My father, Paul Burleson, sent me this morning an excellent series of articles on the true nature of the ekklesia by John Reisinger, one of my favorite Bible teachers of all time. This Southern Baptist pastor/teacher/author has spoken in my church on several occasions and I have spent much of today reading his five part series on The Ekklesia. Every article is excellent. The first article sets the foundation and the fourth article addresses specifically issues we are facing within our convention.
The Ekklesia - One.
The Ekklesia - Two.
The Ekklesia - Three.
The Ekklesia - Four.
The Ekklesia - Five.
You will enjoy these articles and if you really study them, you will always have an answer for that person who tends to take a Landmark view of the church. Many, many issues are at stake in this debate, including evangelical cooperation, missions funding through denominational boards, etc . . .
In His Grace,
Wade
Friday, February 10, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
A Weekend of Prayer and Reflection
I am setting this weekend aside some time for prayer and reflection . I have intentionally sought to not press certain issues regarding the recommendation for my removal as a trustee of the IMB these last three weeks, but I have worked privately toward bringing a resolution that is both honoring to Christ and helpful to our convention.
There may be some trustees, and others, who believe I used poor judgment in establishing this blog. However, I cannot apologize for doing what I believe was both necessary, and in the long term, beneficial to our convention and the IMB. I will always abide by the formal wishes of our trustees regarding blogging, as I have said from the beginning, but I will not stop just because some wish I would. I will stop if I am convinced it is harmful to our convention or if it violates a policy of the IMB, which it currently does not.
Further, I will not apologize for any of the content of this blog unless it is shown to me where there is distortion of the truth. I have been very careful to only write that which I can support with an abundance of documentation. However, if it can be shown that I have distorted the truth, I will immediately apologize and correct my error. To this date, not one person has ever pointed out to me a paragraph, a sentence, or even a word that he or she believes to be factually in error.
I should know after this weekend the direction that the trustee leadership will be moving regarding the recommendation for my removal. I am prepared to forgive for what I believe is a very hasty, unwise recommendation, or I am prepared to make public what is necessary to allow the convention to make an informed decision on this matter. I have repeatedly asked that the basis for the recommendation for my removal to be made public. I would like for others, including myself, to know what the basis is. I have nothing to hide. I welcome scrutiny and debate. It is healthy for any Christian organization and people who should be operating in complete transparancy.
I will post Monday morning.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
There may be some trustees, and others, who believe I used poor judgment in establishing this blog. However, I cannot apologize for doing what I believe was both necessary, and in the long term, beneficial to our convention and the IMB. I will always abide by the formal wishes of our trustees regarding blogging, as I have said from the beginning, but I will not stop just because some wish I would. I will stop if I am convinced it is harmful to our convention or if it violates a policy of the IMB, which it currently does not.
Further, I will not apologize for any of the content of this blog unless it is shown to me where there is distortion of the truth. I have been very careful to only write that which I can support with an abundance of documentation. However, if it can be shown that I have distorted the truth, I will immediately apologize and correct my error. To this date, not one person has ever pointed out to me a paragraph, a sentence, or even a word that he or she believes to be factually in error.
I should know after this weekend the direction that the trustee leadership will be moving regarding the recommendation for my removal. I am prepared to forgive for what I believe is a very hasty, unwise recommendation, or I am prepared to make public what is necessary to allow the convention to make an informed decision on this matter. I have repeatedly asked that the basis for the recommendation for my removal to be made public. I would like for others, including myself, to know what the basis is. I have nothing to hide. I welcome scrutiny and debate. It is healthy for any Christian organization and people who should be operating in complete transparancy.
I will post Monday morning.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
J.L. Dagg and Christian Baptism
A Southern Baptist with an eye toward history has written an excellent article reporting on early Southern Baptist fathers attempts to resist a growing influence of Landmarkism. Gene Bridges has posted an entry on his blog entitled Southern Baptists and Baptism where he eloquently refutes the Landmark positions of two modern Baptists.
In Gene's blog he quotes J.L. Dagg, President of Mercer University in the 19th century and the greatest theologian the Southern Baptist Convention has ever produced. Dr. Dagg wrote a classic work entitled "Manuel of Church Order" where he discusses many practical issues Southern Baptist pastors will face in their respective ministries.
J.L. Dagg points out that pastors will meet some people who wish to join a Southern Baptist church, but they have been Scripturally baptized by "Pedobaptist ministers" ( i.e. Methodist pastors, Presbyterian pastors, Episcopal pastors, etc . . .) Dagg asks the question "is rebaptism necessary according to the Holy Scriptures?"
Dagg answers:
It is clear from the Scriptures, that, in ordinary cases, baptism was designed to be administered but once; and the pastor, as a servant of Christ, is bound to decide, in the fear of God, whether the case before him justifies a repetition of the rite.
It has sometimes happened, that ministers have differed in their views; and a candidate, whom one minister has refused to rebaptize, has been rebaptized by another. In such cases, no breach of fellowship between the ministers occurs; nor ought it to be allowed.
In like manner, a difference of opinion may exist between churches; and one church may admit without rebaptism, when another church would require it. This difference should not disturb the kind intercourse between the churches. But if the individual who has been received without rebaptism, should seek to remove his membership to the church that deems rebaptism necessary, the latter church has authority, as an independent body, to reject him.
A local church is to make the evaluation.
Oh how we need strong theologians like Dagg today to be statesmen in our convention. Southern Baptist pastors for a century and a half have disagreed over the validity of baptisms at the hands of non-baptistic pastors, but Dr. Dagg rightly points out that it ought not cause anyone to separate from fellowship or cooperation, or what he calls, "kind intercourse" within the convention.
How right he is.
We ought not keep people off the mission field who have been Scripturally baptized in different denominations, have been accepted by Southern Baptist churches as members, and are in every way qualified to serve as a missionary. Just because a Landmark pastor will not receive that missionary candidate into fellowhship in his church, should not mean that missionary candidate is disqualified from representing the Southern Baptist convention.
In His Grace,
Wade
In Gene's blog he quotes J.L. Dagg, President of Mercer University in the 19th century and the greatest theologian the Southern Baptist Convention has ever produced. Dr. Dagg wrote a classic work entitled "Manuel of Church Order" where he discusses many practical issues Southern Baptist pastors will face in their respective ministries.
