From Church to Battlefield to Museum: A Parable

Trennis Henderson, Editor of The Western Recorder, the Kentucky Baptist Convention's paper, has done all Southern Baptists a favor in this editorial where he pulls together different comments by various editorial collegues on the San Antonio Southern Baptist Convention. The article is well worth the time it will take you to read it.

One quote caused me to pause and think about the consequences of people taking sides in the SBC and seeing brothers and sisters on the other 'side' as 'opponents.'

'Dr. Daniel Sanchez, a professor of missions at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, is a native of San Antonio. One day the missions professor and I were discussing the Alamo, situated only a few blocks from the Henry B. Gonzales Convention where we were meeting. He said, “You know, the Alamo was once a church, then a battlefield; and now, it is a museum."'
. . . Gerald Harris, Editor, Georgia Christian Index

May we as Southern Baptists see ourselves truly as brothers and sisters of the same family and refuse the temptation to view each other as opponents.

The World Is Flat: SBC Participation Via The Net

I am working on a proposal that I hope to present to the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee within the next year that will allow people to participate in the Southern Baptist Convention without having to travel to the city or the arena where the Southern Baptist Convention will actually be held.

Debbie Kaufman, a member of Emmanuel Baptist Church here in Enid, Oklahoma and the blogger extraordinaire of Thoughts of a Christian Woman, was voted by our church to be a messenger to the 2007 San Antonio SBC. However, due to the fact she and her husband felt that it was cost prohibitive for her to attend the convention, Debbie had to regretfully say she could not attend. Debbie determined to watch the live internet broadcast of the Southern Baptist Convention from gavel to gavel from her home to see if she could easily follow the business before the body, understand the recommendations and the debate taking place on the platform and floor, and literally feel as if she could be a part of the convention without physically being there.

She could.

Debbie blogged after every 2007 SBC session, giving a synopsis of what had just happened, and offering an excellent analysis of the significance of each election and vote. She had a total of Ten Posts on the Southern Baptist Convention, with this post serving as an example of her ability to clearly perceive events taking place hundreds of miles away.

316 Networks is the company that broadcasts the Southern Baptist Convention live via the internet. Our church has been very impressed with this Christian broadcasting company and will be launching our own live, archived, and Vidgo ('video on the go' using cellular technology) ministry with 316 Networks this fall. I recall admiring the quality of the San Antonio live broadcast when I had to leave the hall a little early to receive a phone call and watched the proceedings from my hotel room.

I have been told that over 22,000 people logged in to watch the SBC via either the 316 Network or SBC.net. That is nearly three times the number of people who registered for the convention and nearly ten times the number of people who actually voted during the First Vice-Presidential election. That 22,000 number will only be growing in the future, and as 316 Networks also expands, the potential is unlimited for those who wish to either observe or particpate at the SBC.

We already register messengers electronically. We are but two steps away from establishing a secure server where a messenger who watches the convention via the internet could enter his Messenger I.D. number and actually vote on the recommendations brought to the floor of the convention. I realize that the maximum number of messengers per church is ten people, but if you just assumed the average number of messengers per church in the SBC were just five, then it is possible that nearly a quarter of a million messengers could actually be elected and vote at the annual Southern Baptist Convention, representing over 45,000 Southern Baptist Churches.

I truly believe that when that many people are participating in the SBC there will be a true reflection of the desires of the majority of the people in the SBC when the votes are taken. Some of the ideas I am attempting to implement in an official proposal I intend to forward to the Executive Committee are as follows:

(1). A deadline for internet registration of the Sunday night prior to the convention. This would reduce the number of people franticially trying to register just prior to an important vote.

(2). An internet messenger orientation package emailed to all messengers who sign up via the internet to give them the schedule of the convention and helpful tips regarding using the internet voting technology.

(3). Two ideas (which I am not yet prepared to share) for providing incentives for people to actually spend the money and time to travel to the Southern Baptist Convention.

(4). Establishing an offical presence on the platform where internet monitors could receive electronic email questions during debate from those who are watching via internet broadcast. However, internet participants would not be able to participate in the parliamentary procedures of the people in the arena. There could be no motions, debate, or calling for question or 'point of orders' by those observing the live broadcast from home. However, every registered messenger watching would have the ability to vote on every recommendation before the body. Electronic tabulation would be immediate and added to the visual count in the hall.

(5). Before the first convention where electronic participation actually occurs, the SBC would make a beta, or test run, of the process at the Louisville, Kentucky Southern Baptist Convention in 2008.

The technology is available. The interest of Southern Baptists is high. The world is flat - the time is now. I am open to any suggestions on this matter as the proposal is still being formulated. I hope to be able to make the official proposal at the Southern Baptist Executive Committee meeting early next spring.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

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

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

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

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

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

The Beginnings of the Controversy

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

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

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

The Tipping Point Is Reached

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

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

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

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

A Conservative Foot Soldier Wakes Up From a Ten Year Nap

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

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

The Grand Old Lady Was Being Crippled

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

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

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

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

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

Where Were These Demands For Doctrinal Conformity Coming From?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post shall be my last one until the weekend.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Hornets' Nest and Integrity at Our Seminaries

When I was a kid a observed over the course of several days Texas hornets building their nest in the dark crevice of our front porch. One day, after the nest was completely built and protected by the intruder hornets, I took a swipe at it with a broom handle. The swipe was a direct hit and the cacophony of violent buzzing assaulted my ears, not to mention the very intentional anger of those hornets who were told they didn't belong on this particular porch. The odd thing of this experience for me was that I had no animosity toward the hornets - in fact, I used my experience of observing them to eventually write a high school paper on persistence and teamwork.

But the hornets darn sure were mad at me.

I couldn't help but smile today as I heard Dr. Al Mohler give his 'seminary' report to our convention. Similar to Paige Patterson yesterday, Al's speech sounded more like the announcer at a World Wrestling Federation event whipping the crowd into a frenzy before the fight than a report by the erudite seminary President that he is. The messengers heard no statistics, no reports on new academic degrees or programs, and no financial information. What we did hear was how Southern Baptist messengers have absolutely no idea what we did last night in adopting the Executive Committee statement on the BFM 2000. I wonder if I am the only one who is just a little bit insulted at the suggestion SBC messengers are not smart enough to know what we are voting on. I, again, encourage everyone to watch the tape of the debate (I love the Internet).

