. Two men with Ph.D's in church history and theology respectively spoke of their pleasure of being exposed to evangelicals with different backgrounds.

Paul Littleton was the first speaker this morning. I realize that I am prone to superlatives and have to guard myself against exaggeration in writing. With that awareness, I honestly believe every evangelical Christian who is a member of a denomination or convention could read or hear Paul's presentation. It was understated in emotional presentation but one of the most powerful statements on the modern church I have ever heard. I encourage you to go to Paul Littleton's blog and read his paper.

As promised, the revised and adopted Antioch Network of Churches Doctrinal Confession and Statement of Cooperation is below. Changes are in bold italics

An Antioch Network of Churches Doctrinal Confession and Statement of Cooperation

The gospel is the story about Christ, God’s and David’s Son, who died and was raised and is established as Lord. Churches forming the Antioch Network desire to join together to proclaim the good news that God's Kingdom has come in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Lord and Messiah, in fulfillment of the Word of God.

The gospel we declare evokes faith, repentance and discipleship --- its accompanying effects include the forgiveness of sins, justification, reconciliation, adoption, wisdom and the gift of the Holy Spirit. We accompany our proclamation of the gospel with cooperative works of compassion and mercy for those in need or distress.

We strive to advance Christ’s kingdom on earth with the confession, proclamation, and application of the good news. The Bible is undoubtedly central to our cooperation, but Jesus Christ is the center of it. Therefore, we resolve to cooperate with one another, affirming the essentials of the gospel and our identity as Christ followers in these five doctrines:

(1). We affirm the authority, sufficiency, reliability and consistency of God’s infallible revelation to man in both the Words of Holy Scripture and the Person of Jesus Christ
(2) We affirm that the one true God exists eternally in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these, being one God, are equal in deity, power, and glory. Furthermore, we affirm both the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ.
(3). We affirm Christ’s virgin birth, His substitutionary death for sinners, His resurrection from the dead, His second coming, and His gift of eternal life to all who are in relationship with Him by grace through faith alone.
(4). We affirm that God has ordained the gospel message by His proclamation of the gospel message by His people in the power of the Holy Spirit, who is both the gift of God to the church and the giver of diverse spiritual gifts. We also affirm baptism as the public testimony for those who have come into covenant relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
(5). We affirm that those apart from a relationship with Christ will face God’s judgment.

The sole authority for faith and practice among the Antioch Network of Churches is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Doctrinal confessions, including this one, are only guides to interpreting the Bible, and have no authority over the conscience. Christians have historically differed in interpretation on finer points of doctrine not essential to Christian faith. Yet, with all our differences on secondary issues, we who form the Antioch Network of Churches desire to cooperate in ministry because of our love for the gospel.

Therefore, we intentionally put aside our differences on secondary issues for the sake of cooperative gospel ministry. We desire unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, but charity in all things. This statement of cooperation defines the necessary essentials which must be affirmed in order to participate in the cooperative ministries and fellowship of the Antioch Network of Churches.

We desire to send to the world and our evangelical brethren through this statement of cooperation a sure and certain message: It is the gospel that unites us, and what unites us is greater than anything that might potentially divide us.

The Statement of Cooperation is simply background on the doctrinal confession, and is not considered doctrine itself. In addition to this statement, the group issued an additional statement that defined Antioch as a network and not a denomination or convention.

The group officially adopted the name The Antioch Network of Churches and a leadership team of twelve was elected. Over the next several months the network will evolve as the Lord leads. Our church and - I myself as pastor - will remain committed to the Southern Baptist Convention both financially and in full participation in missions and evangelism. I look forward to being a part of an additional network of churches - broader than just the Southern Baptist Convention - that will work toward the expansion of the kingdom of Christ.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Characteristics of the Christians at Antioch

On Monday night thirty-five evangelical pastors and laymen convened around tables at the Holiday Inn Express in Arlington, Texas to discuss the possible formation of 'The Antioch Network of Churches.' The group had racial and gender diversity and the Spirit was evident in the singing, praying, teaching and fellowship. It was very refreshing for me to be in a place where Christian people were truly gracious toward one another in spite of differences, where evangelicals kept bringing the focus back to the person of Jesus Christ and the cooperative efforts needed to make the gospel of Christ known to the nations, and where God's people truly enjoyed one another's company in the midst of very real diversity.