J.L. Dagg points out that pastors will meet some people who wish to join a Southern Baptist church, but they have been Scripturally baptized by "Pedobaptist ministers" ( i.e. Methodist pastors, Presbyterian pastors, Episcopal pastors, etc . . .) Dagg asks the question "is rebaptism necessary according to the Holy Scriptures?"
Dagg answers:
It is clear from the Scriptures, that, in ordinary cases, baptism was designed to be administered but once; and the pastor, as a servant of Christ, is bound to decide, in the fear of God, whether the case before him justifies a repetition of the rite.
It has sometimes happened, that ministers have differed in their views; and a candidate, whom one minister has refused to rebaptize, has been rebaptized by another. In such cases, no breach of fellowship between the ministers occurs; nor ought it to be allowed.
In like manner, a difference of opinion may exist between churches; and one church may admit without rebaptism, when another church would require it. This difference should not disturb the kind intercourse between the churches. But if the individual who has been received without rebaptism, should seek to remove his membership to the church that deems rebaptism necessary, the latter church has authority, as an independent body, to reject him.
A local church is to make the evaluation.
Oh how we need strong theologians like Dagg today to be statesmen in our convention. Southern Baptist pastors for a century and a half have disagreed over the validity of baptisms at the hands of non-baptistic pastors, but Dr. Dagg rightly points out that it ought not cause anyone to separate from fellowship or cooperation, or what he calls, "kind intercourse" within the convention.
How right he is.
We ought not keep people off the mission field who have been Scripturally baptized in different denominations, have been accepted by Southern Baptist churches as members, and are in every way qualified to serve as a missionary. Just because a Landmark pastor will not receive that missionary candidate into fellowhship in his church, should not mean that missionary candidate is disqualified from representing the Southern Baptist convention.
In His Grace,
Wade
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
What Is True About IMB Trustees
There are many who are jumping to my defense on the internet and through letters and comments on blogs. I would like to remind everyone of some things regarding my fellow IMB trustees and hopefully you will keep these few facts in mind when you seek to weigh in with your opinion.
(1). Each trustee is a brother or sister in Christ and deserves to be treated with love and respect.
(2). Every trustee truly desires to do what he or she believes is best for the IMB.
(3). The issues that we trustees face us will only ultimately be resolved through prayer, humility and cooperation.
(4). No trustee desires the Cooperative Program or Lottie Moon giving to suffer, and every trustee is committed to insure that does not happen.
(5). Though a few trustees are guilty of serious errors of judgment, many trustees who voted for the new policies and ultimately my removal from the board did not even comprehend the issues raised through this blog. What will convince these trustees to change their minds will be patient, gracious discussion of the issues.
I guess I felt impressed today to remind all of us who are Southern Baptists to be kind toward one another and pray for each other. I am praying for my fellow trustees.
Our mission work deserves our best efforts to work with each other in the spirit of grace and truth.
In His Grace,
Wade
(1). Each trustee is a brother or sister in Christ and deserves to be treated with love and respect.
(2). Every trustee truly desires to do what he or she believes is best for the IMB.
(3). The issues that we trustees face us will only ultimately be resolved through prayer, humility and cooperation.
(4). No trustee desires the Cooperative Program or Lottie Moon giving to suffer, and every trustee is committed to insure that does not happen.
(5). Though a few trustees are guilty of serious errors of judgment, many trustees who voted for the new policies and ultimately my removal from the board did not even comprehend the issues raised through this blog. What will convince these trustees to change their minds will be patient, gracious discussion of the issues.
I guess I felt impressed today to remind all of us who are Southern Baptists to be kind toward one another and pray for each other. I am praying for my fellow trustees.
Our mission work deserves our best efforts to work with each other in the spirit of grace and truth.
In His Grace,
Wade
A Tale of Two November 15ths
On November 15, 2005 a new policy adopted by the IMB regarding the forbidding of a private prayer language stated than anyone who possesses this spiritual gift has disqualified himself from representing the Southern Baptist Convention on the mission field.
I do not have a private prayer language. I do not want one. But I have several friends who profess to have this gift, and I know them to be Christ honoring, Bible believing Christians. Several Southern Baptists, some of whom you know, speak in a language unintelligible to men in their prayer closets.
I believe our convention is such that they should be able to represent the Southern Baptist Convention on the mission field.
On November 15, 1999 Judge Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson spoke at the Arkansas Pastor's Conference at First Baptist Church, Springdale, Arkansas. An account of their messages to the pastors can be found in a BP article entitled Patters and Pressler Caution Baptists Against Detractions from Evangelism.
Patterson is addressing the notion that the Southern Baptist Convention is large enough to be represented by people who are all over the soteriological spectrum. We have room for 5 point Calvinists and those who would not consider themselves even close to Calvinism. The BP writer states, "Patterson described Southern Baptists as a people who believe the Bible to be the Word of God as their final authority, that salvation is by grace through faith alone and that adult-like faith witnessed by believer's baptism provides a testimony to a watching world. "If we believe those things all fall within the purview of the Baptist faith, then there's plenty of room for all of us in these various emphases that we bring. I think they're all very helpful."
I agree.
I think we as Southern Baptists need to keep a broad view cooperation. Our abiity to cooperate with each other and represent the Southern Baptist Convention should not be based upon a conformity of interpretation of non-essential doctrines.
Let's not get distracted from our goal of missions and evangelism.
In His Grace,
Wade
I do not have a private prayer language. I do not want one. But I have several friends who profess to have this gift, and I know them to be Christ honoring, Bible believing Christians. Several Southern Baptists, some of whom you know, speak in a language unintelligible to men in their prayer closets.
I believe our convention is such that they should be able to represent the Southern Baptist Convention on the mission field.
On November 15, 1999 Judge Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson spoke at the Arkansas Pastor's Conference at First Baptist Church, Springdale, Arkansas. An account of their messages to the pastors can be found in a BP article entitled Patters and Pressler Caution Baptists Against Detractions from Evangelism.
Patterson is addressing the notion that the Southern Baptist Convention is large enough to be represented by people who are all over the soteriological spectrum. We have room for 5 point Calvinists and those who would not consider themselves even close to Calvinism. The BP writer states, "Patterson described Southern Baptists as a people who believe the Bible to be the Word of God as their final authority, that salvation is by grace through faith alone and that adult-like faith witnessed by believer's baptism provides a testimony to a watching world. "If we believe those things all fall within the purview of the Baptist faith, then there's plenty of room for all of us in these various emphases that we bring. I think they're all very helpful."