There can be ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT messengers KNEW EXACTLY what they were voting on. Just like the hornets on my front porch, the reason some SBC leaders are mad is not because they didn't realize it wasn't 'their' porch when they started building their theological nests, they are upset because someone had the gall to knock them off the porch intentionally and without apology, telling them they had built their nest on the wrong porch. Seminary Presidents don't dictate 'de facto' what the convention believes by orchestrating the adoption of policies and guidelines that reflect their own theological shibboleths at institutions that they themselves guide (or worse, at those agencies they don't guide). Last night, the convention declared that our cooperation in missions and ministry revolves around the only consensus confession our convention has adopted - the Baptist Faith and Message. If you wish your doctrinal policies to be narrower and tighter at your agency, Mr. President, then get our approval. If you have great reasons for doing so - like hiring a seminary professor - we'll approve, but we won't be excluding people for disagreements over doctrinal matters not addressed by the BFM without full convention approval.

While walking back to the hotel I asked an older gentleman if he had heard Dr. Mohler's and Dr. Patterson's speeches to our convention. I think the gentleman's response indicated he was thinking in terms of the efficiency of his hearing aid rather than his presence in the arena because he responded, "I couldn't help but hear them. I had to turn down my hearing aid cause they were shoutin' so loud."

I admire Dr. Mohler. Like Al, I am personally reformed in my theology. We send students from our church to his seminary to receive the finest theological education in the land. I respect his theological acumen, passion and love for Christ. But today, Al Mohler showed me another side to his personality. He seemed angry. He seemed defiant. He seemed like his ego had been bruised. "How dare YOU tell ME what I can and cannot do."

According to Al, the motion passed last year at the Executive Committee (without debate or dissent), and adopted by SBC messengers last night, is the end of the Southern Baptist Convention as we know it, unless he and others do something about it. Joining Al as the guardians of the SBC are Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS, Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and Chuck Kelly, President of New Orleans Theological Seminary.

These four men, led by Dr. Mohler today, thumbed their collective nose (Editors note: I changed the original analogy, desiring a little more grace here), "We do not care that you have told us the Baptist Faith and Message is the only consensus confession of the Southern Baptist Convention and is sufficient to guide us. We will draft any confessional statement, policy or guideline we desire because the hiring of seminary professors is critical to the future health of the SBC and the Baptist Faith and Message 'does not say enough' doctrinally to give us good hiring policies and guidelines."

Paige Patterson has already recommended to friends the disbanding of the SBC Executive Committee. Chuck Kelley said last night the adoption of the Executive Statement would have no effect on his institution and Richard Land has already angrily chastized two gracious SBC theologians who wrote an excellent book on grace and unity around the essentials and freedom in diversity on the nonessentials - a book given to all registered messengers in our SBC packet. The messages of these four men might best be considered like the pronouncements of the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse. They are not like the horsement in Revelation in terms of their persons or character (for we all know them to be fine Christian men), but their messages are those of death and destruction to the SBC if the messengers collective will wins out.

Famine, pestilence, disease and death. According to these four men, we are now ruined as a Convention. But is that not silly? What is it that scares these men? Read carefully again the motion that the entire Southern Baptist Convention adopted by a convincing majority on Tuesday night.

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

It reminds me of a little kid who gets scared because someone's in the room, only to have the light turned on and see it's Grandma.

There Is A Simple Solution That Nobody Wishes To Discuss

The convention has simply said, "If you wish to have doctrinal standards or guidelines that EXCEED the Baptist Faith and Message, simply GET convention approval!"

How easy is that? If Al Mohler wishes his seminary to be a Calvinistic seminary, which it is, and demands all professors be Calvinistic in their soteriology, which he does, then simply bring the Abstract of Principles to the Convention and articulate why we need a Calvistic theological seminary in the SBC. And you know what? The convention will approve. The Abstract, I guarantee you, will NOT be voted down as an additional institutional confession to the BFM 2000 --- for SOUTHERN SEMINARY. Frankly, I believe it can be shown that the convention has already affirmed its approval of the Abstract as the guiding confessional statement, above and beyond the BFM, for SOUTHERN Seminary

But, just as I listened to Al Mohler and Paige Patterson debate Calvinism at last year's Pastor's Conference and saw profound disagreement between the two men, if we were to attempt to get the Abstract as the additional institutional doctrinal confession at SOUTHWESTERN -- well then, Katy, bar the door! You talk about fireworks. The convention will look like New York Harbor on the night of July 4th.

There are SIX seminaries. For heaven's sake, one seminary may wish to ADD TO her doctrinal preciseness by adopting a confessional statement that holds to a particular interpretation on the gifts, that ALLOWS the seminary to hire continuationist Baptist professors like Dr. Sam Storms or C.J. Mahaney. For heaven's sake, Dr. Mahaney speaks for an entire week during campus revival at Southern, but because he speaks in tongues, and Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson demand that their trustees pass policies that prohibit tongues, they can't teach at Southern or Southwestern (or anyone like them). FINE -- bring those NEW doctrinal guidelines that go beyond the Southern Baptist Convention's Baptist Faith and Message to the convention during YOUR SEMINARY REPORT -- and let us as convention messengers vote to allow your institution to adopt this ADDITIONAL confession. We will when you explain to us WHY you need this at your seminary.

If we don't particularly like the narrow theological bent of your seminary, we very well may go to Golden Gate or Southeastern or somewhere else that doesn't adhere to those new doctrinal standards that exceed the BFM 2000 that your board, with convention approval, has adopted. We are not restricting you in any way from basing policies or guidelines on doctrinal interpretations of issues that are not addressed in the BFM 2000 -- get your trustees to adopt them and bring them to the convention for appropriate rationalization, debate and eventual implementation.

There's room enough in the SBC for six seminaries to disagree on matters of soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc . . . . Again, BE AS DOCTRINALLY PRECISE AS YOU DESIRE TO BE AND BRING YOUR ADDITIONAL CONFESSION TO THE SBC FOR APPROVAL!!

We'll honor it.

The Difference Between Seminaries and Convention Wide Agencies

There are six seminaries. ONE International Mission Board. There are six seminaries. ONE North American Mission Board. There are six seminaries. ONE Lifeway.

The Baptist Faith and Message is sufficient as the doctrinal standard for those agencies that represent EVERY Southern Baptist Church in our convention. Here is some helpful advice for the four men I've mentioned in this post - men I respect, but have no problem telling where they err in logic.

(1). You are the President of your agency alone, nobody else's.
(2). Don't try to tell us who is Southern Baptist and who isn't, the BFM does that.
(3). Add to the BFM all your heart desires for your institutional confession, we'll listen to your impassioned pleas for why you need the doctrinal preciseness, and approve it at our SBC with your well reasoned and well presented arguments.
(4). If we add to your institutional confession it does not mean a change in the general consensus confession that forms the basis of our cooperation -- the BFM.
(5). We don't want you demanding anyone be a Calvinist, or a Landmark, or a cessationist, or a continuationist, etc . . . We want freedom to cooperate while disagreeing on these issues.
(6). Keep your hands off the IMB and NAMB by demanding they reflect your personal, doctrinal shibboleths.
(7). Realize that the sheep are getting smarter.