There was plenty of discussion and even gracious disagreement on a proposed statement of cooperation, but each speaker was given respect and each viewpoint received a full and free hearing, so that a consensus statement was approved within a short period of time. The revised and official doctrinal confession and statement of cooperation, which will be published tomorrow, is an excellent example of how Christians can unite in ministry around the essentials, give freedom to one another in disagreement over the non-essentials, and display love toward each another in all things and at all times. Discussion will take place in today's meetings about possible future involvement in cooperative missions and ministry among the churches within the network. Nobody can say for certain if something formal will come out of this fellowship time or not, but if nothing else, the two day event has been a wonderful experience because there are no denominational politics at work in the meeting and there have been no demands for doctrinal conformity on minutiae matters.

There were several speakers tonight, but I wish to highlight the words of Dr. Sam Storms, the theologian who presented the biblical basis for the name 'Antioch.' Dr. Storms took two texts, Acts 11:19-30 and Acts 13:14, and listed twelve characterstics of the Christians in Antioch. These twelve characteristics would descriptively define any churches who would desire to be a part of a proposed 'Antioch Network.'

(1). They so personally cherished and prized the gospel they were willing to die for it (Acts 11:19).

(2). They were energetically and enthusiastically evangelistic (Acts 11:24).

(3). They were hungry for, and obedient to, the whole counsel of God (Acts 11:26).

(4). They were a compassionate and generous people (Acts 11:27-30).

(5). They were thoroughly and wholeheartedly Christ-centric (Acts 11;26).

(6). They were people committed to a convergence of word and Spirit (Acts 13:1).

(7). They were sincerely, and not merely theoretically, multi-ethnic (Acts 13:1).

(8). They were diverse not merely racially, but socially and economically as well (Acts 13:1).

(9). They were thoroughly God intoxicated and theocentric in their worship (Acts 13:1-4).

(10). They were thoroughly Christian hedonists (i.e. 'They desired abundant pleasure - but the pleasure they desired was 'in God' and all that He is in Christ).

(11). They were sensitive and discerning of the Spirit's voice (Acts 13:4).

(12). They had a heart for the nations (Acts 13:1-4).

It is worth noting that out of this group of Christians in Antioch the missionary journeys of Paul were launched. Early Christianity was struggling until these Antioch Christians, as described in Acts, came together to cooperate for the good of the nations. In a scant two and a half centuries later the world would be filled with professing believers, thirteen of the twenty seven books of the New Testament would be a direct result of the churches begun by the efforts of the Antioch Christians, and the name 'Christian' (partisans of Christ) would be spread to every nation of the world.

I do believe Dwight McKissic has landed upon a very good name for this proposed network of churches.

In His Grace,


Wade

An Antioch Network Statement of Cooperation

Next Monday night and Tuesday morning several pastors and laymen will gather for fellowship and discussion about forming a network of churches for the purpose of fellowship, partnership and encouragment in the expansion of Christ's kingdom. The blueprint of what Dwight McKissic proposes be called 'The Antioch Network of Churches has not been crafted, but Dwight did ask me to present on Monday night a doctrinal confession and statement of cooperation that will be open for discussion, amendment and possible adoption. If you are in or near Arlington, Texas next Monday and Tuesday feel free to join us for this time of fellowship. Details may be found here. The proposed confession and doctrinal statement are offered below. I will post my thoughts on the meeting beginning Monday night.

______________________________________________________

An Antioch Network of Churches Doctrinal Confession and Statement of Cooperation

The gospel is the story about Christ, God’s and David’s Son, who died and was raised and is established as Lord. Churches forming the Antioch Network desire to join together to proclaim the good news that God's Kingdom has come in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Lord and Messiah, in fulfillment of the Word of God.