I agree.
I think we as Southern Baptists need to keep a broad view cooperation. Our abiity to cooperate with each other and represent the Southern Baptist Convention should not be based upon a conformity of interpretation of non-essential doctrines.
Let's not get distracted from our goal of missions and evangelism.
In His Grace,
Wade
Sunday, February 05, 2006
The Wisdom of the President of the Executive Committee of the SBC
Dr. Morris Chapman is a very wise man. He has led our Southern Baptists for over a dozen years as President of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. In 2004 Dr. Chapman gave an address that may go done in history as a turning point for the Southern Baptist Convention. I am reminded that when Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address no reporter on the scene thought it to be profound, but history has proven Lincoln's speech to be both a profound and prescient caution that ended up being heeded by our country years later. I am hopeful Dr. Chapman's address might have the same impact within our SBC.
Below is an excerpt of that address to the 2004 Southern Baptist Conveniton. The speech can be read in its entirety at The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives.
"It is imperative that our Convention return to some sense of normalcy in the operation of the Convention. May I suggest one way to begin the process? Southern Baptists now agree that our trustees should be inerrantists. We believe they should embrace the Baptist Faith and Message (there is only one, you know… the last one). Most believe that trustees and their churches should be faithful in giving a significant amount through the Cooperative Program. We believe our trustees should have a heart for lost souls and be affiliated with churches that evangelize at home, and support missions around the globe. And finally, but most importantly, our trustees should be people who have a close daily walk with our Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyone with these characteristics of devotion to the Lord, His church, and our Convention qualifies to serve Southern Baptists in these positions. We should elect trustees who attend trustee meetings with the freedom of conscience to pray about decisions facing that board, and voting accordingly. We cannot let this Convention be driven by politics. It must be driven by passion for our Lord Jesus Christ and for the unsaved and compassion for those who are persecuted for Christ’s sake around the world. In a practiced democracy, politics, the art of influence, is always an ingredient. But the passion of a trustee should be born from deep within in an encounter with the Living Christ, and then he is free to enthusiastically persuade others of the burden God has laid upon his heart. This is how it should be in the church, the association, the state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. This Convention deserves to be led by trustees who listen to God’s Spirit on the way to making decisions, not trustees who are susceptible to political agendas. Politics for the sake of control by a few is not how our forefathers envisioned the operations of our Convention. But I must warn you. Politics do not die easily. Do you know why? It is because the death of politics in a spiritual environment only comes after we die to self.
Contemporary shibboleths are employed to exclude people. It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing. Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly.
Could Southern Baptists fall into the error of Pharisaism? Could we ever, while priding ourselves on orthodox beliefs, be out of fellowship with the Living God and the true saints of God? The threat is real. I am concerned…now that we have affirmed by vigorous endeavor that Southern Baptists are people of the Book, that we will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit. If this occurs, we will be the poorer for it. It will not only result in narrower participation in denominational life, a shallower pool of wisdom and giftedness in our enterprises, and a shrinking impact upon the world, but we will be in the unenviable position of being right on doctrine but wrong with God."
Below is an excerpt of that address to the 2004 Southern Baptist Conveniton. The speech can be read in its entirety at The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives.
"It is imperative that our Convention return to some sense of normalcy in the operation of the Convention. May I suggest one way to begin the process? Southern Baptists now agree that our trustees should be inerrantists. We believe they should embrace the Baptist Faith and Message (there is only one, you know… the last one). Most believe that trustees and their churches should be faithful in giving a significant amount through the Cooperative Program. We believe our trustees should have a heart for lost souls and be affiliated with churches that evangelize at home, and support missions around the globe. And finally, but most importantly, our trustees should be people who have a close daily walk with our Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyone with these characteristics of devotion to the Lord, His church, and our Convention qualifies to serve Southern Baptists in these positions. We should elect trustees who attend trustee meetings with the freedom of conscience to pray about decisions facing that board, and voting accordingly. We cannot let this Convention be driven by politics. It must be driven by passion for our Lord Jesus Christ and for the unsaved and compassion for those who are persecuted for Christ’s sake around the world. In a practiced democracy, politics, the art of influence, is always an ingredient. But the passion of a trustee should be born from deep within in an encounter with the Living Christ, and then he is free to enthusiastically persuade others of the burden God has laid upon his heart. This is how it should be in the church, the association, the state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. This Convention deserves to be led by trustees who listen to God’s Spirit on the way to making decisions, not trustees who are susceptible to political agendas. Politics for the sake of control by a few is not how our forefathers envisioned the operations of our Convention. But I must warn you. Politics do not die easily. Do you know why? It is because the death of politics in a spiritual environment only comes after we die to self.
Contemporary shibboleths are employed to exclude people. It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing. Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly.
Could Southern Baptists fall into the error of Pharisaism? Could we ever, while priding ourselves on orthodox beliefs, be out of fellowship with the Living God and the true saints of God? The threat is real. I am concerned…now that we have affirmed by vigorous endeavor that Southern Baptists are people of the Book, that we will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit. If this occurs, we will be the poorer for it. It will not only result in narrower participation in denominational life, a shallower pool of wisdom and giftedness in our enterprises, and a shrinking impact upon the world, but we will be in the unenviable position of being right on doctrine but wrong with God."
Saturday, February 04, 2006
The Wisdom of the President of the SBC Executive Committee
Dr. Morris Chapman is a very wise man. He has led our Southern Baptists for over a dozen years as President of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. In 2004 Dr. Chapman gave an address that may go done in history as a turning point for the Southern Baptist Convention. I am reminded that when Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address no reporter on the scene thought it to be profound, but history has proven Lincoln's speech to be both a profound and prescient caution that ended up being heeded by our country years later. I am hopeful Dr. Chapman's address might have the same impact within our SBC.
Below is an excerpt of that address to the 2004 Southern Baptist Conveniton. The speech can be read in its entirety at The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives.