We do quite well cooperating around the essentials of the faith, granting liberty in the non-essentials of the faith, and charity in all things.

That's who we are as the cooperating convention known as the SBC.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

A Historic Vote No Amount of Spin Can Change

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

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

This statement is clear, concise and incredibly important.

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

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

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

The mother has spoken.

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

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

Now, let's see if the kids listen.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

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

Some of the Funniest Moments So Far at the SBC

In no particular order of relevance or importance . . .

(1). In the concierge room on the 26th floor, an 83 year old friend, pulled up his chair to the table with a huge piece of cheesecake, properly placed his napkin and took a big bite of -- brie cheese. :) It seems he took the entire wedge (one of only two on the hor d'ouevres table) thinking it was cheesecake. When we laughed at his expression upon attempting to swallow the hunk of cheese he told us "I thought it was sweets!"

(2). A messenger from Oklahoma and fellow blogger, addressed the convention hall about the tendency of 'rumors' to circulate among Southern Baptists and asked Dr. Patterson to address the 'rumor' that there was actually going to be a degree in 'homemaking' offered at Southwestern Theological Seminary. It was obvious to everyone listening to the question being asked that the messenger was attempting to allow Dr. Patterson to dispel this 'rumor.' By the intonation of voice and the wording used by the friendly questioner the phrase 'ridiculous rumor' comes to my mind. We about fell out of our chairs in laughter when Dr. Patterson responded to his opportunity to dispel the rumor by replying that in fact, there WAS going to be a degree in homemaking offered. :) Priceless. I can't wait to watch it again on the archived video.

(3). When a certain seminary President spent his entire report time talking about everything under the sun except those things which pertain to his seminary (enrollment, finances, faculty, degrees, etc . . .). When he spoke for his allotted time about planting of BAPTIST churches, being vigilent against dangerous liberalism, sharing the gospel in the Negev desert, and forbidding anybody speaking in tongues to be employed at his agency, I thought I was listening to the IMB report rather than the seminary report. However, the funny thing occurred when the presenter gave an illustration about a boat tied to a dock, becoming untied and drifting downstream. We were told the boat could drift toward the left into liberalism, or the center into neo-orthodoxy, or the right into conservative cooperation and ecumenicalism . . . all three bad things -- we must work hard to row the boat upstream! At the dramatic point of the illustration a messenger behind me leaned up and whispered in my ear, "Or we could just sink the ship right where she sits." :)

(4). The funniest of all stories though is affiliated with Jerry Corbaley's admission on his blog that he had spoken in a language that was not 'human,' and now believed that God could gift a person to speak this way. His recantation was picked up by the Associated Baptist Press reporter who wrote an article that Jerry was renouncing his former belief that 'tongues' could not be anything but a known human language. Earlier today, when Jerry admitted on his blog that he had lied and deceived his readers intentionally about his change of beliefs, the ABP story was removed. I will be devoting an entire post in the future on the events that made me laugh till I hurt in the Press Room.

Not now -- its time to go debate the BFM 2000.

:)

In His Grace,


Wade

Tuesday Morning at the SBC in San Antonio

This morning at 8:40 a.m. three motions were presented to the Southern Baptist Convention. The first, by Messenger Rick Garner, former Vice-President at Criswell College, calls upon the messengers to adopt the Executive Committee statement regarding the BFM 2000 which reads:

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

His excellent motion should be debated sometime this evening, and if passed, will be an authoritative action of our convention that should be applied to each of our SBC entities.

My motion on preventing sexual abuse by ministers in the SBC was read into the record, as well as a motion from Les Puryear asking every entity to record the names and votes of trustees on each and every action taken by our SBC entities during the course of their business sessions. I am in favor of Les's recommendation, believing that trustees ought to be accountable to the convention as a whole.

Morris Chapman's Address

All I can say is -- get the tape.

I believe his message this morning will go down in SBC history as the greatest Executive Director address given to an assembly of convention messengers. I am serious when I say I have never been more proud of any leader in the SBC than I am of Morris Chapman today.

He led us this morning with courage, conviction and vision.

Dr. Frank Page's Leadership

The convention so far has been well run, with a great deal of leadership exhibited from the platform in our President, Dr. Frank Page. His annual message this morning was also a wonderful exhortation on Southern Baptists being a people of love and truth. One quality without the other leads to dysfunction - either legalism or liberalism.

I believe our convention will conduct business in a godly fashion because of Frank's leadership.

Other Morning Observations

The Southern Baptist Texan 'Special Edition' was being passed out by people outside the convention hall. The Texan is the newspaper of the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas, and I find it striking that the headlines of the articles seem to say the very opposite of what both the President and Executive Director have said in their addresses this morning.

One particular article in 'The Texan' caught my attention. It was written by 'journalist' and 'editor' of the Florida Baptist Witness, Jim Smith, but it was nowhere near the standards of reporting of professional journalism. It was not highlighted as a guest editorial, but presented as a news article. Several items in the article are misleading, but I would like to close out this morning's review of business at the SBC with just a couple of quotes from the pen of Jim Smith:

Critics of the baptism and tongues/private prayer language guidelines have insisted that it's wrong for the International Mission Board to establish doctrinal qualifications that are not explicitly addressed in Southern Baptist Covnention's confessional statement, the Baptist Faith and Message. But these critics - and I have interviewed the leading ones - have no answer for their own inconsistent application of this criticism. Although they claim that it is wrong to stipulate a doctrinal position on the matteer of private prayer langauge since the BF&M is silent on this matter, they have all told me that it's appropriate for the IMB to decline missionary candidates who bleieve in and practice public tongues. And yet, the BFM is also silent on that matter - as it is on many doctrinal issues raised by charismatic theology.

I hesitate to say Mr. Smith is intentionally misleading anyone, but the above statement is easily contradicted. I have given answers over and over again about Jim's alleged 'apparant inconsistencies.' Maybe he just chooses not to hear them.

Speaking publicly in tongues should be restricted only to the extent the Bible restricts it and no further -- and the Bible does restrict it severely, including statements that God's people should desire to speak publicly five words in a known language than ten thousand in an unknown tongue. Also, it is always to be done decently and in order, and with interpretation.