The gospel we declare evokes faith, repentance and discipleship --- its accompanying effects include the forgiveness of sins, justification, reconciliation, adoption, wisdom and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Southern Baptists accompany our proclamation of the gospel with cooperative works of compassion and mercy for those in need or distress.

We strive to advance Christ’s kingdom on earth with the confession, proclamation, and application of the good news. The Bible is undoubtedly central to our cooperation, but Jesus Christ is the center of it. Therefore, we resolve to cooperate with one another, affirming the essentials of the gospel and our identity as Christ followers in these five doctrines:

(1). We affirm the authority, sufficiency and reliability of God’s infallible revelation to man in both His written Word and the Living Word Jesus Christ.
(2) We affirm both the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ.
(3). We affirm Christ’s substitutionary death for sinners, His resurrection from the dead, and His gift of eternal life to all who are in relationship with Him by grace through faith.
(4). We affirm baptism as the public testimony for those who have come into covenant relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
(5). We affirm that those apart from a relationship with Christ will face God’s judgment.

The sole authority for faith and practice among the Antioch Network of Churches is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Doctrinal confessions, including this one, are only guides to interpreting the Bible, and have no authority over the conscience. Christians have historically differed in interpretation on finer points of doctrine not essential to Christian faith. Yet, with all our differences on secondary issues, we who form the Antioch Network of Churches desire to cooperate in ministry because of our love for the gospel.

Therefore, we intentionally put aside our differences on secondary issues for the sake of cooperative gospel ministry. We desire unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, but charity in all things. This statement of cooperation defines the necessary essentials which must be affirmed in order to participate in the cooperative ministries and fellowship of the Antioch Network of Churches.

We desire to send to the world and our evangelical brethren through this statement of cooperation a sure and certain message: It is the gospel that unites us, and what unites us is greater than anything that might potentially divide us.

The Work We Do Cooperatively Is Unparalleled

--- Pastor Wade and Rachelle will be returning to the United States later this week. They are currently overseas and have sent an update which we place here for your encouragement (Blog administrator) ---

One of the things that strikes any Southern Baptist who has the pleasure to visit the field and communicate with our missionaries is the incredible benefit of cooperating for the purpose of reaching new people groups with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have had a few Southern Baptist pastors who have suggested that it might be easier to send out missionaries directly -- bypassing our convention cooperative work. I have steadfastly insisted that the solution to any problem within the SBC is NOT to do independent missions, but to work together to help stop the narrowing of the parameters of missions cooperation within the SBC and to do everything possible to get every Southern Baptist excited about working together for the sake of the gospel. Having now been on the field for several days and having some incredible visits with our missionaries, it has been seared into my heart even all the more that we can all do together what no one Southern Baptist church can do independently. When I get back I will share some of the great gospel work that is being done to reach different people groups overseas, but this morning I would like to give a shout out to the support personnel who saved the life of a young missionary by being able to transport her out of the country while facing a life threatening health problem that arose quite suddenly. The details of the story are gripping, but for security purposes all I can say is that this young lady, who is now studying at one of our SBC seminaries in the US, would not be alive were it not for the heroic efforts of the support personnel our missions organization who went all out to get this young lady the medical attention she needed. The process of evacuation was incredibly complicated, and if this young lady had been from your church, supported solely and independently by the people of your church, then this young Southern Baptist journeywoman would no longer be alive. You would not have had the resources, people and expertise in place to get her out. But because of our Southern Baptist cooperative mission work, Lottie Moon, and the work of all our churches working together rathern than separately, this young lady, Lord willing, will be back on the field after seminary for a career of sharing Christ with people overseas. Again, the work that we do cooperatively cannot be matched by our individual Southern Baptist Churches. Let's keep the parameters of cooperation as wide as possible for the support of missionaries appointed by our convention.