"It is imperative that our Convention return to some sense of normalcy in the operation of the Convention. May I suggest one way to begin the process? Southern Baptists now agree that our trustees should be inerrantists. We believe they should embrace the Baptist Faith and Message (there is only one, you know… the last one). Most believe that trustees and their churches should be faithful in giving a significant amount through the Cooperative Program. We believe our trustees should have a heart for lost souls and be affiliated with churches that evangelize at home, and support missions around the globe. And finally, but most importantly, our trustees should be people who have a close daily walk with our Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyone with these characteristics of devotion to the Lord, His church, and our Convention qualifies to serve Southern Baptists in these positions. We should elect trustees who attend trustee meetings with the freedom of conscience to pray about decisions facing that board, and voting accordingly. We cannot let this Convention be driven by politics. It must be driven by passion for our Lord Jesus Christ and for the unsaved and compassion for those who are persecuted for Christ’s sake around the world. In a practiced democracy, politics, the art of influence, is always an ingredient. But the passion of a trustee should be born from deep within in an encounter with the Living Christ, and then he is free to enthusiastically persuade others of the burden God has laid upon his heart. This is how it should be in the church, the association, the state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. This Convention deserves to be led by trustees who listen to God’s Spirit on the way to making decisions, not trustees who are susceptible to political agendas. Politics for the sake of control by a few is not how our forefathers envisioned the operations of our Convention. But I must warn you. Politics do not die easily. Do you know why? It is because the death of politics in a spiritual environment only comes after we die to self.
Contemporary shibboleths are employed to exclude people. It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing. Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly.
Could Southern Baptists fall into the error of Pharisaism? Could we ever, while priding ourselves on orthodox beliefs, be out of fellowship with the Living God and the true saints of God? The threat is real. I am concerned…now that we have affirmed by vigorous endeavor that Southern Baptists are people of the Book, that we will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit. If this occurs, we will be the poorer for it. It will not only result in narrower participation in denominational life, a shallower pool of wisdom and giftedness in our enterprises, and a shrinking impact upon the world, but we will be in the unenviable position of being right on doctrine but wrong with God."
Below is an excerpt of that address to the 2004 Southern Baptist Conveniton. The speech can be read in its entirety at The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives.
"It is imperative that our Convention return to some sense of normalcy in the operation of the Convention. May I suggest one way to begin the process? Southern Baptists now agree that our trustees should be inerrantists. We believe they should embrace the Baptist Faith and Message (there is only one, you know… the last one). Most believe that trustees and their churches should be faithful in giving a significant amount through the Cooperative Program. We believe our trustees should have a heart for lost souls and be affiliated with churches that evangelize at home, and support missions around the globe. And finally, but most importantly, our trustees should be people who have a close daily walk with our Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyone with these characteristics of devotion to the Lord, His church, and our Convention qualifies to serve Southern Baptists in these positions. We should elect trustees who attend trustee meetings with the freedom of conscience to pray about decisions facing that board, and voting accordingly. We cannot let this Convention be driven by politics. It must be driven by passion for our Lord Jesus Christ and for the unsaved and compassion for those who are persecuted for Christ’s sake around the world. In a practiced democracy, politics, the art of influence, is always an ingredient. But the passion of a trustee should be born from deep within in an encounter with the Living Christ, and then he is free to enthusiastically persuade others of the burden God has laid upon his heart. This is how it should be in the church, the association, the state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. This Convention deserves to be led by trustees who listen to God’s Spirit on the way to making decisions, not trustees who are susceptible to political agendas. Politics for the sake of control by a few is not how our forefathers envisioned the operations of our Convention. But I must warn you. Politics do not die easily. Do you know why? It is because the death of politics in a spiritual environment only comes after we die to self.
Contemporary shibboleths are employed to exclude people. It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing. Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly.
Could Southern Baptists fall into the error of Pharisaism? Could we ever, while priding ourselves on orthodox beliefs, be out of fellowship with the Living God and the true saints of God? The threat is real. I am concerned…now that we have affirmed by vigorous endeavor that Southern Baptists are people of the Book, that we will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit. If this occurs, we will be the poorer for it. It will not only result in narrower participation in denominational life, a shallower pool of wisdom and giftedness in our enterprises, and a shrinking impact upon the world, but we will be in the unenviable position of being right on doctrine but wrong with God."
Friday, February 03, 2006
Political Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives; The Struggle for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention
One year ago, in February of 2005, I was told something that greatly troubled me as a Southern Baptist. Over the next several months I received written material that was clear evidence a problem existed within our convention. I have chosen not to make the written information public, but I have recently shared it with people who are in a position to do something about my concerns, and they have agreed to help work toward a solution.
However, without going into details, and without naming individuals, I chose to write a post last December 10 entitled Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The War for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention.
In hindsight, I regret some of the word choices in that post. I stand by everything I said, and will never apologize for saying it, but I just wish I would have said it softer. The secular media and others pick out what they want, and rarely pay attention to the context of the words they choose to use. Anyone who has read all my other posts knows I have a love for all my Southern Baptist friends, even those with whom I disagree.
I am writing a new post to replace the old one, using words that aren't quite as militant. It says the same thing as the previous post, just a little softer. Again, I regret my choice of words, but I do not apologize for making public my concerns. I believe self-criticism is healthy.
"Political Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The Struggle for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention"
Twenty years ago marked a turning point within the Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas, Texas, as 45,000 messengers set the course of our beloved SBC for the next millenium. We are all grateful to the leaders of the conservative resurgence including my friend Paul Pressler, current Southwestern Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson, and the late Adrian Rogers for their foresight, courage and wisdom in charting our course as a convention for the decades to come. The Southern Baptist Convention and her agencies now have an unapologetic adherance to the inerrancy of God's word, a firm belief in the sufficiency of Christ's work, and an evangelical missionary zeal which reaches every continent of the world.
I have stood side by side with my fellow conservatives in our convention over the years. When the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship organized in Oklahoma I nailed on the door of their organizational meeting "95 Theses Against the Formation of the CBF," an act which marked me forever as an opponent of the CBF. I consider everyone involved in the CBF a brother or sister in Christ, but I nailed the thesis on the door because I believed if someone is truly an evangelical conservative, then he or she should cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention and not separate. Otherwise, separation from the SBC because of a denial of the inerrancy of God's word is both appropriate and needed.
My forefather, Dr. Rufus Burleson, was President of Baylor University and twice served as President of the Baptist General Convention of Texas in the late 1800's. I myself recently completed a second term as President of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. I am a Southern Baptist to the core.
I am glad and I rejoice over the conservative resurgance because of the needed doctrinal course correction. Some might consider me naive regarding the tactics used in the resurgence, and that may be, but I can honestly say I rejoice that our convention is considered conservative (Bible believing) and evangelical. I love the Southern Baptist Convention.