BUT THE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THIS: 'Why did this conflict arise? We are in this confict NOT BECAUSE anyone wanted to 'remove' an old policy --but because someone, somewhere decided to implement a brand new policy that is far more restrictive than the old policy.'

Jim is arguing for narrowing the BFM post de facto by new agency policies and guidelines by saying -- "Look, there are other things that are already guidelines -- what can't we go further? If you oppose our narrow interpretations we wish to add you are inconsistent."

That makes no sense. You are arguing for doing something we believe to be wrong (narrowing the parameters of cooperating in missions and evangelism ministry by demanding conformity and acceptance on the interpretation of tertiary doctrines) by saying, "We've done it in the past, and we will continue to do it in the future!"

I've got a sneaking suspicion the narrowing will be stopped by this convention.

Soon.

:)

Stay tuned.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Most Important Vote at the SBC in 10 Years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Items of Business On Tuesday at the SBC

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

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

The Election of First Vice-President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I pray that tomorrow is 'a good day.'

In His Grace,


Wade

San Antonio -- Day One -- Sunday, June 10th

Sunday morning Rachelle and I attended the worship service at Castle Hills Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Frank Page was the guest speaker and spoke from the heart on the subject of 'missed opportunities.' Rachelle and I sat on the second row right in front of a long time family friend, Dr. Roy Fish. Roy was the former interim pastor of Castle Hills and a highly respected professor by many Southern Baptists during his tenure at Southwestern Theological Seminary. We had a nice conversation with Dr. Fish before the service and the church gave him a standing ovation when he was introduced by the current pastor. The service started at 10:30 and ended about 12:10, and both Rachelle and I felt the worship service atto be both dynamic and uplifting.

There were probably about 300 guests in the service who were in San Antonio for the SBC. Ben Cole and I visited with several pastors, convention staffers, agency trustees and IMB personnel. I particularly enjoyed visiting prior to the service with IMB Regional Leader Rodney Hammer and IMB trustee Harold Booze (who's daughter sings in the choir at Castle Hills). I also spoke briefly with Jim Richards, Executive Director for the SBCT, Bart Barber and Thomas White of SWBTS, and a host of other Southern Baptist messengers after the service. Again, I'm sure that there were some wonderful worship services throughout the San Antonio area Sunday morning, but we were at one of the best.

We ate lunch at a steak restaurant on the Riverwalk and then made our way to the lobby of the hotel where we were able to greet many of the messengers arriving for the convention. I met Les Puryear and his wife for the first time, both of whom were very gracious. My parents also arrived in San Antonio around 3:00 p.m. along with our church member and fellow messenger Dr. Sam Storms. We spent much of the afternoon visiting in the lobby with several people including a few reporters. Jim Jones of the Fort Worth Star Telegram always asks some very perceptive questions and a New York Times and Texas Observer reporter also displayed keen insights into polity of the SBC in the questions that were asked.

Speaking of reporters, the San Antonio Express ran very good article front page article on the convention and possible new directions. There seems to be a larger number of reporters here in San Antonio than are usually at the SBC, and I'm wondering if it is not because of the rumors that President Bush will be speaking at the SBC either Tuesday or Wednesday morning.

The Pastor's Conference

Dr. Hayes Wicker, pastor of First Baptist Church, Naples, Florida and the former pastor of the church where I now pastor, is this year's President of the SBC Pastor's Conference which began at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday evening. We registered as messengers prior to the beginning of the Pastor's Conference and made our way to the hall to listen to some of the speakers. I have always believed that speaking at a Pastor's Conference has to be one of the most difficult venues in which to speak because of the movement and commotion of thousands of people walking around during the sessions. However, we enjoyed the testimony of Paige Patterson and the worship at the conference and then made our way back to the Marriott Rivercenter to catch a light dinner in the concierge room prior to meeting folks in the lobby of the hotel aat 9:00 p.m.

It was a great privilege to meet several people who stopped by the lobby last night just to say hello. There are too many to name individually, but one of the things I have loved about the last two years is the new friendships that I have been able to develop with Southern Baptists from around the nation. At around 10:00 p.m. about twenty five of us made our way up to our suite for an informal prayer meeting. We began the day in worship and ended it in prayer -- I can't think of a better way to start the week in San Antonio.

It is now about 12:25 a.m. Monday morning and the horns are continuing to be honked incessantly in downtown San Antonio. The Spurs won game two and for the last two hours, non-stop, downtown has been a noisy commotion of honking, screaming, cheering and a continous cacophony of noise. I don't know that I could sleep if I wanted. My wife asked, "Did they win the series or just the second game?" I told her, "Just Game 2." She said, "Thank goodness we won't be here when the win the entire series.' I agree. :)

Tomorrow night's post will be just a quick update on Monday's activities and then I will point out three very important events that will occur during the business session of the Southern Baptist Convention on Tuesday. I realize that a few of you will be watching the Convention via live streaming this Tuesday, and I would like to give you a heads up of on those things for which you should be watching. More importantly, I would like to give those of you actually attending the convention a couple of tips regarding the important times you should be present and voting at the SBC.

We prayed tonight that the Holy Spirit might move in a mighty way here at the SBC. I believe if we were to be as excited about His presence in our lives as the Spurs fans are about their basketball team, our convention just might end up changing the world.

Wow. It's amazing.

It's now 12:40 a.m. and the horns completely stopped. I mean, all of the sudden, like a conductor gave the dramatic down beat, all horns stopped honking.

It's quiet.

It's time to go to bed. :)

Blessings to all,

Wade Burleson

Arrived in San Antonio Safely: Church on Sunday

Rachelle and I completed the eight hour drive to San Antonio, arriving around 6:30 p.m. Central Time. We are staying at the Marriott Rivercenter Hotel in downtown San Antonio, right across the street from the convention center where the Southern Baptist Convention will be held beginning Tuesday morning.

Tonight we had dinner on the Riverwalk with Ben Cole and Art Rogers. While we were eating a host of Southern Baptists stopped to say hello. It was quite easy to pick out the Southern Baptists among the throng of people walking the Riverwalk, including thousands who are here for the NBA Finals between San Antonio and Cleveland. Game two of the best of seven series is Sunday night here in San Antonio.

This morning, Sunday, June 10, Rachelle and I plan to attend the worship services at Castle Hills Baptist Church in north San Antonio. The Pastor's Conference begins Sunday night at 6:00 p.m. Immediately after the Pastor's Conference Rachelle and I will be in the lobby of the Marriott Rivercenter and anyone who reads this blog and happens to be in San Antonio is welcome to come to the lobby for a time of fellowship. Lord willing we plan on possibly hosting an informal prayer meeting in one of the suites late Sunday night, but regardless, if you are reading this we would love for you to come to the Marriot Rivercenter lobby around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. Sunday and meet some very special people who will be with us.