In His Grace,

Wade

Giving to Support Those Who Share the Gospel

--- Pastor Wade was able to send another email from overseas, one that encourages us to remember why we give through the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. We do not anticipate being able to hear from our pastor again until the middle of next week due to the areas where he and Rachelle will be travelling in the next few days. You may wish to leave Pastor Wade a comment, but as stated earlier, we will wait for his return from overseas and allow him to moderate the comments that you leave. May each of you have a blessed weekend and a wonderful Lord's Day Sunday. ----

"Never pity missionaries; envy them. They are where the real action is --- where life and death, sin and grace, Heaven and Hell converge. " Robert C. Shannon

The above quote was given to me yesterday and is epitomized in the story of a missionary that Rachelle and I shared lunch with on Friday, June 11, overseas. This young man and his family were forced out of the country where they served for several years.The government officials initially gave him forty-eight hours to leave, but after an appeal, he and his family were given a few more days. They left everything behind because they were unable take anything that couldn't fit in a suitcase. To watch their small son's reaction when told that his 'Big Wheel' had to be given away because their wasn't room is something they will not forget. But, more importantly, to be forced from the place to which they were called by God because they faithfully shared Christ was even more difficult. To hear their story, and the enthusiasm of going to a new region, and a new people, to continue fulfilling their call, illustrated to us both the quote by Robert Shannon. No pity for these heroes of the faith; only more opportunities for future excitement of being where the real action is.

Having now travelled to five of the eleven regional headquarters of our convention over the past year, I can say without hesitation that the regional offices that have been established for the support of field personnel are incredibly effecient. The men and women that serve to support the missionaries are are all very gifted and just as called as those who spend their time planting churches in the villages and cities. The pay scale for our missionaries is not high, but each works hard to turn the mission dollars of Southern Baptists into actual ministry by doing quite well at balancing frugality in living expenses, effeciency in ministry expenses, and actually concentrating on how to reach the most people possible with the money available. I have often heard it said that missonaries from other conventions would desire to be appointed by the IMB because of the guaranteed salary and benefits, but for those of us who have seen the missions and ministry side of the Southern Baptist Convention, we know that getting to the place where Southern Baptist missionaries do not have to worry about raising financial support takes many years of laying the foundation for an organization that models effeciency. Southern Baptists began laying that foundation for our mission work over 150 years ago, and the results are being seen today on the mission fields of the world. The Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon Christmas Offering are the two financing mechanisms that makes our international missions ministry tick. Trips like the one Rachelle and I are taking make us realize all the more the need for MORE Southern Baptist pastors - not less, MORE Southern Baptist people - not less, MORE Southern Baptist churches - not less to all feel ownership for what is taking place in and through SBC missions.

In His Grace,

Wade

Southern Baptists Cooperating With Charismatics and Women Senior Pastors for the Sake of the Gospel

A few Southern Baptist bloggers took the opportunity this past week to chastise Dwight McKissic for appearing on the TBN Network alongside some brethren in Christ who are of the charismatic persuasion. It seems these bloggers fear that the SBC will somehow be tainted by the mere associating with evangelicals of different theological leanings. One blogger even went so far as to reveal that a Southern Baptist emailed him to say:

". . . I should repent of linking to TBN and have now corrupted many bloggers."

Such reaction seems extreme to me. I personally believe that if we evangelicals, whomever we may be, could ever begin to see each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, serving the same Lord - respecting our differences but loving one another for the sake of kingdom - then the world would finally see that Christ really does make a difference in peoples' lives. However, since Bart Barber, Tim Guthrie, Wes Kenney, Tim Rogers, and a handful of other Southern Baptists have registered such strong opposition to Dwight McKissic appearing with charismatics on TBN, I wonder what these men will write regarding Synergize! Pastor's Conference, January 29-31 in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Synergize! Pastors Conference has 35 speakers including a veritable who's who of Charismatic and Pentecostal leaders. Billy Jo Daugherty, Chairman of the Board at Oral Roberts and pastor of Victory Christian Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma is a keynote speaker. Other Pentecostal leaders speaking at the conference include Pastor David Mohan of New Life Assembly of God in Madris, India and Pastor John Lindell of James River Assembly of God in Ozark, Missouri.