But sadly, a new struggle is occuring within the SBC. It is a struggle initiated by some of my fellow conservatives; conservatives who somehow have forgotten that a strong belief in the Word of God should unite us in cooperation for the purpose of missions and evangelism. This struggle technically may not have just begun, but it simply may be the residue of the conservative resurgence. Some conservatives may not know when to stop being a "doctrinal watchdog."
A few conservatives who sought to remove the denominational political powers of the past, have now themselves become the polical powers, and have fallen victim to the belief that nothing can happen within the convention unless they give their approval. This control and political posturing is the antithesis of ministering and working in the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
A clear understanding of how this struggle is proceeding may be seen in the recent actions of the International Mission Board, an agency that I now serve as trustee. New policies were recently approved by the Board of Trustees of the IMB regarding the appointment of missionaries. The new policies forbid the appointment of any missionary who uses a private prayer language or one who has not been baptized by a "qualified administrator" of baptism.
I personally and publicly opposed the proposed new policies of the IMB not because I do not believe we need standards for our missionaries -- we do! I opposed the new policies because we already had excellent policies on the books regarding tongues and biblical baptism. My objections to the new policy on baptism are well documented, so I will not go into them here, but I will use the new policy on "glossolalia" to show how some policital conservatives are damaging fellow evangelical conservatives.
The former policy of the IMB regarding tongues stated that if you practiced tongues publicly on the mission field you would be fired. But the new policy narrows the restriction to preclude a private prayer language. Our own Bertha Smith of South Carolina, one of the finest missionaries we have ever had as Southern Baptists, professed to be gifted with a private prayer language. Dr. Jerry Rankin, before being hired to be President of our International Mission Board, made known he had experienced a private prayer language, but agreed contractually to abide by the policy of the IMB as President and to never publicly practice "glossolalia." Some of the greatest men and women of God throughout the centuries have disagreed over the issue of a private prayer language, but have cooperated in the work of spreading the gospel.
Why have some conservative now insisted on new policies at the IMB regarding tongues? Again, it seems clear to me that some of the trustees, not by any means all, have used the new policies as a "shield" to protect the SBC from doctrinal heresy. Some of these trustees seem to have placed an emphasis "doctrinal purity" rather than expanding our efforts to take the gospel of Christ to a world in need of a Savior. Instead they have focused on rooting out "charasmatic heresy."
I have been told by an authority in this political effort to cleanse our convention of doctrinal impurity that there are some trustees who will settle for nothing less than Dr. Rankin's "head on a platter." Allow me to be clear; many trustees who voted for the new policies did not even consider how it looks for the President of the IMB to now be disqualified from "representing the Southern Baptist Convention" as a missionary on the field, as the new policy states, but a few clearly understood that the new policy places our President in a very awkward position.
Some conservatives seem intent on pointing out the doctrinal heresy of fellow conservatives. What a shame. These "heresies" have are in reality just different interpretations of minor doctrines, and Southern Baptists have cooperated with each other for the past 161 years even though there has been a wide range of interpretations of non-essential doctrines. We are united on the essentials, but Southern Baptists must be carefully of making judgments that other conservative Southern Baptists are now "disqualifed" to represent the Southern Baptist Convention because they don't conform to a specific doctrinal interpretation of the designated "doctrinal watchdogs."
It is not my intention to defend Dr. Rankin. The issue is much larger than one man. This is not about Dr. Rankin, Dr. Draper, Dr. Chapman, or anybody else in leadership of the SBC.
The issue is much more. The future of our convention is at stake.
WHEN ARE PEOPLE IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION GOING TO STAND UP AND SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?
If we are not careful we are going to lose a younger generation of pastors that are disillusioned with the SBC because all they see is the continuing narrowing of the parameters of fellowship within our convention. These young pastors don't see eye to eye with the politics of our convention, but they themselves are conservative, seeking to reach their generation with the gospel. Where, they are asking, do we fit within the SBC?
Again, I think if people are not careful they will see arguments against the new IMB policies on tongues and baptism and believe the problem is simply a theological one. If that's the case, the real issue at hand, the issue that is so disturbing to many of us, will never be grasped by SBC laypeople at large. The Southern Baptist Convention, through trustees of 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 stemmed the tide of liberalism twenty years ago, but at this hour we better guard against creeping 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.
In closing, allow me to explain what is happening in our convention in crystal clear terms.
The struggle that is now taking place with among fellow conservatives is following the same plan conservatives used to defeat liberalism.
Trustees of agencies are being "vetted" or cleared by men and women who are of the opinion that no conservative is worthy of leadership that does not toe the party line. That line is no longer the nature of Christ and Scripture, but has moved rapidly toward a specific interpretation of Scripture related to eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, missiology, etc . . .
Political conservatives are using private meetings at trustee meetings, an unethical violation of all agencies' guidelines, to strategise their agendas through the Boards on which they serve, even if it violates the vision and direction of the President of the agency. Political conservatives are influencing nominating committee members of various states to place on the different boards and agencies of the SBC those who are in lock step with their goals. Agency heads who are not the appointed leaders of the doctrinal watchdogs of the convention are being forced to resign or simply removed.
Politcal conservatives gather to elect chairmen of the boards and appoint committee chairmen. They have an agenda and if anyone steps in their way they can become very difficult. Ask someone who has spoken out against power politics within the convention.
Conservatives throughout the centuries have had differing interpretations regarding what Scripture teaches, but have been, and are today, united regarding the nature of Scripture. Our cooperation historically has been built upon our belief in the inerrant word of God and the person and work of Jesus Christ, and we have joined hands in cooperation to advance the kingdom. But sadly, the Southern Baptist Convention is now moving toward a time when everyone must look the same, talk the same, act the same, believe the same on the non-essentials of the faith, or else you will be removed as "not one of us."
God forbid.
I am a Southern Baptist. I will be a Southern Baptist until the day I die.
I am a conservative. I will cooperate with other conservative evangelicals until the day the Lord calls me home.
As concerned I was twenty years ago about liberalism within our convention, I am possibly even more concerned today with what seems to be the spreading legalism without the Southern Baptist Convention.
I, and others like me, are now being isolated by political conservatives who want to rid our convention of fellow conservatives who don't interpret Scripture like they do, or express dissent with the power politics of the SBC. These political conservatives refuse cooperation in favor of conformity, and I really think it is because they have forgotten how to minister in the power of the Spirit through prayer, humility and cooperation.
I do not want to fight with my fellow conservatives. I want to cooperate with every conservative to win the world to Christ. I don't want to even argue, I just want all of us who call ourselves Southern Baptists to realize our convention is big enough for different interpretations of the non-essential doctrines of Scripture. Let's accept the Baptist Faith and Message, but let's not demand conformity on doctrines that are not even addressed in our 2000 confession of faith before agree to cooperate with each other.
I promise you I will ask the Lord for grace and mercy for us all. But I cannot stand by and watch our convention continue to decline. Today it is "glossalia" vs. cessationists and the "proper administrator" of baptism vs. biblical baptism. Tomorrow it might be Calvinism vs Arminianism or Dispensationalism vs. Amillenialism. Where will it end?
Why can't it end NOW. We need cooperating Baptists instead of political Baptists.
I believe, as did Spurgeon, there is a time to draw a line in the sand for the cause of Christ.
That time has come for the Southern Baptist Convention.
My line has been drawn. How about yours?
Wade Burleson
Dr. Morris Chapman's convention message at the 2004 Indianapolis Convention should be read by every Southern Baptist who is concerned about the future of cooperating conservatives reaching our world for Christ. He is far more eloquent than I, and his words spoke deeply to my own heart. The message may be found in audio and print form at The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives.
However, without going into details, and without naming individuals, I chose to write a post last December 10 entitled Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The War for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention.
In hindsight, I regret some of the word choices in that post. I stand by everything I said, and will never apologize for saying it, but I just wish I would have said it softer. The secular media and others pick out what they want, and rarely pay attention to the context of the words they choose to use. Anyone who has read all my other posts knows I have a love for all my Southern Baptist friends, even those with whom I disagree.
I am writing a new post to replace the old one, using words that aren't quite as militant. It says the same thing as the previous post, just a little softer. Again, I regret my choice of words, but I do not apologize for making public my concerns. I believe self-criticism is healthy.
"Political Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The Struggle for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention"
Twenty years ago marked a turning point within the Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas, Texas, as 45,000 messengers set the course of our beloved SBC for the next millenium. We are all grateful to the leaders of the conservative resurgence including my friend Paul Pressler, current Southwestern Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson, and the late Adrian Rogers for their foresight, courage and wisdom in charting our course as a convention for the decades to come. The Southern Baptist Convention and her agencies now have an unapologetic adherance to the inerrancy of God's word, a firm belief in the sufficiency of Christ's work, and an evangelical missionary zeal which reaches every continent of the world.
I have stood side by side with my fellow conservatives in our convention over the years. When the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship organized in Oklahoma I nailed on the door of their organizational meeting "95 Theses Against the Formation of the CBF," an act which marked me forever as an opponent of the CBF. I consider everyone involved in the CBF a brother or sister in Christ, but I nailed the thesis on the door because I believed if someone is truly an evangelical conservative, then he or she should cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention and not separate. Otherwise, separation from the SBC because of a denial of the inerrancy of God's word is both appropriate and needed.
My forefather, Dr. Rufus Burleson, was President of Baylor University and twice served as President of the Baptist General Convention of Texas in the late 1800's. I myself recently completed a second term as President of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. I am a Southern Baptist to the core.
I am glad and I rejoice over the conservative resurgance because of the needed doctrinal course correction. Some might consider me naive regarding the tactics used in the resurgence, and that may be, but I can honestly say I rejoice that our convention is considered conservative (Bible believing) and evangelical. I love the Southern Baptist Convention.
But sadly, a new struggle is occuring within the SBC. It is a struggle initiated by some of my fellow conservatives; conservatives who somehow have forgotten that a strong belief in the Word of God should unite us in cooperation for the purpose of missions and evangelism. This struggle technically may not have just begun, but it simply may be the residue of the conservative resurgence. Some conservatives may not know when to stop being a "doctrinal watchdog."
A few conservatives who sought to remove the denominational political powers of the past, have now themselves become the polical powers, and have fallen victim to the belief that nothing can happen within the convention unless they give their approval. This control and political posturing is the antithesis of ministering and working in the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
A clear understanding of how this struggle is proceeding may be seen in the recent actions of the International Mission Board, an agency that I now serve as trustee. New policies were recently approved by the Board of Trustees of the IMB regarding the appointment of missionaries. The new policies forbid the appointment of any missionary who uses a private prayer language or one who has not been baptized by a "qualified administrator" of baptism.
I personally and publicly opposed the proposed new policies of the IMB not because I do not believe we need standards for our missionaries -- we do! I opposed the new policies because we already had excellent policies on the books regarding tongues and biblical baptism. My objections to the new policy on baptism are well documented, so I will not go into them here, but I will use the new policy on "glossolalia" to show how some policital conservatives are damaging fellow evangelical conservatives.
The former policy of the IMB regarding tongues stated that if you practiced tongues publicly on the mission field you would be fired. But the new policy narrows the restriction to preclude a private prayer language. Our own Bertha Smith of South Carolina, one of the finest missionaries we have ever had as Southern Baptists, professed to be gifted with a private prayer language. Dr. Jerry Rankin, before being hired to be President of our International Mission Board, made known he had experienced a private prayer language, but agreed contractually to abide by the policy of the IMB as President and to never publicly practice "glossolalia." Some of the greatest men and women of God throughout the centuries have disagreed over the issue of a private prayer language, but have cooperated in the work of spreading the gospel.
Why have some conservative now insisted on new policies at the IMB regarding tongues? Again, it seems clear to me that some of the trustees, not by any means all, have used the new policies as a "shield" to protect the SBC from doctrinal heresy. Some of these trustees seem to have placed an emphasis "doctrinal purity" rather than expanding our efforts to take the gospel of Christ to a world in need of a Savior. Instead they have focused on rooting out "charasmatic heresy."
I have been told by an authority in this political effort to cleanse our convention of doctrinal impurity that there are some trustees who will settle for nothing less than Dr. Rankin's "head on a platter." Allow me to be clear; many trustees who voted for the new policies did not even consider how it looks for the President of the IMB to now be disqualified from "representing the Southern Baptist Convention" as a missionary on the field, as the new policy states, but a few clearly understood that the new policy places our President in a very awkward position.
Some conservatives seem intent on pointing out the doctrinal heresy of fellow conservatives. What a shame. These "heresies" have are in reality just different interpretations of minor doctrines, and Southern Baptists have cooperated with each other for the past 161 years even though there has been a wide range of interpretations of non-essential doctrines. We are united on the essentials, but Southern Baptists must be carefully of making judgments that other conservative Southern Baptists are now "disqualifed" to represent the Southern Baptist Convention because they don't conform to a specific doctrinal interpretation of the designated "doctrinal watchdogs."
It is not my intention to defend Dr. Rankin. The issue is much larger than one man. This is not about Dr. Rankin, Dr. Draper, Dr. Chapman, or anybody else in leadership of the SBC.
The issue is much more. The future of our convention is at stake.
WHEN ARE PEOPLE IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION GOING TO STAND UP AND SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?
If we are not careful we are going to lose a younger generation of pastors that are disillusioned with the SBC because all they see is the continuing narrowing of the parameters of fellowship within our convention. These young pastors don't see eye to eye with the politics of our convention, but they themselves are conservative, seeking to reach their generation with the gospel. Where, they are asking, do we fit within the SBC?
Again, I think if people are not careful they will see arguments against the new IMB policies on tongues and baptism and believe the problem is simply a theological one. If that's the case, the real issue at hand, the issue that is so disturbing to many of us, will never be grasped by SBC laypeople at large. The Southern Baptist Convention, through trustees of 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 stemmed the tide of liberalism twenty years ago, but at this hour we better guard against creeping 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.
In closing, allow me to explain what is happening in our convention in crystal clear terms.
The struggle that is now taking place with among fellow conservatives is following the same plan conservatives used to defeat liberalism.
Trustees of agencies are being "vetted" or cleared by men and women who are of the opinion that no conservative is worthy of leadership that does not toe the party line. That line is no longer the nature of Christ and Scripture, but has moved rapidly toward a specific interpretation of Scripture related to eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, missiology, etc . . .
Political conservatives are using private meetings at trustee meetings, an unethical violation of all agencies' guidelines, to strategise their agendas through the Boards on which they serve, even if it violates the vision and direction of the President of the agency. Political conservatives are influencing nominating committee members of various states to place on the different boards and agencies of the SBC those who are in lock step with their goals. Agency heads who are not the appointed leaders of the doctrinal watchdogs of the convention are being forced to resign or simply removed.
Politcal conservatives gather to elect chairmen of the boards and appoint committee chairmen. They have an agenda and if anyone steps in their way they can become very difficult. Ask someone who has spoken out against power politics within the convention.
Conservatives throughout the centuries have had differing interpretations regarding what Scripture teaches, but have been, and are today, united regarding the nature of Scripture. Our cooperation historically has been built upon our belief in the inerrant word of God and the person and work of Jesus Christ, and we have joined hands in cooperation to advance the kingdom. But sadly, the Southern Baptist Convention is now moving toward a time when everyone must look the same, talk the same, act the same, believe the same on the non-essentials of the faith, or else you will be removed as "not one of us."
God forbid.
I am a Southern Baptist. I will be a Southern Baptist until the day I die.
I am a conservative. I will cooperate with other conservative evangelicals until the day the Lord calls me home.
As concerned I was twenty years ago about liberalism within our convention, I am possibly even more concerned today with what seems to be the spreading legalism without the Southern Baptist Convention.
I, and others like me, are now being isolated by political conservatives who want to rid our convention of fellow conservatives who don't interpret Scripture like they do, or express dissent with the power politics of the SBC. These political conservatives refuse cooperation in favor of conformity, and I really think it is because they have forgotten how to minister in the power of the Spirit through prayer, humility and cooperation.
I do not want to fight with my fellow conservatives. I want to cooperate with every conservative to win the world to Christ. I don't want to even argue, I just want all of us who call ourselves Southern Baptists to realize our convention is big enough for different interpretations of the non-essential doctrines of Scripture. Let's accept the Baptist Faith and Message, but let's not demand conformity on doctrines that are not even addressed in our 2000 confession of faith before agree to cooperate with each other.
I promise you I will ask the Lord for grace and mercy for us all. But I cannot stand by and watch our convention continue to decline. Today it is "glossalia" vs. cessationists and the "proper administrator" of baptism vs. biblical baptism. Tomorrow it might be Calvinism vs Arminianism or Dispensationalism vs. Amillenialism. Where will it end?
Why can't it end NOW. We need cooperating Baptists instead of political Baptists.
I believe, as did Spurgeon, there is a time to draw a line in the sand for the cause of Christ.
That time has come for the Southern Baptist Convention.
My line has been drawn. How about yours?
Wade Burleson
Dr. Morris Chapman's convention message at the 2004 Indianapolis Convention should be read by every Southern Baptist who is concerned about the future of cooperating conservatives reaching our world for Christ. He is far more eloquent than I, and his words spoke deeply to my own heart. The message may be found in audio and print form at The Fundamentals of Cooperating Conservatives.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Self-Criticism
Baptist Ideals
The following is an excerpt from “Baptist Ideals,” a booklet published by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1964. It was prepared by the Committee on Baptist Ideals, Ralph A Herring, chairman, and eighteen Southern Baptist Convention leaders and scholars.
Page 18
9. Self-Criticism
Both the local church and denomination, if they are to remain healthy and fruitful, must accept the responsibility of constructive self-criticism. It would be damaging to our churches and to our denomination to deny the right to differ or to consider that our methods and policies are final and perfect. The work of our churches and of our denomination needs frequent re-evaluation to prevent the sterility of traditionalism. This is particularly true in the area of methods, but it also applies to historic principles and practices as they relate to contemporary life. This means that our churches and denominational institutions and agencies should defend and protect the right of our people to question and to criticize constructively.
Healthy self-criticism will center on basic issues and will thus save us from the disintegrating effects of accusations and recrimination. For one to criticize does not necessarily mean that he is disloyal; his criticism may stem from a deep commitment to the welfare of the denomination. Such criticism will aim at growth toward full maturity both for the individual and the denomination.
The following is an excerpt from “Baptist Ideals,” a booklet published by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1964. It was prepared by the Committee on Baptist Ideals, Ralph A Herring, chairman, and eighteen Southern Baptist Convention leaders and scholars.
Page 18
9. Self-Criticism
Both the local church and denomination, if they are to remain healthy and fruitful, must accept the responsibility of constructive self-criticism. It would be damaging to our churches and to our denomination to deny the right to differ or to consider that our methods and policies are final and perfect. The work of our churches and of our denomination needs frequent re-evaluation to prevent the sterility of traditionalism. This is particularly true in the area of methods, but it also applies to historic principles and practices as they relate to contemporary life. This means that our churches and denominational institutions and agencies should defend and protect the right of our people to question and to criticize constructively.
Healthy self-criticism will center on basic issues and will thus save us from the disintegrating effects of accusations and recrimination. For one to criticize does not necessarily mean that he is disloyal; his criticism may stem from a deep commitment to the welfare of the denomination. Such criticism will aim at growth toward full maturity both for the individual and the denomination.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Jim Henry's 1996 Presidential Address
I've been doing some reading and found this excerpt from the 1996 Convention Address by Jim Henry to be very insightful:
We, as Southern Baptists, are a diverse people. This is a source of our richness, but this is also a source of challenge for us as a denomination. To succeed and be revitalized, we must have more than tolerance and sympathy. We must appreciate and appropriate this diversity for the common good.[i]
Our challenge is there are some among us who seek to pigeon hole all of us into their pigeon holes, but we Baptists flocks do not fit into them very well! There must be a clear rejection of this legalistic and narrow spirit, which one writer notes, is marked by the weaknesses of intolerance, hasty judgments, inflexible to constructive change, intimidation by others evaluations of them, and tending to such separation from mainstream Christianity that they become almost isolated.[ii]
In any society, church or denomination there are extremists. There are also some who are, as one writer describes, fanatical. A fanatic is someone who has lost his way and redoubled his effort. He makes up for his spiritual emptiness with noise and activity. He is as dangerous as he is insensitive. Get close to one and like the drowning man in the lake, he's liable to pull you under. Southern Baptists need to steer clear of this spirit or we'll all be pulled under. It is a type of rigid boundary marking mania that goes beyond the bedrock doctrines and principles of the Word of God.
It reminds me of a story that comedian, Emo Philips tells about the end result of boundary marking. In conversation with a person I had recently met, I asked, "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" My new acquaintance replied, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! What franchise?" He answered "Baptist." "Me too!" I said.˜Northern or Southern Baptist?" "Northern Baptist,"he replied. ˜Me too!" I shouted. We continued to go back and forth. Finally I asked, ˜Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1879 or Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912?" He replied, ˜Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912." I said, ˜Die, heretic!" [iv]
Almost 40 years ago the editors of Look magazine posed a question to a young Baptist evangelist about to lead a large crusade in New York. When they asked if he was fundamentalist or liberal in theology Billy Graham replied, " ..if by fundamentalist you mean narrow, bigoted, prejudiced, extremist, emotional, snake handler, without social conscience - then I am definitely not a fundamentalist. However, if by fundamentalist you mean a person who accepts the authority of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, His bodily resurrection, His second coming and personal salvation by faith through grace, then I am a fundamentalist. However, I much prefer being called a Christian. The terms liberalism and fundamentalism have arisen in modern days. Neither is found in sacred scripture."[v]
Wholeness is not a kind of monolithic sameness in which individuals lose identity, but the Bible sees it as fellowship within the family...the whole family fellowship is much larger than any particular element in it.[vi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]John Gardner, op. cit., pp. 10-11.
[ii]Craig Skinner, Ties that Bind (San Francisco: Christian Universities Press, 1993), p. 64.
[iii]Jamie Buckingham
[iv]Paul Kroll, ˜Boundary Marker Christians," The Plain Truth, August 1995, pp. 20-21.
[v]Craig Skinner, op. cit., quoting "Billy Graham...," Life, 1956:49, p. 63.
[vi]Ibid., p. 65.
We, as Southern Baptists, are a diverse people. This is a source of our richness, but this is also a source of challenge for us as a denomination. To succeed and be revitalized, we must have more than tolerance and sympathy. We must appreciate and appropriate this diversity for the common good.[i]
Our challenge is there are some among us who seek to pigeon hole all of us into their pigeon holes, but we Baptists flocks do not fit into them very well! There must be a clear rejection of this legalistic and narrow spirit, which one writer notes, is marked by the weaknesses of intolerance, hasty judgments, inflexible to constructive change, intimidation by others evaluations of them, and tending to such separation from mainstream Christianity that they become almost isolated.[ii]
In any society, church or denomination there are extremists. There are also some who are, as one writer describes, fanatical. A fanatic is someone who has lost his way and redoubled his effort. He makes up for his spiritual emptiness with noise and activity. He is as dangerous as he is insensitive. Get close to one and like the drowning man in the lake, he's liable to pull you under. Southern Baptists need to steer clear of this spirit or we'll all be pulled under. It is a type of rigid boundary marking mania that goes beyond the bedrock doctrines and principles of the Word of God.
It reminds me of a story that comedian, Emo Philips tells about the end result of boundary marking. In conversation with a person I had recently met, I asked, "Are you Protestant or Catholic?" My new acquaintance replied, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! What franchise?" He answered "Baptist." "Me too!" I said.˜Northern or Southern Baptist?" "Northern Baptist,"he replied. ˜Me too!" I shouted. We continued to go back and forth. Finally I asked, ˜Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1879 or Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912?" He replied, ˜Northern conservative fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912." I said, ˜Die, heretic!" [iv]
Almost 40 years ago the editors of Look magazine posed a question to a young Baptist evangelist about to lead a large crusade in New York. When they asked if he was fundamentalist or liberal in theology Billy Graham replied, " ..if by fundamentalist you mean narrow, bigoted, prejudiced, extremist, emotional, snake handler, without social conscience - then I am definitely not a fundamentalist. However, if by fundamentalist you mean a person who accepts the authority of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, His bodily resurrection, His second coming and personal salvation by faith through grace, then I am a fundamentalist. However, I much prefer being called a Christian. The terms liberalism and fundamentalism have arisen in modern days. Neither is found in sacred scripture."[v]
Wholeness is not a kind of monolithic sameness in which individuals lose identity, but the Bible sees it as fellowship within the family...the whole family fellowship is much larger than any particular element in it.[vi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]John Gardner, op. cit., pp. 10-11.
[ii]Craig Skinner, Ties that Bind (San Francisco: Christian Universities Press, 1993), p. 64.
[iii]Jamie Buckingham
[iv]Paul Kroll, ˜Boundary Marker Christians," The Plain Truth, August 1995, pp. 20-21.
[v]Craig Skinner, op. cit., quoting "Billy Graham...," Life, 1956:49, p. 63.
[vi]Ibid., p. 65.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)