I plan on blogging about tomorrow's events early Monday morning. There are already a huge number of people in downtown San Antonio, but it is hard for me to tell if it is because of the basketball game or the Southern Baptist Convention. Either way, it is an exciting time to be in San Antonio.

In His Grace,


Wade

Preventing Child Abuse Is A Calling For Us All

At the San Antonio Convention this Tuesday morning, at 8:40 a.m., I plan to introduce the following motion:

“I move that the Southern Baptist Convention requests the Executive Committee to conduct a feasibility study concerning the development of a database of Southern Baptist ministers who have been credibly accused of, personally confessed to, or legally been convicted of sexual harrassment or abuse, and that such a database be accessible to Southern Baptist churches in order to assist in preventing any future sexual abuse or harrassment.”

The issue of preventing child abuse must be dealt with by all Christians, including the Southern Baptist Convention. I don't have all the answers, but I know that we must do all we can to stop the victimization of our children, and we cannot turn a blind eye toward those who commit such crimes.

Recently, Lane Aspinwall, the national marketing coordinator for the 501C-3 non-profit organization called Darkness to Light, contacted me to ask our church staff to participate in their online training. This organization is committed to help train adults to "prevent, recognize, and react responsibilty to child sexual abuse."

Our children's directer, Paula Minx, and my personal secretary, Barbara Ebert, both took the on-line course. The cost is $15.00 and both ladies told me it was very helpful in learning how to prevent child abuse.

Paula says of the The Stewards of Children Course:

The Darkness to Light truly brings to light the epidemic of child sexual abuse through the Stewards of Children training. The interactive training engages the participant through video testimonies of victims, child advocacy workers, pediatricians and other professionals. The program also incorporates an interactive workbook that contains the full program curriculum for further reference. The format of the program is well done, but the content is life changing.

Darkness to Light opened my eyes to many startling statistics, such as experts estimate that one in six boys and one in four girls will be sexually abused by their eighteenth birthday. That is an epidemic. But, less than one in ten will tell about the abuse. That is heart breaking. Darkness to Light provides insightful training on how adults can help in the battle against childhood sexual abuse through the 7 steps to protecting children. These include learning the facts, minimizing opportunity, talking about it, staying alert, making a plan, acting on suspicions, and getting involved.

The Stewards of Children program has personally led me to assess programs within my church, to determine questions that I should be asking my own children, and to discover how I can be proactive in the fight. Remember, we are the adults. We are the people responsible for the safety of our children. This training helps us to know how to keep the children in our lives safe. I would encourage everyone to join the fight against child sexual abuse, and the Stewards of Children training is a great first step.

Paula Minx
Director of Children’s Ministries
Emmanuel Baptist Church

Barbara Ebert writes . . .

I just finished taking the course and want to say that I would highly recommend it to parents, teachers, children’s workers, youth workers, grandparents, or anyone involved in the stewardship of children.

The training is thorough and easy to follow, although it was somewhat confusing at first to get logged in and get started.

Anyone completing this course will be better informed and equipped to protect children from child sexual abuse. If abuse has already occurred, this program outlines step-by-step procedures to follow; but especially teaches an adult how to sensitively deal with a child who becomes a victim of such abuse.

This course would be especially important to our children’s workers here at Emmanuel, even to Sunday school teachers.

One thing that stood out to me is that the more informed children and adults are, the less sexual abuse is likely to occur. Even those who would abuse children are put off if they know the child is informed of potentially dangerous situations and empowered to say ‘no’.

Darkness to Light has trained over five hundred facilitators in forty three states, and has to date seen over sixty thousand people in five countries trained on-line.

Our own Paula Minx plans to be trained as a facilitor of this ministry, and if you would like to join her to be certified to help people in your community to prevent, recognize and responsibly react to child abuse, we hope to be offering in Oklahoma a regional certified facilitator seminar in the near future. The Charleston Association of the Southern Baptist Convetnion in South Carolina is already a step ahead of us in this, but we hope to catch up soon.

Preventing child abuse is something the Southern Baptist Convention should be proud to be able to set the standard.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

I will post beginning Sunday night from San Antonio and will have daily updates from the SBC all next week.

San Antonio: Welcome To The Big Leagues

For nearly two years now I have been concerned that the there is a brand of leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention that would treat our cooperating convention as if it were a local church. Rather than championing cooperation in missions and evangelism ministry by uniting on the essentials and granting liberty on the non-essentials, authoritarian leaders at a few of our SBC agencies have taken it upon themselves to issue, by fiat, the terms of Southern Baptist identity.

I warned that if we did not draw a line in the sand we would soon see efforts to bring conformity to our convention 'post de fact,' by simply changing policies and guidelines at agencies and then a few years down the road pointing to those changes and saying, "See, how can you not agree with this doctrinal interpretation of Scripture: The _____________ (insert any SBC agency's name you please) has had this as a doctrinal guideline for ten years?"

Some who initially doubted me have now seen the light. The issue before us is very clear. There are those who would, using artful and sophisticated language, make it clear that ANY AGENCY OF THE SBC can move beyond the BFM 2000 and establish any doctrinal standard it chooses. Read carefully the following section of this proposed resolution on the BFM 2000:

RESOLVED, That we acknowledge the appropriateness of entities adopting and enforcing additional theological standards such as the Abstract of Principles as a part of the unique responsibility of the board of trustees of each entity, operating in conscientious accountability to the convention, to govern the entity in its charge in all matters theological and otherwise; and be it further

Other than the fact the Abstract was in force at Southern long before the BFM 2000 was even conceived, there are HUGE problems with this very, very dangerous statement:

(1). If an entity of our convention establishes a policy or guideline that goes well beyond the BFM 2000 (by way of a hypothetical example: you can't pray in your closet in a language our trustees don't understand), there is no way under the sun the Southern Baptist can order, demand, or actually remove that policy or guideline. It CAN'T happen. The only thing the convention has control over is the election of trustees. But the convention cannot INSTRUCT an agency to remove an adopted policy or guideline. Our agencies are autonomous.

Likewise, the agency cannot remove a trustee. Only the Southern Baptist Convention has that authority. So, if an agency does not like the fact a trustee is questioning why a particular SBC agency is narrowing the parameters of our cooperation by establishing a doctrinal guideline that goes beyond the BFM 2000 and demanding conformity by ALL SBC churches in order to participate, then that agency just can't get rid of that trustee because they don't like his challenge -- the Southern Baptist Convention alone has that authority.