In addition, several female Senior Pastors will be speaking at the Synergize! Pastors Conference Power Sessions including Senior Pastor Bev Mortlock of City Impact Church: Auckland, New Zealand and Senior Pastor Debbie Lindell of James River Assembly of God. The statement of faith of Pastor Debbie's church states the following about the baptism of the Holy Spirit:

The baptism of Christians in the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues (unlearned languages) as the Spirit of God gives them audible expression (Acts 2:4).

This faulty view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is one commonly held by Pentecostals and Charismatics. It has been eloguently and biblically refuted by Dwight McKissic on many occasions, including his infamous SWBTS chapel sermon. It should be obvious to any intelligent Southern Baptist that there is a difference between Dwight McKissic and our Charismatic brethren like those mentioned above. Further, there is no reason to attack Dwight for appearing on TBN.

I am not sure these SBC bloggers will retract their posts and apologize to Dwight for misrepesenting both him and his theology for simply appearing on TBN, but I will be very interested to see if they remain consistent and write similar things about . . .

Southern Baptist Pastor Ed Young

Southern Baptist Pastor James Merritt

Southern Baptist Pastor and IMB Trustee Ken Whitten

All three Southern Baptist pastors are sharing the platform with the Charismatic and Pentecostal men and women named above as the keynote speakers at the Synergize! Pastors Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. Ironically, the Synergize! conference is being held the same week, in the same city, that 20,000 Baptists will be gathering for The New Baptist Covenant Celebration. I have not one negative thing to say about either meeting. I believe good can come from both, though I will be attending neither.

I am simply calling upon our Southern Baptist blogging brethren to display a little more consistency. Preferably, they would not castigate any Southern Baptist for sharing the podium or platform with evangelicals of other denominations.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

While Southern Baptists Separate Over Trivial Matters, Christians In Other Places of the World Are Being Tortured and Killed

Every now and then I am reminded of the foolishness of Southern Baptists dividing and separating over trival issues while other Christians around the world are in fear of their very lives. Missionaries overseas have recently made me aware of the story Hazem Hanna, a Christian man in danger of imprisonment, torture or even worse if deported to his birth country of Egypt. Hazem himself has requested that I print his story - with an accompanying photograph - so that more people in the west are aware of his situation, knowing his only hope is that Christians in America will speak out before he disappears for good.

Hazem Boutros Hanna lives his life looking over his shoulder and sees a life as broken as his right hand; gaining on Hazem is the threat of deportation back to Egypt. Deportation carries the probability of more imprisonment and torture and the possibility of death. His story, and the haunting image of his broken fingers, should give every Southern Baptist pause before anyone looks at a fellow Southern Baptist as an enemy. We are brothers, and we best get focused on helping our evangelical brethren in the battle they face for their very lives.

Trouble has been with Hazem since he was eight years old when his father, Makram, a cultural Coptic Christian, began searching for meaning in life and found it in the Protestant church. His religious awakening coupled with an insatiable thirst to learn the Bible led him to share the message of Christ with anyone who would listen. In 1974, when Hazem was 12, his father was murdered for baptizing a former Muslim. One evening the Cairo police brought Makram’s body to his shocked wife and three sons. He had been savagely beaten and his all of his teeth had been removed (a torture practice favored by state authorities). To make matters worse the police refused to investigate Makram’s murder and the family was treated as pariahs by their neighbors.

At 15, Hazem began working in the one goldsmith shop that would employ him. It quickly became apparent that he had a gift and when he graduated high school he opened a little shop of his own. That success would last only three years until a Muslim family whose daughter had been baptized by Makram would beat Hazem and destroy his shop. All of this happened while the police looked on doing nothing to stop the family.

Hazem’s mother terrified for her son, said to him, “I see you will end up like your father—they will kill you.” Soon afterwards she scraped together enough money to send her middle son to Italy to study art.

While studying in Italy, Hazem worked in a vineyard to feed himself. One day in the blistering sun he thought to himself, “Why don’t I find a job as a goldsmith?” Hazem went from one shop to another trying to find work until an old man amused by the brash 20 year old, asked him, “What do you know about goldsmithing?”

Hazem replied, “I know everything.”

The old man laughed at him and told him he was crazy, but still gave Hazem an opportunity. Hazem impressed the old man enough to be hired and eventually given more responsibility around the shop.

Finally the old man asked Hazem, “Where do you live?” Sheepishly, Hazem answered, “I live at the train station.” The old man found Hazem a place to live and took him on as an apprentice. Hazem, to his mother’s dismay dropped out of school and worked full time at the goldsmith shop.

A couple of years later, Hazem returned to Egypt to be with his mother and brothers. Work was difficult to find and a return to Italy was impossible to find since Hazem had violated his student visa rules by dropping out of school and working full time. Over the next few years, Hazem worked illegally with goldsmiths and jewelers in France, Greece, Cyprus and South Africa.

He arrived in Morocco with a wealth and variety of experience. Morocco is well known for its gold and diamond markets and he quickly caught on with a man named Reva Jakob, a respected Jewish jeweler in Casablanca. Jakob took Hazem under his wing and taught him the business side of jewelry and gold. Thanks to Jakob’s connections and reputation Hazem’s work became noticed by many influential people including the security detail of Moroccan king, Hassan II.

After years of working secretively and hiding in the shadows, Hazem had seemingly found the good life in Casablanca. His craft had earned the respect and patronage of customers all over Morocco. Things were going so well for Hazem that he had opened a shop of his own and had built a house. His success was noticed by the Egyptian embassy and the consular told Hazem, “We are happy to see Egyptians doing so well.” Hazem’s good life would end soon when he received a phone call from a childhood friend.

The words, “I want to meet you,” would push Hazem from a life of luxury and respect into a life of pain and suffering. The caller was Hasem Farid, the son of a Coptic Christian priest who had grown up with Hazem in Cairo. Quickly into the meeting, Hazem realized that Farid wanted more than to catch up. Farid explained that he was part of the Egyptian secret police and pleaded with Hazem to work with the government, “Your country needs your help… we know everything—what happened to your father; we can make it right.” Farid eventually explained that he wanted Hazem to spy on the Jewish community. Farid asked Hazem to plant listening devices in the homes of the Jewish families and Egyptian expatriates. “We can use this information to kill troublemakers to Egypt.”

Appalled by the proposal, Hazem told Farid, “You’re a Christian! Jesus was Jewish and half your Bible is Jewish!” Hazem also couldn’t stomach the idea of betraying the man who had given him so much “I would rather steal from my friend Reva Jakob than do what you’ve asked me to do.”

In spite of the pressure put on him, Hazem refused to spy on Jakob and for two months things were quietly stressful. Farid returned to bring Hazem the news that his mother was gravely ill. With the news he also brought a list of Egyptians living in Morocco and a thinly veiled threat, “We’ll do what we can to make sure no one harms your mother in the hospital.”

Hazem’s life eroded even more as he was taken to the police. There he was presented a report in which a former co-worker accused Hazem of swindling a shop owner out of his building. Despite the fact that there were no witnesses or formal charges the case went to court. The Egyptian embassy which had lauded Hazem in the past had turned a deaf ear to Hazem’s pleas for help. In desperation, Hazem went on a hunger strike. Word of Hazem’s plight reached his friend, Jakob who provided a lawyer. The case was thrown out and Jakob offered more help, “Leave Morocco because more trouble will come.” Jakob gave Hazem a visa for Israel and assurance that Israel would get his mother out of Egypt. That would never happen as Hazem’s mother would soon die of ovarian cancer.

Greif stricken and guilt ridden for not having seen his mother for seven years, Hazem returned to Egypt. In the Cairo airport Hazem was pulled aside by the Egyptian secret police. They knew about Hazem’s plan to flee to Israel and encouraged him to go in their service, “We’ll teach you Hebrew so you can infiltrate the Jewish community.” Hazem agreed to think about it and is released to bury his mother. In between grieving and consoling his brothers Hazem worried about his life. Fifteen days later he was summoned by the secret police and questioned again. Soon after, Hazem bought a ticket to Malta with the intent of never returning to Egypt.

While at the airport Hazem is pulled out of line and taken to the police where he was asked, “Will you return to Egypt?”

“No, I will stay away.”

“You will not be going to Malta and you will not be going home either.”

Hazem was bound and blindfolded and put into a holding cell where he was not allowed to speak a single word. Hazem was accused of being a traitor because he had supported Jews in Casablanca. After one day in the holding cell Hazem was taken to an unknown prison where he was repeatedly interrogated and tortured. His cell was cold, flooded with water and harshly lit, making it nearly impossible to sleep.
His interrogators removed four perfectly good teeth, set attack dogs on him and electrocuted him through wires attached to his ears and genitals. “I wanted to die during that time.” Almost as excruciating as the torture was the endless repeating of the question, “How do you make your money?”

“I told them, ‘I am a goldsmith.’ But they kept asking the same question, so one day I finally said, ‘I make my money by my hand.’ And they said, ‘Okay, we’ll break your hand.’ So they took my right hand and broke every finger on it.”

In 1997, a bombing in Aswan caused a political shakeup in the Egyptian intelligence office. In the confusion, Hazem was sent to a political prison from which he was released. Hazem’s mangled right hand and his reputation as a sympathizer to Jews made it impossible to find work. Hazem quickly realized that he could not face the future if he was constantly looking over his shoulder so he bribed an airport official and left for Turkey. Two months later he went to Amman, Jordan to plead his case with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). With only one working hand and the stigma of being a refugee Hazem felt fortunate to find menial work in a restaurant.

Unable to get asylum from the UNHCR, Hazem fled to Turkey and found the same result as the UNHCR office in Ankara lost his files and documentation of his torture. Over the next couple of years a minor miracle occurred when Hazem gained use of his wrecked right hand. While his hand was still twisted and grotesque, he was able to work again as a goldsmith.

The physical scars on Hazem were obvious, but he was also wounded spiritually. Angered and disappointed by God whom his father, Makram, loved enough to lay down his life Hazem distrusted and actively ignored God. “I didn’t believe in what I learned about God from my father. I didn’t believe in God.”

All alone in Istanbul, a city of 15 million people, Hazem found a desolate Moroccan youth wandering the streets. Hazem took the young Muslim man into his shabby room and took care of him. The young man, so moved by Hazem’s concern asked him, “Are all Christians like you?” Hazem replied, “I’m not a good Christian.”

Over time the young Moroccan decided he wanted to go to a church, “Take me to church with you, it would be too shameful for me as a Muslim to go alone.” Hazem resisted at first but eventually agreed to take him to a Protestant church. Hazem went expecting nothing and found love and acceptance, both of which were at a premium in his life. The young man moved from Istanbul and Hazem found himself alone again. On an especially lonely Sunday morning he decided to go back to the church by himself. The sermon that day was about the prodigal son and Hazem realized that he was the prodigal and a tearful God was waiting for him to come to faith.

Today Hazem, sees how God has kept him through his trial and laughs at the irony of his finding his faith in Christ, “God sent a Muslim man to me so I could become a real Christian.” Besides faith, Hazem also found the power of forgiveness, “I forgive them all who tortured me because I am a Christian.” The prodigal son has returned to God the Father, but he cannot return to his home in Egypt. The prodigal finds himself in the last chapter of what seems like a spy novel stuck in limbo with an expired passport and a desperate hope in God. What can Southern Baptists do for Hazem?

(1). Pray for Hazem.

(2). Allow God to use Hazem's story in your life to help keep your perspective. May his story give you pause before you think about separating from any fellow Southern Baptist over matters non-essential to the gospel. Realize that while you argue over who is - and who is not - qualified to baptize, some Christians who simply obey Christ and baptize new believers are being killed for doing so. I wonder how many Southern Baptists in a country where you die if you baptize somebody would all of the sudden loosen their qualifications for the baptizer - and might even think themselves unqualified?

(3). Take a day and refuse to complain about your circumstances and simply do something to help somebody worse off than you. The world will be better because of it.

In His Grace,


Wade