Therefore, the trustees of the SBC actually control the direction of the SBC. And the President of the SBC controls the appointment process of all our trustees. I believe we need trustees who are committed to not move our agencies, particularly those that represent the ENTIRE convention (the IMB, NAMB, Lifeway, etc . . .) BEYOND the BFM 2000 and make demands for conformity on interpretations of tertiary doctrines a standard of cooperation. We RIP the delicate fabric of cooperation in the SBC if we do that.

Personally, I don't have near as much of a problem with SEMINARIES having confessions that are narrower than the BFM 2000. If you wish to study at a Calvinistic Seminary -- go to Southern. The Abstract of Principles, the document that all professors must sign, is far more narrower doctrinally than the BFM 2000 --and, it is a Calvinistic document. If you wish to attend a semi-Pelagian seminary, attend Southwestern, for the anti-Calvinistic tendencies of the President are well known, and the policies and guidelines of that school will reflect his views. People in the SBC should have a choice on where, and how, they wish to be trained theologically.

But if we don't wake up we will find every single one of our agencies has overnight decided to be anti-Calvinistic, hyper-dispensationalist, Landmark, cessationist and non-cooperative in our work with fellow evangelicals. I have often called the above 'Fundamentalism' simply because my independent, fundamentalist Baptist brothers and sisters at Bible Baptist Church right down the street here in Enid believe exactly like the above. Some have asked me to use a different nomenclature than 'Fundamentalist', and if I could figure out another descriptive adjective to use, I promise, I would. All I know is I don't want our agencies to become like Bible Baptist Church, and only the trustees can insure we don't.

(2). I get confused. Initially the BFM 2000 was supposed to be the document for 'doctrinal accountability' and though those SBC missionaries, who were initially commissioned under the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, were told they would not have to sign the BFM 2000, over time, leaders either forgot - or intentionally broke - their early pledge and demanded all missionaries sign the BFM 2000. In one day, more missionaries resigned from mission field service than at any other time in the history of the SBC. These men and women refused to sign what they saw was becoming a 'creed' rather than a confession.

Someone might ask, why would they not sign? Were they liberal? No, those who resigned ALL affirmed the essentials of the Christian faith and true Baptist identity(they never would have been appointed if they had not) - but they were now being told EVERYTHING in the BFM 2000 is ESSENTIAL to believe in order to be identified as a Southern Baptist. Frankly, in some regions, missionaries were rightly told they could sign the BFM 2000 and express in writing their disagreements on tertiary doctrines, and after review, they were allowed to stay in the field. THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. There should be unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, and charity in all things. (By the way, I have shown my disagreements with the BFM 2000 on tertiary doctrines including 'closed communion,' 'the innocency of infants prior to personal transgression,' a statement that the Holy Spirit 'baptizes' us when the Bible teaches Christ baptizes us in the Holy Spirit, and the statement that 'justification' is simply acquital and not the declaration of being righteous, but of course, I wholeheartedly affirm the doctrinal essentials of the BFM 2000).

It is very, very evident that there is a growing demand that EVERY single Southern Baptist believe EXACTLY like those who 'are in charge' demand you believe. Now remember -- those in charge are those who are running the agencies -- trustees.
I am of the firm opinion that trustees should be focusing upon the business that the convention gives us and should STAY COMPLETELY AWAY from establishing doctrinal guidelines that go way beyond the BFM 2000, not to mention the Bible.

HOWEVER, if some trustee group, somewhere, gets an itch to narrow the parameters of cooperation at one of our agencies, and then issues an edict that "ninety five percent" of all Southern Baptists believe the way we have written this doctrinal guideline, and then tries to remove that trustee from service who has the gall to stand up and say, 'Wait a minute, that's not OUR JOB' to narrow the our doctrinal standards,' then maybe in the providence of God that becomes the impetus to turn the entire convention around. Maybe.

The man who wrote the BFM resolution to be submitted in San Antonio for convention approval is saying, "IT IS THE JOB OF OUR TRUSTEES TO NARROW THE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF OUR CONVENTION -- AND WE SHOULD TRUST THEM." I will borrow a word from my thirteen year old son to describe my feeling to that view -- 'Beans.' :) It's not our job. It's not an issue of trust, it is an issue of responsibility -- we trustees don't have it.

(3). There is a clear choice as to how people should respond to this narrowing of the parameters of cooperation and demands for conformity on interpretions of tertiary doctrines -- conscientiously vote for those resolutions, recommendations and candidates that (who) say, 'Enough is enough.'

Allow me to conclude today's post with the following comments from people who have frequented this blog:

R. Graneemann writes:

The debate is about two SLIGHTLY different views of what Baptists are. One side glories in Baptist distinctives, the other in a broader evangelicalism. One side wants denominational power to enforce their view, the other is affronted by the attempt. One side wants to sign creeds to protect the mother denomination, the other side's conscience is offended. One side sees security in rule making, the other the very death of the denomination. Perhaps it's about two human temperaments, one authoritative and the other free-spirited.

T.D. Webb states,

"Apparently, those who want to impose their view of Baptist doctrine as a prerequisite for anyone holding a SBC leadership position, are sufficiently aroused to do their best at what they do best, especially when they can't specifically address the issues you raise . . . that is, to distract readers from the focal issues of your remarks with clever rhetorical sophistry coupled with personal attacks on the messenger!

In my opinion Chris Hilliard nails it when he write:

We acknowledge that there are Christians (who meet 1st tier essentials) who don’t agree on the 2nd tier doctrines. We won’t declare them unsaved but we believe these doctrines are clearly presented in the Word and should not be compromised. Thus, it’s what separates us (Baptist) from the others. Third tier doctrines are simply ones that we all acknowledge we aren’t quite sure about. We have our opinions (even convictions) but we aren’t dogmatic about them.

Personally, I believe we have allowed some 3rd tier doctrines to come into the argument and confuse us. Is baptism by immersion a 1st tier, 2nd tier, or 3rd tier? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it clear in Scripture? Yes. Thus it’s second tier. Is being a continuationist/cessationist a 1st tier doctrine? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it a second tier issue? Is it absolutely clear in Scripture? Debated, in my opinion. Thus, it’s a 3rd tier doctrine.

If the BFM is simply a confession of 1st tier doctrines, then I believe we should be held accountable to them. If the BFM is a confession of 1st and 2nd tier doctrines we must ask whether or not we should be held accountable to it as well. If 2nd tier doctrines are as I defined them, I could possibly see the merit in saying yes. But, the problem with the BFM is that it contains what I believe are 1st, 2nd, and possibly even 3rd tier doctrines. Plus, I believe many are beginning to confuse 2nd and 3rd tier doctrines. And as long as the possibility lies that 3rd tier doctrines are currently a part of the BFM or might be in the future, we must not let the BFM become a “creed”.

Chris Hillard does not agree with me on everything. He has let me know that often. :) However, he is an example of a person that I not only could be friends with, but a fellow conservative, evangelical Southern Baptist pastor with whom I and my church are honored to serve with in missionary and evangelistic cooperation. His logic is crystal clear.

There is nothing wrong with a confession containing third tier doctrines, as long as the convention acknowledges that the confession is 'a consensus of opinion,' a 'mutable (changeable) document,' and dissent and disagreement over third tier doctrines is allowed. In other words, it is a confession - not a creed.

That's the way ALL Southern Baptist confessions should be viewed.

Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, charity in all things.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

P.S. Tomorrow, my most meaningful post of the year - preventing child sexual abuse in our churches and our convention.

We Need David Rogers for 1st VP of the SBC

David Dykes, pastor of Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas, the largest Cooperative Program giving church in the United States, announced today that he would be nominating David Rogers to become First Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention at the annual convention in San Antonio next week.

David is a longtime field missionary with the International Mission Board and the son of legendary Southern Baptist pastor Adrian Rogers. For the past thirteen years, Rogers has served as a church-planter and mobilization coordinator in Madrid, Spain.

"For 162 years, Southern Baptists have been driven by a missionary heart," Dykes said of his reason for nominating Rogers. "Like never before, we need to refocus our convention on the fields that are white unto harvest. I believe a convention that is serious about missions should have a missionary leading us."

"Southern Baptists need a new vision to plant churches," Dykes continued. "Who better than an experienced church planter to lead this effort?"

During his service with the International Mission Board, Rogers has focused his evangelistic efforts to plant new Baptist churches in one of the most culturally, ethnically, and religiously diverse mission fields, Dykes noted. Madrid boasts the third largest population in Western Europe at 5.8 million, with a fast-growing immigrant population pushing into the hundreds of thousands every year. Recently, North African Muslims and South American Catholics have flooded the city, though Baptist churches have struggled to keep pace.

Rogers, a 1989 graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, first sensed God's call on his life to foreign missions as an eleven year-old boy at a Royal Ambassador camp. As a young man, Rogers obeyed the call by serving as a summer missionary among Navajo peoples in North America, and then for two years aboard the missionary ship M.V. Doulos with Operation Mobilization.

"As a pastor, I've made a commitment to lead our church to be on mission with God," Dykes said of Green Acres Baptist Church, which leads the Southern Baptist Convention in Cooperative Program mission giving.

"We can give all the money in the world, but budget percentages don't plant churches. Missionaries plant churches, and if it weren't for the field missionaries, we wouldn't have a convention to start with," Dykes said.

"David Rogers represents everything that the Conservative Resurgence was about. He believes the Bible, he believes lost people need Jesus, and he believes that hell is waiting for those who never trust Christ as their Savior."

Rogers and his wife Kelly have two sons from their marriage of 19 years: Jonathan, 17, and Stephen, 10.

The International Mission Board recommends that field missionaries maintain church membership in their countries of service. Rogers and his family are field members of Iglesia Bautista Buen Pastor in Madrid, Spain. Their home membership remains with the Bellevue Baptist Church of Memphis, TN, where Rogers' father served as pastor for almost 33 years.

"I will not ask Southern Baptists to elect David Rogers to honor his father, though we can all agree that his father is worthy of great honor. I will not ask them to elect David Rogers to honor our missionaries, even though we believe these faithful ambassadors of Christ deserve our honor. Quite simply, I'm going to ask my fellow Southern Baptists to elect David Rogers to honor the Lord Jesus Christ," Dykes said.

"God willing, this convention will keep our focus where it ought to be: going to the ends of the earth to tell people about Jesus. I believe that electing David Rogers will help us renew that focus."

I can't tell you how excited I am about David being nominated for First Vice-President.

(1). David is well liked and well respected by every Southern Baptist I know.
(2). David is balanced in his theological positions and peace-loving in his disposition.
(3). Of all the people who have cautioned me about the NBC, David's words of caution alone reached my heart because of his gracious, personal, carefully selected words of wisdom -- an example that if people need to be convinced of a truth, you do it through love and dialogue, not vitriolic attack.
(4). David does what all of us as Southern Baptists allege you cooperate to do -- missions.
(5). David will give us exactly what we need at this hour - an irenic leader to support Dr. Frank Page in his last year of office.

David Rogers should have everyone's unqualified support for First Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Next Year Will Set the Future Course of the SBC for the Next Half Century

On December 10, 2005, a year and a half ago, I attempted to articulate some general concerns for our beloved Southern Baptist Convention. I have learned a great deal over the past eighteen months, including that not everyone is able to separate philospophy and ideology from the people who hold them. Just as I have learned that I can be friends with people who hold to traditional theological liberalism while believing their views dangerous to the gospel and our convention, I can also be friends with people who hold to Fundamentalism while believing their views to be just as dangerous as liberal views to the advancement of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, I remind everyone that what I wrote a year and a half ago about my feelings toward liberalism and Fundamentalism applied to the philosophies and ideologies behind both systems of thought, and not to the people who hold to them . . .

Our convention hated liberalism twenty years ago . . . , but at this hour we better hate legalism and Fundamentalism as much as we did the former liberalism or we will find ourselves so fractured and fragmented that we no longer have the ability to cooperate about anything, including missions. We all agree on the inerrancy of Scripture and the nature and work of Jesus Christ our Lord, but we must not be Fundamentalists when it comes to our convention. Fundamentalism with a capital F is known for her independence, separation, schism-making, and her "I'll do it my way without your help because you don't qualify to work with me" attitude.

I believe if God does not intervene in the Southern Baptist Convention by raising up men and women in the SBC who are more concerned about conservative cooperation than we are conservative conformity, we are headed down this road of religious Fundamentalism.

Much has happened in the past year and a half in the SBC, but I am of the opinion that the clock begins ticking next week for the countdown of the most critical year in the Southern Baptist Convention in nearly three decades. There are no more classic liberals in the SBC, and under no circumstances would I ever be in favor of removing classic Fundamentalists from the SBC -- but classic Fundamentalism better not be the ideology that serves as the foundation for our missions cooperation or the SBC ship will sink. Liberalism takes away from the sacred, sufficient Scriptures while Fundamentalism adds to the sacred, sufficient Scriptures. Both should be anathema in the SBC.

The next year will determine the success of the conscientious and concerted attempt to wrest control of the convention from classic Fundamentalist ideology. Here are a few reasons why . . .

(1). The Resolutions at the 2007 SBC . . . can be divided into resolutions that speak toward unity, cooperation and love and those that speak toward division, separation and schisms. For instance, the resolution on glossolalia and private prayer language is divisive, particularly in light of the released Lifeway study that fifty percent of Southern Baptist pastors believes the gift of tongues, including praying in tongues in private, is a legitimate gift of the Spirit of God. The resolution is both schismatic and illogical . . .

RESOLVED, That we encourage our six Southern Baptist seminaries not knowingly to hire professors or administrators who endorse or engage in the modern practice of glossolalia or private prayer language, and be it further

RESOLVED, That we also encourage our Southern Baptist agencies not knowingly hire anyone who endorses or engages in the modern practice of glossolalia or private prayer language, and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to be patient, kind, and loving toward one another (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) regarding this ancillary theological issue, which ought not to constitute a test of fellowship.

How can you resolve to not hire people who endorse or engage in the modern practice of private prayer language and yet call it an 'ancillary theological issue'? That makes no sense. If this were in place before the hiring of Jerry Rankin, Bertha Smith, and many wonderful professors of our theological insitutions (like SWBTS Seminary's Siegfried Schatzman) , none of them would ever have been employees of the SBC. This resolution must be rejected, but I seriously doubt it will even get out of committee.

A second resolution on The Role of the Baptist Faith and Message, though it sounds good at first reading, is just as problematic. One paragraph in the resolution states:

That we consider public disagreement with The Baptist Faith and Message to constitute suitable grounds for the removal of trustees from service upon those boards which have made affirmation of The Baptist Faith & Message a minimum requirement for service;

I would encourage anyone who would even give one second of consideration to this resolution by SWBTS adjunct professor Dr. Bart Barber to consider the following.

David Rogers, IMB missionary to Spain and son of Dr. Adrian Rogers would be expelled as a missionary for the IMB if this resolution would be applied. David has publicly stated he disagrees with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message regarding 'closed communion' (as do I). Though some might attempt to say the 2000 BFM should be a 'doctrinal' tool of accountability, in the hands of Fundamentalists it becomes a club of conformity. I find it absolutely stunning that this convention would even consider such a resolution, and am hopeful the committee will see the shortcomings of such a shortsighted attempt to demand conformity. By the way, Judge Pressler and Paige Patterson themselves would have been disqualified during their tenures of trustee service under the 1963 BFM for violating 'the Lord's Day' provisions which were ultimately changed in the 2000 BFM.

It's interesting to note that Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, the person to whom David Rogers writes his email, has seemingly established himself at Southwestern Seminary as the person responsible to remind Southern Baptist leaders of their 'Baptist' identity (as Dr. Yarnell interprets it). SWBTS, under the leadership of Paige Patterson, sees herself as the Mecca of Southern Baptist orthodoxy. I am all for confessions, and I affirm the 2000 BFM on all major points of doctrine, but I believe we are in trouble when our major confessions are placed on the level of Scripture or we depend upon any human to tell us what we can or cannot believe as Baptists.

Confessions change. The Word of God does not.

Of course, some might wonder why I am not mentioning the The Gluttony Resolution and how divisive it will be. Obviously, this resolution will not see the light of day and I would vote against it if it did. However, I am actually looking forward to it being read before the entire convention hall. Why? Messengers need to see the irony of passing the alcohol resolution last year, written with the same arguments and principles found in the gluttony resolution, while this year crying foul on the gluttony resolution. It's much easier to point at the sins of others rather than our own. At least I'm consistent. Both resolutions should not be a part of our kingdom business.

(2). The Election of First Vice-President at the 2007 Convention . . . will be more important than elections of First Vice-President in previous conventions. Dr. Jim Richard, the Executive Director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, is the only announced candidate. However, I predict that a nationally known and respected Southern Baptist leader will run against Dr. Richards, a man that I will be able to endorse wholeheartedly. Though it is impossible to predict the outcome, the election of First Vice-President is essential in that he needs to support the direction and vision of Frank Page for our convention.

(3). The appointments of trustees in 2008 . . . will be the first trustees appointed as the result of Frank Page's election as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Most people do not realize that the Nominating Committee report this year is the result of Dr. Bobby Welch's appointments. Frank Page's appointments will begin to be voted on by the convention in Indianapolis in 2008 and Louisville in 2009.

The convention only changes in terms of more conservative cooperation when the trustees of the SBC agencies adopt a more cooperative approach. When taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to a world in need of a Savior takes priortity over a demand for doctrinal conformity on tertiary doctrines of Scripture, we will be fulfilling our role as a convention to be a 'gospel' convention.

(4). The election of President of the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis in 2008 . . . will be the most important election in the SBC in the last three decades. If we truly wish to be a conservative, irenic, cooperating convention of churches who band together for the spreading of the gospel, then we must elect a conservative, irenic President who has set the example in giving, serving and leading our convention in missions cooperation.

There are many good candidates and in God's providence, the President of the SBC, elected in 2008, will continue a transition for our convention toward a more peaceful future where we focus on missions. Those who have broken away from the SBC and formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship should be encouraged to continue their mission efforts, and we Southern Baptists should be part of that encouragement. However, nobody is advocating for the reunion of the CBF and SBC -- it shouldn't happen. There are too many wounds, too many differences, too much water under the bridge. However, it is time for all Baptists, regardless of the denomination, to stop believing each other to be the enemy and realize that the real enemy is spiritual and unseen.

Finally, let me say as clearly as I can that I welcome all Fundamentalists in the SBC -- but I will do everything I can to insure that Fundamentalism as a philosophy does not drive the train. Cessationists are welcome to lead. Continuationists are welcome to lead. Calvinists can be trustees. Arminians can be trustees. One's eschatalogy should not disqualify from SBC service. Open communionists and closed communionists might not be a part of the same church, but they sure can be part of the same gospel convention of churches united for the purpose of the Great Commission.

Cooperating conservatives desire all of us, Fundamentists and non-Fundamentalists, to work together for the Kingdom's sake. But any Fundamentalist who wishes to exclude Southern Baptists from leadership because of their view on the gifts, soteriology (Calvinism vs. Arminiansim), various views on ecclessioloigical authority and eschatological beliefs, or other tertiary differences needs to be aware that he will be opposed to the nth degree.

The issue for me is NOT getting back those who have left the Southern Baptist Convention . . .

The issue for me is KEEPING those that remain . . .

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson