Steven Flockhart resigned abruptly this past week as the Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church of West Palm Beach, Florida after the local paper uncovered that the pastor had lied about several things in his past, including his educational achievements. You can read the Palm Beach Post's story here.
There were three statements in the newspaper story that struck me as very odd. First, when the chairman of the pulpit committee was asked why the committee did not thoroughly investigate the background of the man they were bringing in view of a call to be pastor of their very large church, he responded,
"(There was) a significant endorsement because Johnny Hunt is a leading pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention," Mahoney said. "He's respected in both religious and secular circles."
Second, after the newspaper called the registrar's office at Liberty University to ask about Mr. Flockhart's alleged enrollment for his second "doctorate," the registrar first said they had never heard of Mr. Flockhart, then called back and said,
"They (the registrar's office) discovered he paid his registration fees directly to seminary President Ergun Caner. The pastor is enrolled and has paid in advance, said Ron Godwin, executive vice president and CEO of Liberty University. "I love those kind of students." He further said, "Flockhart is good friend of our chancellor, Dr. Jerry Falwell."
The third statement that struck me as odd was this one:
"Flockhart said he was "licensed to preach" in 1986 by Rev. Hunt and ordained by Hunt in 1990.Hunt appeared via videotape at Flockhart's first service at First Baptist last month and gave a ringing endorsement of his protégé. Like Flockhart, he also lists a degree from Covington on his résumé. It says he holds an honorary doctorate from the school."
I am amazed that we have an environment in the SBC where popular circuit speakers such as Johnny Hunt, Ergun Caner, and Jerry Falwell have enough influence over professional laymen in a large, metropolitan church to cause them to call a man without ever checking his resume. Doing a Lexus Nexus internet search would have uncovered the lawsuits against Mr. Flockhart, or running a simple credit report would have identified his financial struggles, and might have saved the church a tremendous amount of embarrassment.
Could it be that we have developed in our beloved SBC a climate where personality has more of a hold on people than it should?
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Monday, August 28, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
The Winner of the Best Definition for a Christ-Honoring, Theologically Conservative Evangelical
The Entry That Made Us Laugh -- Kelly Reed
"A Christ-Honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" is obviously defined as anyone who agrees with me. If you don't agree with me, you're a liberal.
The Winning Entry --- Tim Sweatman
Being a "Christ honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" means that Jesus is truly our Lord as well as our Savior. Not only are we trusting in His atoning death to pay the penalty for our sins, but we are also following Him in every area of our lives. We show our love for Him by obeying His commands, and we pattern our lives after His example of loving God and loving others.
Being a "Christ honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" means that we believe the Bible is the Word of God. As God's Word the Bible is true in everything it says. As God's Word the Bible is authoritative in our lives and in our churches. As God's Word the Bible is sufficient to guide and govern us in matters of doctrine and practice; it trumps human tradition, history, culture, and reason in these matters. Where the Bible speaks clearly we do not compromise, but where the Bible does not speak clearly we allow for differing interpretations, NOT because the Bible means whatever we think it means but because in some areas God has chosen not to reveal the clear meaning to us.
Being a "Christ honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" means that we proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to all people, both through our words and through our actions. We affirm that faith in Christ is the only way that anyone can be saved, and we affirm that through faith in Christ anyone can be saved. We are not called to give people religion, make them live moral lives, or make them members of a church. We are called to tell others about Jesus, support our claims about Him through how we live, and allow God to do His work of regeneration, conversion, justification, and sanctification in their lives.
Other Outstanding Entries Too Numerous To Name
But everyone one of you caused us to think long and hard about our understanding of ourselves, and others, as Christ-honoring, theologically conservative evangelicals.
Thanks, and have a wonderful Lord's Day.
In His Grace,
Wade
"A Christ-Honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" is obviously defined as anyone who agrees with me. If you don't agree with me, you're a liberal.
The Winning Entry --- Tim Sweatman
Being a "Christ honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" means that Jesus is truly our Lord as well as our Savior. Not only are we trusting in His atoning death to pay the penalty for our sins, but we are also following Him in every area of our lives. We show our love for Him by obeying His commands, and we pattern our lives after His example of loving God and loving others.
Being a "Christ honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" means that we believe the Bible is the Word of God. As God's Word the Bible is true in everything it says. As God's Word the Bible is authoritative in our lives and in our churches. As God's Word the Bible is sufficient to guide and govern us in matters of doctrine and practice; it trumps human tradition, history, culture, and reason in these matters. Where the Bible speaks clearly we do not compromise, but where the Bible does not speak clearly we allow for differing interpretations, NOT because the Bible means whatever we think it means but because in some areas God has chosen not to reveal the clear meaning to us.
Being a "Christ honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" means that we proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to all people, both through our words and through our actions. We affirm that faith in Christ is the only way that anyone can be saved, and we affirm that through faith in Christ anyone can be saved. We are not called to give people religion, make them live moral lives, or make them members of a church. We are called to tell others about Jesus, support our claims about Him through how we live, and allow God to do His work of regeneration, conversion, justification, and sanctification in their lives.
Other Outstanding Entries Too Numerous To Name
But everyone one of you caused us to think long and hard about our understanding of ourselves, and others, as Christ-honoring, theologically conservative evangelicals.
Thanks, and have a wonderful Lord's Day.
In His Grace,
Wade
Thursday, August 24, 2006
A Theological Triage Test
At the bottom of this post is a test I am asking readers of this blog to take. I would encourage you to read the entire post before you take the test if at all possible.
A SOLID IDEA FROM THE PRESIDENT OF SOUTHERN SEMINARY
I have a high degree of respect and admiration for Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary. I do not agree with everything Dr. Mohler writes, nor do I agree with all of his theological or political views, I do admire his mental erudition and theological acumen.
Recently Dr. Mohler had a brilliant FIRST PERSON BP commentary where he said, "today's Christian faces the daunting task of strategizing which Christian doctrines and theological issues are to be given highest priority in terms of our contemporary context."
Dr. Mohler offers a very practical solution on how to resolve this problem. He suggests the establishment of a theological triage. "The word "triage" comes from the French word "trier," which means "to sort." Thus, the triage officer in the medical context is the front-line agent for deciding which patients need the most urgent treatment. Without such a process, the scraped knee would receive the same urgency of consideration as a gunshot wound to the chest. The same discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the emergency room can also offer great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present age."
Mohler continues, "A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world's framework for medical priority. With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological priorities found in current doctrinal debates."
THE THREE LEVELS OF DOCTRINAL PRIORITY
The three levels Dr. Mohler proposes are summarized below:
First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.
The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding of the church and its ordering by the Word of God.
Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category. Christians who affirm the bodily, historical, and victorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ may differ over timetable and sequence without rupturing the fellowship of the church. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.
SOME IMPORTANT CAVEATS
A structure of theological triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less than full seriousness. We are charged to embrace and to teach the comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There are no insignificant doctrines revealed in the Bible, but there is an essential foundation of truth that undergirds the entire system of biblical truth.
This structure of theological triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful. The error of theological liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the church's treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal ambiguity is the inevitable result.
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided.
TAKE THE TEST (and comment on the results)
The following 10 doctrines need to be rated by you with the following point system.
Are they first order? second order? or third order doctrines?
1 Point --- An Essential Doctrine Necessary To Be Considered a Christian, for a Denial of this Doctrine is a Denial of the True Christian Faith.
2 Points --- An Essential Doctrine Necessary to be Considered a Southern Baptist Christian, and if One Disagrees With It, He Cannot Serve in Leadership of the SBC.
3 Points --- A Low Priority Doctrine that Is Not Necessary to Believe in Order to be a Fully Cooperating Southern Baptist (leadership, missionary, trustee, etc..).
(1). A belief that a person should (or should not) abstain from worldly amusements on the Lord's Day.
(2). A belief that speaking in tongues, either publicly or privately, can (or cannot) be a gift given by God to a person today.
(3). A belief that any Christian, whether ordained or not, can (or cannot) Biblically baptize the person he leads to Christ.
(4). A belief that the Biblical church is (or is not) only a local, visible church.
(5). A belief that Jesus Christ will (or will not) return to set up an earthly kingdom on earth for 1,000 years.
(6). A belief that a woman can (or cannot) serve as a deacon.
(7). A belief that God, from before the foundation of the world, elects (or does not elect), a definite number of sinners to salvation.
(8). A belief that a Christian can (or cannot) drink an alchoholic beverage, without getting drunk, and not sin against God.
(9). A belief that a Baptist church can (or cannot) be governed by elders.
(10). A belief that communion can (or cannot) be served by people who are not ordained, and shared by people who are believers but not members of your local church.
Score
Add up your total scores: Minimum points would be ten, Maximum points would be 30.
Proposed Score Card (Revised):
Below 27 --- You have difficulty serving with anyone who disagrees with you on these doctrines, and in fact would seek to remove persons from SBC leadership who disagree with you and urge those who don't believe the way you do to leave the SBC.
27-28 --- You believe Southern Baptists are a distinctive group of committed Christians, and though you might not seek to remove people from current leadership in the SBC who disagree with you on these doctrines, you would prefer that only those who are in agreement with you be nominated to serve in positions of leadership. In addition, you would contend earnestly to seek to convince your fellow Southern Baptists that your positon on these doctrines is the right one.
29-30 --- Though you have personal convictions on these matters, you believe that these issues are open for interpretation. Further, what an individual Southern Baptist person or church believe regarding these matters is not a determining factor for your fellowship, cooperation and respect. You are comfortable with anyone in SBC leadership who holds to differing views than you on these doctrines and do not see it as a matter of essential importance to try to convince others of your views.
How did you score, and what do you think about such a theological triage test?
By the way, not one of the above doctrines is addressed specifically in the BFM 2000. A couple of the doctrines are touched on briefly in a very general way, and not in a specific manner (for instance, the BFM speaks of the return of Christ, but not a 1,000 year reign).
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
A SOLID IDEA FROM THE PRESIDENT OF SOUTHERN SEMINARY
I have a high degree of respect and admiration for Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary. I do not agree with everything Dr. Mohler writes, nor do I agree with all of his theological or political views, I do admire his mental erudition and theological acumen.
Recently Dr. Mohler had a brilliant FIRST PERSON BP commentary where he said, "today's Christian faces the daunting task of strategizing which Christian doctrines and theological issues are to be given highest priority in terms of our contemporary context."
Dr. Mohler offers a very practical solution on how to resolve this problem. He suggests the establishment of a theological triage. "The word "triage" comes from the French word "trier," which means "to sort." Thus, the triage officer in the medical context is the front-line agent for deciding which patients need the most urgent treatment. Without such a process, the scraped knee would receive the same urgency of consideration as a gunshot wound to the chest. The same discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the emergency room can also offer great assistance to Christians defending truth in the present age."
Mohler continues, "A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world's framework for medical priority. With this in mind, I would suggest three different levels of theological urgency, each corresponding to a set of issues and theological priorities found in current doctrinal debates."
THE THREE LEVELS OF DOCTRINAL PRIORITY
The three levels Dr. Mohler proposes are summarized below:
First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.
The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding of the church and its ordering by the Word of God.
Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category. Christians who affirm the bodily, historical, and victorious return of the Lord Jesus Christ may differ over timetable and sequence without rupturing the fellowship of the church. Christians may find themselves in disagreement over any number of issues related to the interpretation of difficult texts or the understanding of matters of common disagreement. Nevertheless, standing together on issues of more urgent importance, believers are able to accept one another without compromise when third-order issues are in question.
SOME IMPORTANT CAVEATS
A structure of theological triage does not imply that Christians may take any biblical truth with less than full seriousness. We are charged to embrace and to teach the comprehensive truthfulness of the Christian faith as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There are no insignificant doctrines revealed in the Bible, but there is an essential foundation of truth that undergirds the entire system of biblical truth.
This structure of theological triage may also help to explain how confusion can often occur in the midst of doctrinal debate. If the relative urgency of these truths is not taken into account, the debate can quickly become unhelpful. The error of theological liberalism is evident in a basic disrespect for biblical authority and the church's treasury of truth. The mark of true liberalism is the refusal to admit that first-order theological issues even exist. Liberals treat first-order doctrines as if they were merely third-order in importance, and doctrinal ambiguity is the inevitable result.
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends toward the opposite error. The misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided.
TAKE THE TEST (and comment on the results)
The following 10 doctrines need to be rated by you with the following point system.
Are they first order? second order? or third order doctrines?
1 Point --- An Essential Doctrine Necessary To Be Considered a Christian, for a Denial of this Doctrine is a Denial of the True Christian Faith.
2 Points --- An Essential Doctrine Necessary to be Considered a Southern Baptist Christian, and if One Disagrees With It, He Cannot Serve in Leadership of the SBC.
3 Points --- A Low Priority Doctrine that Is Not Necessary to Believe in Order to be a Fully Cooperating Southern Baptist (leadership, missionary, trustee, etc..).
(1). A belief that a person should (or should not) abstain from worldly amusements on the Lord's Day.
(2). A belief that speaking in tongues, either publicly or privately, can (or cannot) be a gift given by God to a person today.
(3). A belief that any Christian, whether ordained or not, can (or cannot) Biblically baptize the person he leads to Christ.
(4). A belief that the Biblical church is (or is not) only a local, visible church.
(5). A belief that Jesus Christ will (or will not) return to set up an earthly kingdom on earth for 1,000 years.
(6). A belief that a woman can (or cannot) serve as a deacon.
(7). A belief that God, from before the foundation of the world, elects (or does not elect), a definite number of sinners to salvation.
(8). A belief that a Christian can (or cannot) drink an alchoholic beverage, without getting drunk, and not sin against God.
(9). A belief that a Baptist church can (or cannot) be governed by elders.
(10). A belief that communion can (or cannot) be served by people who are not ordained, and shared by people who are believers but not members of your local church.
Score
Add up your total scores: Minimum points would be ten, Maximum points would be 30.
Proposed Score Card (Revised):
Below 27 --- You have difficulty serving with anyone who disagrees with you on these doctrines, and in fact would seek to remove persons from SBC leadership who disagree with you and urge those who don't believe the way you do to leave the SBC.
27-28 --- You believe Southern Baptists are a distinctive group of committed Christians, and though you might not seek to remove people from current leadership in the SBC who disagree with you on these doctrines, you would prefer that only those who are in agreement with you be nominated to serve in positions of leadership. In addition, you would contend earnestly to seek to convince your fellow Southern Baptists that your positon on these doctrines is the right one.
29-30 --- Though you have personal convictions on these matters, you believe that these issues are open for interpretation. Further, what an individual Southern Baptist person or church believe regarding these matters is not a determining factor for your fellowship, cooperation and respect. You are comfortable with anyone in SBC leadership who holds to differing views than you on these doctrines and do not see it as a matter of essential importance to try to convince others of your views.
How did you score, and what do you think about such a theological triage test?
By the way, not one of the above doctrines is addressed specifically in the BFM 2000. A couple of the doctrines are touched on briefly in a very general way, and not in a specific manner (for instance, the BFM speaks of the return of Christ, but not a 1,000 year reign).
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Shouting and Shaming Is A Sign of Weakness
My dad used to give the illustration of a preacher he knew who underlined a point in the notes he used for his Sunday sermon and then added this comment in the margin (point is weak, shout louder).
It's refreshing to be around someone who is so confident in his position that he does not need to shout at, or shout down, others. By the way, in denominational life shouting does not always mean the increase of the decibal level (though that is often the case), "Christian" shouting is what I call "shaming." It is the intentional put down of a person who disagrees with you before hearing the basis for his disagreement. It is the marginalizing of a person because you can't answer him (not that you won't, but you can't), so you dismiss him as a heretic. It is the "didactic" approach to theology and Christian exegesis ("By gosh, that's what Baptists have always believed, and so do I, and if you don't you are a heretic"). It is a form of religious dictatorship.
Baptists have historically abstained from such an approach. In fact, even during the 18th Century when many European Baptists were moving into liberalism, universalism and Unitarianism, the greatest Baptist scholars in the history of our Baptist faith wrote inductively to prove their positions, and refrained from assuming anything.
A Modern Day Case Study: Inerrancy
Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.
Dr. Wallace is an inerrantist--- inductively. Josh McDowell says Dr. Wallace's writing on the subject of inerrancy is "top flight scholarship." To read Dr. Wallace's position on inerrancy is a lesson in scholarship, humility and the ability to avoid didactic reasoning. Thanks to Paul Littleton and my father for this link.
You can't help but read his article and sympathize with the character assassination that is currently taking place toward this fellow evangelical Baptist. He is being called on blogs a "liberal" and a "heretic." And yet, he is an inerrantist.
It seems that heresy among Baptists is now being defined in terms much narrower than it used to be. Years ago you could be considered a person who did not like to use the word "inerrancy" because it said more of the Bible than the Bible (according to those who held this view) said of itself. Yet back then, a non-inerrantists could be considered a brother in Christ, a fellow evangelical, and even one who held to a "high" and authoritative view of the Word of God.
Not anymore. Now, if you are an inerrantist, because you are one inductively (i.e. you don't assume inerrancy, you prove it, as does Dr. Wallace), you are considered a "heretic" in the eyes of some. Dr. Wallace's present day character assassination is an example of how good, solid, evangelical conservatives can be falsely maligned.
The Current Struggle In the SBC Is NOT Over Inerrancy
The struggle in the Southern Baptist Convention is no longer over inerrancy, but rather, it is over the same didactic approach to minor, non-essential doctrines of the faith (i.e. "Brother, you best believe this or you ain't one of us!"), and then shouting down fellow evangelical conservative Baptists who disagree. Or worse, attempting to remove them.
At first, we were told the resurgence was only going to remove those who did not believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Not many convention conservatives at the time allowed for the fact that some conservative evangelicals believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Word of God but refuse to use the term inerrant, for it says more about the Bible, according to them, than the Bible says about itself, as illustrated by Dr. Wallace's essay.
That is the past. Most people who struggle with using the Word "inerrancy" to define their view of the Bible have left the SBC. I use the word inerrancy all the time and have no problem with it. I believe the Bible is inerrant, but I am ahamed that we have labeled other evangelicals who do not use the word as heretics.
Now, there are those who wish to call me a heretic and marginalize me. I have issued some principled dissent on matters that are non-essential to the faith, and have raised concerns that we are seeing in some SBC agencies a creeping demand for conformity in the non-essentials, by those who take a didactic approach, and shout down those who dissent.
If we are not careful, we will rapidly become a convention that will so marginalize young, conservative, inductive exegetes that are now filling our pulpits that we will wake up one day and aske the question "Where did all the good SBC pastors go?"
There's no reason why we can't become a convention that promotes inductive study, exegetical and expositional preaching, and a gracious and kind spirit to those who disagree with our conclusions on the non-essentials. There may be a few SBC preachers and leaders who shout louder when their arguments are weak, but some of us are going to just need to get used to it, and remind everyone that we aren't going away as others have done.
Too much is at stake.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
It's refreshing to be around someone who is so confident in his position that he does not need to shout at, or shout down, others. By the way, in denominational life shouting does not always mean the increase of the decibal level (though that is often the case), "Christian" shouting is what I call "shaming." It is the intentional put down of a person who disagrees with you before hearing the basis for his disagreement. It is the marginalizing of a person because you can't answer him (not that you won't, but you can't), so you dismiss him as a heretic. It is the "didactic" approach to theology and Christian exegesis ("By gosh, that's what Baptists have always believed, and so do I, and if you don't you are a heretic"). It is a form of religious dictatorship.
Baptists have historically abstained from such an approach. In fact, even during the 18th Century when many European Baptists were moving into liberalism, universalism and Unitarianism, the greatest Baptist scholars in the history of our Baptist faith wrote inductively to prove their positions, and refrained from assuming anything.
A Modern Day Case Study: Inerrancy
Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.
Dr. Wallace is an inerrantist--- inductively. Josh McDowell says Dr. Wallace's writing on the subject of inerrancy is "top flight scholarship." To read Dr. Wallace's position on inerrancy is a lesson in scholarship, humility and the ability to avoid didactic reasoning. Thanks to Paul Littleton and my father for this link.
You can't help but read his article and sympathize with the character assassination that is currently taking place toward this fellow evangelical Baptist. He is being called on blogs a "liberal" and a "heretic." And yet, he is an inerrantist.
It seems that heresy among Baptists is now being defined in terms much narrower than it used to be. Years ago you could be considered a person who did not like to use the word "inerrancy" because it said more of the Bible than the Bible (according to those who held this view) said of itself. Yet back then, a non-inerrantists could be considered a brother in Christ, a fellow evangelical, and even one who held to a "high" and authoritative view of the Word of God.
Not anymore. Now, if you are an inerrantist, because you are one inductively (i.e. you don't assume inerrancy, you prove it, as does Dr. Wallace), you are considered a "heretic" in the eyes of some. Dr. Wallace's present day character assassination is an example of how good, solid, evangelical conservatives can be falsely maligned.
The Current Struggle In the SBC Is NOT Over Inerrancy
The struggle in the Southern Baptist Convention is no longer over inerrancy, but rather, it is over the same didactic approach to minor, non-essential doctrines of the faith (i.e. "Brother, you best believe this or you ain't one of us!"), and then shouting down fellow evangelical conservative Baptists who disagree. Or worse, attempting to remove them.
At first, we were told the resurgence was only going to remove those who did not believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Not many convention conservatives at the time allowed for the fact that some conservative evangelicals believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Word of God but refuse to use the term inerrant, for it says more about the Bible, according to them, than the Bible says about itself, as illustrated by Dr. Wallace's essay.
That is the past. Most people who struggle with using the Word "inerrancy" to define their view of the Bible have left the SBC. I use the word inerrancy all the time and have no problem with it. I believe the Bible is inerrant, but I am ahamed that we have labeled other evangelicals who do not use the word as heretics.
Now, there are those who wish to call me a heretic and marginalize me. I have issued some principled dissent on matters that are non-essential to the faith, and have raised concerns that we are seeing in some SBC agencies a creeping demand for conformity in the non-essentials, by those who take a didactic approach, and shout down those who dissent.
If we are not careful, we will rapidly become a convention that will so marginalize young, conservative, inductive exegetes that are now filling our pulpits that we will wake up one day and aske the question "Where did all the good SBC pastors go?"
There's no reason why we can't become a convention that promotes inductive study, exegetical and expositional preaching, and a gracious and kind spirit to those who disagree with our conclusions on the non-essentials. There may be a few SBC preachers and leaders who shout louder when their arguments are weak, but some of us are going to just need to get used to it, and remind everyone that we aren't going away as others have done.
Too much is at stake.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Monday, August 21, 2006
The Blessing of Being Understood
Anytime I take the risk of putting my thoughts in writing, particularly in a public forum such as a blog, the possibility of readers misunderstanding the intent of my heart is very real. I wish everyone clearly understood WHY I post what I post. If they did, they would see I have no desire for any personal gain, no intention to denigrate people for their views, for I simply wish to make our convention the best organization possible for the most effective dissemination of the gospel. I believe that happens when we begin to talk to each other with respect, listen to one another with patience and do our dead level best to accept one another regardless of our differing views on the non-essentials of the faith.
I also think that we, in our discussions, ought to be able to appeal to Scripture as our ultimate authority (always being conscientious of our own fallible abilities to interpret the sacred text properly), to appreciate the art of logical consistency, and to always apply the Christian principles of grace and love toward those who disagree. Good theology is important, but so is a Christian spirit toward our brothers who may view things a little differently; grace and truth must go together.
But my intentions in writing these posts are sometimes misunderstood, on occasion unintentionally misrepresented, and maybe, just a few times, totally manufactured by others. Again, if those who disagreed with me were to truly see my inner desire to build bridges in the SBC that foster better cooperation across our diverse, conservative theological spectrum, there would be no animosity directed my way --- unless there are some who are more concerned with the politics of the convention than they are the mission of the convention. Then, because they can only think in terms of "politics," they will always question my intentions, regardless.
After reading several comments on a couple of recent posts I once again became a little discouraged, wondering if my writing skills were lacking, because a number of people were totally misunderstanding WHY I posted what I did.
Then I read this post from my father.
He understands.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
I also think that we, in our discussions, ought to be able to appeal to Scripture as our ultimate authority (always being conscientious of our own fallible abilities to interpret the sacred text properly), to appreciate the art of logical consistency, and to always apply the Christian principles of grace and love toward those who disagree. Good theology is important, but so is a Christian spirit toward our brothers who may view things a little differently; grace and truth must go together.
But my intentions in writing these posts are sometimes misunderstood, on occasion unintentionally misrepresented, and maybe, just a few times, totally manufactured by others. Again, if those who disagreed with me were to truly see my inner desire to build bridges in the SBC that foster better cooperation across our diverse, conservative theological spectrum, there would be no animosity directed my way --- unless there are some who are more concerned with the politics of the convention than they are the mission of the convention. Then, because they can only think in terms of "politics," they will always question my intentions, regardless.
After reading several comments on a couple of recent posts I once again became a little discouraged, wondering if my writing skills were lacking, because a number of people were totally misunderstanding WHY I posted what I did.
Then I read this post from my father.
He understands.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Sunday, August 20, 2006
A Deafening Silence Fit for a Statue
I am surprised that some (not all) of my conservative friends in current Southern Baptist leadership do not comprehend what it is that I am saying in my blog calling for peace and unity in the SBC. A few have told me "you don't know what you are talking about," and one went so far as to say that just as there will never be peace between the Shiites and Sunnis, there will never be peace among moderate and conservative Southern Baptists until Jesus comes.
I don't believe that. I am of the firm conviction that there can be peace within the Southern Baptist Convention BEFORE Jesus comes.
We must acknowledge that, at times, there has been an unchristian spirit on both sides of the controversy. We must then do all we can to foster a spirit of graciousness and respect toward each other's interpretations of the Word of God (while not necessarily agreeing with one another). Then, we agree to cooperate in missions and evangelism for the sake of the gospel. Of course, we must agree that the gospel is the good news that sinners can be made right with God through faith in Jesus Christ. We are a diverse group of Southern Baptists after agreement on these fundamentals, but we need to celebrate our rich diversity rather than demand absolute conformity.
I am committed to the Southern Baptist Convention. I always have been, and always will be. When the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was formed in Oklahoma in 1993, I nailed "95 Theses Against the Formation of the CBF" on the door of their organizational meeting. I was not condemning these Southern Baptists for who they were, but challenging them NOT to withdraw because we were stronger as a diverse body. Throughout the years I have been excoriated by the CBF for my "Fundamentalism." I harbor no ill will toward the CBF and wish them the best in their missionary efforts, but would ask that any evangelical conservative SBC pastor or church who is sympathetic with the belief that some "moderates" were falsely maligned and slandered to not leave the SBC, but remain and help us moderate the SBC in terms of love, grace and cooperation.
"But How Can You Love Someone Who Disagrees With You?"
In the past two weeks I have had people tell me that "moderates" are dangerous, evil, and Satanic, and that I am "naive" to want to cooperate with those who interpret the Bible differently than we do as theological conservatives. On the other hand, some moderates have told me that my Fundamentalist friends are mean, nasty and satanic in their dealings with fellow Southern Baptists
This is where I get really confused.
It seems that what is really wrong with our convention is that we have for so long picked sides (ex: "He's a liberal" or "He's in the moderate camp" or "He's a Fundamentalist) that we lose sight of the fact we are brothers in Christ. I am attempting to be more temperate and cautious in labeling people. I confess, when I come under attack, it is easier to label my attackers as "the enemy" rather than to dialogue with them, but I am absolutely convinced that every person in the SBC is a brother or sister in Christ and I can learn to love each of them, respect their views on Scripture, and cooperate and fellowship with them---- EVEN IF WE DON'T AGREE ON EVERY DOCTRINE -- because we join hands around a common cause and have a common bond of love for the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think all of us in the Southern Baptist Convention are capable of doing this, even my very conservative friends. Let me give you a recent example.
Dr. Billy Graham was interviewed by Newsweek Magazine this past month. Dr. Graham made some comments with which I, and most of my conservative friends, would disagree. You can read the entire interview here, but the following portion of the article clearly reveals Dr. Graham's moderate views of Scripture.
While Dr. Graham believes Scripture is the inspired, authoritative word of God, he does not read the Bible as though it were a collection of Associated Press bulletins straightforwardly reporting on events in the ancient Middle East. "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord," Graham says. "This is a little difference in my thinking through the years." He has, then, moved from seeing every word of Scripture as literally accurate to believing that parts of the Bible are figurative—a journey that began in 1949, when a friend challenged his belief in inerrancy during a conference in southern California's San Bernardino Mountains. Troubled, Graham wandered into the woods one night, put his Bible on a stump and said, "Lord, I don't understand all that is in this book, I can't explain it all, but I accept it by faith as your divine word."
Now, more than half a century later, he is far from questioning the fundamentals of the faith. He is not saying Jesus is just another lifestyle choice, nor is he backtracking on essentials such as the Incarnation or the Atonement. But he is arguing that the Bible is open to interpretation, and fair-minded Christians may disagree or come to different conclusions about specific points. Like Saint Paul, he believes human beings on this side of paradise can grasp only so much. "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror," Paul wrote, "then we shall see face to face." Then believers shall see: not now, but then.
Debates over the exact meaning of the word "day" in Genesis (Graham says it is figurative; on the other hand, he thinks Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale) or whether the "Red Sea" is better translated as "sea of reeds"—which takes Moses' miracle out of the realm of Cecil B. DeMille—or the actual size of ancient armies in a given battle may seem picayune to some. For many conservative believers, however, questioning any word of the Bible can cast doubt on all Scripture. Graham's position, then, while hardly liberal, is more moderate than that of his strictest fellow Christians.
Asked about his son's use of the phrase "evil and wicked" in reference to Islam, Graham says: "I would not say Islam is wicked and evil ... I have a lot of friends who are Islamic. There are many wonderful people among them. I have a great love for them. I have spoken at Islamic meetings, in Nigeria and in different parts of the world." The father's view, then, is different from the son's. "I'm sure there are many things that he and I are not in total agreement about," Graham says. "I'm an old man, he's a young man in the prime of life."
A unifying theme of Graham's new thinking is humility. He is sure and certain of his faith in Jesus as the way to salvation. When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have." Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham's view, only God knows who is going to be saved: "As an evangelist for more than six decades, Mr. Graham has faithfully proclaimed the Bible's Gospel message that Jesus is the only way to Heaven," says Graham spokesman A. Larry Ross. "However, salvation is the work of Almighty God, and only he knows what is in each human heart."
Why Silence Over Dr. Graham, but Anger and Exclusion for Others?
There is a deafening silence from our Southern Baptist leaders regarding the remarks of Dr. Graham. These Newsweek remarks are just a portion of what Dr. Graham has said publicly about what he believes. His moderate views on women in ministry, the church, the priesthood of every believer, and other topics run directly counter to the BFM 2000. Yet, he is a beloved statesman of our convention.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is an appropriate silence from our leaders, but it is deafening because if anyone in the "moderate" camp of the SBC had made these remarks he would have been labeled a heretic so fast his head would spin.
Yet Dr. Graham's statue, dedicated at this year's Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, now stands in front of the Executive Headquarters of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.
Here's my point.
I don't agree with Dr. Graham's views, but I would not stop him from preaching in my pulpit, serving as a trustee of one of our agencies, or even being a missionary from the SBC to the world at large --- not to mention seek to remove him from leadership or fire him from employment.
I propose that when we can come to the place that our common faith in Jesus Christ is the ONE thing that unites us, and though we teach ALL the interpretative views of soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, and missiology, we don't demand conformity, but celebrate our diversity --- ONLY THEN will the power of God fall on our convention in ways it seldom has.
"By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" Jesus said.
It's time people started standing up for the little guy --- the missionary, the small church pastor, the dedicated Southern Baptist layman, who may not see eye to eye on every jot and tittle of any self-appointed doctrinal watchdogs of the SBC, and remind all of us that every believer is accountable to God, we have no creed but the Bible itself, and every believer is a priest unto God --- not just the Billy Graham's of this world.
Only then will the Southern Baptist Convention return to her heritage of a reverance for Scripture, free debate and conscientious dissent, cooperation in missions, and a love for our fellow man.
It's time for all of us to lay down our swords and pick up the plows.
The fields are white unto harvest. If you and I can't get over the past, and focus on building a bridge toward the future with all Southern Baptists, then the problem is possibly in our hearts, not our brother's.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
I don't believe that. I am of the firm conviction that there can be peace within the Southern Baptist Convention BEFORE Jesus comes.
We must acknowledge that, at times, there has been an unchristian spirit on both sides of the controversy. We must then do all we can to foster a spirit of graciousness and respect toward each other's interpretations of the Word of God (while not necessarily agreeing with one another). Then, we agree to cooperate in missions and evangelism for the sake of the gospel. Of course, we must agree that the gospel is the good news that sinners can be made right with God through faith in Jesus Christ. We are a diverse group of Southern Baptists after agreement on these fundamentals, but we need to celebrate our rich diversity rather than demand absolute conformity.
I am committed to the Southern Baptist Convention. I always have been, and always will be. When the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was formed in Oklahoma in 1993, I nailed "95 Theses Against the Formation of the CBF" on the door of their organizational meeting. I was not condemning these Southern Baptists for who they were, but challenging them NOT to withdraw because we were stronger as a diverse body. Throughout the years I have been excoriated by the CBF for my "Fundamentalism." I harbor no ill will toward the CBF and wish them the best in their missionary efforts, but would ask that any evangelical conservative SBC pastor or church who is sympathetic with the belief that some "moderates" were falsely maligned and slandered to not leave the SBC, but remain and help us moderate the SBC in terms of love, grace and cooperation.
"But How Can You Love Someone Who Disagrees With You?"
In the past two weeks I have had people tell me that "moderates" are dangerous, evil, and Satanic, and that I am "naive" to want to cooperate with those who interpret the Bible differently than we do as theological conservatives. On the other hand, some moderates have told me that my Fundamentalist friends are mean, nasty and satanic in their dealings with fellow Southern Baptists
This is where I get really confused.
It seems that what is really wrong with our convention is that we have for so long picked sides (ex: "He's a liberal" or "He's in the moderate camp" or "He's a Fundamentalist) that we lose sight of the fact we are brothers in Christ. I am attempting to be more temperate and cautious in labeling people. I confess, when I come under attack, it is easier to label my attackers as "the enemy" rather than to dialogue with them, but I am absolutely convinced that every person in the SBC is a brother or sister in Christ and I can learn to love each of them, respect their views on Scripture, and cooperate and fellowship with them---- EVEN IF WE DON'T AGREE ON EVERY DOCTRINE -- because we join hands around a common cause and have a common bond of love for the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think all of us in the Southern Baptist Convention are capable of doing this, even my very conservative friends. Let me give you a recent example.
Dr. Billy Graham was interviewed by Newsweek Magazine this past month. Dr. Graham made some comments with which I, and most of my conservative friends, would disagree. You can read the entire interview here, but the following portion of the article clearly reveals Dr. Graham's moderate views of Scripture.
While Dr. Graham believes Scripture is the inspired, authoritative word of God, he does not read the Bible as though it were a collection of Associated Press bulletins straightforwardly reporting on events in the ancient Middle East. "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord," Graham says. "This is a little difference in my thinking through the years." He has, then, moved from seeing every word of Scripture as literally accurate to believing that parts of the Bible are figurative—a journey that began in 1949, when a friend challenged his belief in inerrancy during a conference in southern California's San Bernardino Mountains. Troubled, Graham wandered into the woods one night, put his Bible on a stump and said, "Lord, I don't understand all that is in this book, I can't explain it all, but I accept it by faith as your divine word."
Now, more than half a century later, he is far from questioning the fundamentals of the faith. He is not saying Jesus is just another lifestyle choice, nor is he backtracking on essentials such as the Incarnation or the Atonement. But he is arguing that the Bible is open to interpretation, and fair-minded Christians may disagree or come to different conclusions about specific points. Like Saint Paul, he believes human beings on this side of paradise can grasp only so much. "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror," Paul wrote, "then we shall see face to face." Then believers shall see: not now, but then.
Debates over the exact meaning of the word "day" in Genesis (Graham says it is figurative; on the other hand, he thinks Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale) or whether the "Red Sea" is better translated as "sea of reeds"—which takes Moses' miracle out of the realm of Cecil B. DeMille—or the actual size of ancient armies in a given battle may seem picayune to some. For many conservative believers, however, questioning any word of the Bible can cast doubt on all Scripture. Graham's position, then, while hardly liberal, is more moderate than that of his strictest fellow Christians.
Asked about his son's use of the phrase "evil and wicked" in reference to Islam, Graham says: "I would not say Islam is wicked and evil ... I have a lot of friends who are Islamic. There are many wonderful people among them. I have a great love for them. I have spoken at Islamic meetings, in Nigeria and in different parts of the world." The father's view, then, is different from the son's. "I'm sure there are many things that he and I are not in total agreement about," Graham says. "I'm an old man, he's a young man in the prime of life."
A unifying theme of Graham's new thinking is humility. He is sure and certain of his faith in Jesus as the way to salvation. When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have." Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham's view, only God knows who is going to be saved: "As an evangelist for more than six decades, Mr. Graham has faithfully proclaimed the Bible's Gospel message that Jesus is the only way to Heaven," says Graham spokesman A. Larry Ross. "However, salvation is the work of Almighty God, and only he knows what is in each human heart."
Why Silence Over Dr. Graham, but Anger and Exclusion for Others?
There is a deafening silence from our Southern Baptist leaders regarding the remarks of Dr. Graham. These Newsweek remarks are just a portion of what Dr. Graham has said publicly about what he believes. His moderate views on women in ministry, the church, the priesthood of every believer, and other topics run directly counter to the BFM 2000. Yet, he is a beloved statesman of our convention.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is an appropriate silence from our leaders, but it is deafening because if anyone in the "moderate" camp of the SBC had made these remarks he would have been labeled a heretic so fast his head would spin.
Yet Dr. Graham's statue, dedicated at this year's Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, now stands in front of the Executive Headquarters of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.
Here's my point.
I don't agree with Dr. Graham's views, but I would not stop him from preaching in my pulpit, serving as a trustee of one of our agencies, or even being a missionary from the SBC to the world at large --- not to mention seek to remove him from leadership or fire him from employment.
I propose that when we can come to the place that our common faith in Jesus Christ is the ONE thing that unites us, and though we teach ALL the interpretative views of soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, and missiology, we don't demand conformity, but celebrate our diversity --- ONLY THEN will the power of God fall on our convention in ways it seldom has.
"By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" Jesus said.
It's time people started standing up for the little guy --- the missionary, the small church pastor, the dedicated Southern Baptist layman, who may not see eye to eye on every jot and tittle of any self-appointed doctrinal watchdogs of the SBC, and remind all of us that every believer is accountable to God, we have no creed but the Bible itself, and every believer is a priest unto God --- not just the Billy Graham's of this world.
Only then will the Southern Baptist Convention return to her heritage of a reverance for Scripture, free debate and conscientious dissent, cooperation in missions, and a love for our fellow man.
It's time for all of us to lay down our swords and pick up the plows.
The fields are white unto harvest. If you and I can't get over the past, and focus on building a bridge toward the future with all Southern Baptists, then the problem is possibly in our hearts, not our brother's.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Saturday, August 19, 2006
A Good Definition of a Christ-Honoring, Theologically Conservative Evangelical
It seems that we as Southern Baptists may be in an identity crises. I have heard different Southern Baptists described in the comments of the last post as either conservative, theologically conservative-moderate, or moderate, and scratch my head wondering whatever happened to the Antioch nomenclature of Christian.
In some things I would love to be considered moderate, or even liberal. I pray that people consider me liberal with grace, liberal in giving, and liberal in my godliness (how's that for a three point message :) ), and then there are other areas where I desire to be known as a conservative (particularly in my view of the Word of God and the person of Christ).
I am wondering if sometimes we get confused and call people "liberal" who are in reality very conservative in their views of Christ and the Word, but may be different from us in their interpretation of the text and their views on the application of the sacred text to our daily lives.
With that in mind, I wonder if there might be a definition for a "Christ-honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" that would encompass a high view of the Word of God and the person of Christ, while at the same time allowing for differences in interpretation of the Bible?
So, let's give it a shot . . .
In your view, what does it mean to be a "Christ-honoring, theologically conservative evangelical"
If possible, let's see if we can use words in the definition that are found in the Bible. It very well could be that we could come up with a description that defines who we are as Southern Baptists and help us restore a sense of identity among ourselves and respect among our evangelical peers.
In His Grace,
Wade
P.S. The winner will be announced Monday.
In some things I would love to be considered moderate, or even liberal. I pray that people consider me liberal with grace, liberal in giving, and liberal in my godliness (how's that for a three point message :) ), and then there are other areas where I desire to be known as a conservative (particularly in my view of the Word of God and the person of Christ).
I am wondering if sometimes we get confused and call people "liberal" who are in reality very conservative in their views of Christ and the Word, but may be different from us in their interpretation of the text and their views on the application of the sacred text to our daily lives.
With that in mind, I wonder if there might be a definition for a "Christ-honoring, theologically conservative evangelical" that would encompass a high view of the Word of God and the person of Christ, while at the same time allowing for differences in interpretation of the Bible?
So, let's give it a shot . . .
In your view, what does it mean to be a "Christ-honoring, theologically conservative evangelical"
If possible, let's see if we can use words in the definition that are found in the Bible. It very well could be that we could come up with a description that defines who we are as Southern Baptists and help us restore a sense of identity among ourselves and respect among our evangelical peers.
In His Grace,
Wade
P.S. The winner will be announced Monday.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Back to the Past for a Map of the Future
During the 1985 Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas, Texas, I woke up before the crack of dawn in order to reserve twenty seats on the floor of the arena for each day of business. I was a young, motivated pastor. I wanted to be a part of a Convention that believed the Bible to be the Word of God. I wanted to do my part.
Yet, I was confused. I remember hearing Dr. Winifred Moore preach when I was a boy (he pastored the church my father eventually pastored), and I always thought Dr. Moore to be a rock solid evangelical conservative. But I was being told in 1985 that he had compromised his convictions about the Word of God. Rather than calling Dr. Moore and asking him personally (who was I to call such a man and waste his time?), I trusted the word of the people I admired, and thus labelled Dr. Moore "the opponent."
I was further confused because I was told other men like Dr. Daniel Vestal and Richard Jackson were also part of those who wished to lead our convention down the slippery slope of liberalism, from which we would never recover. Again, Dr. Vestal had pastored Southcliff Baptist Church in Fort Worth, the same church that my father eventually pastored while I was in high school. Dr. Vestal was highly respected among the people at Southcliff, and considered a solid evangelical conservative, so surely my confusion as to why he was now considered a "liberal" was simply because I was young and did not fully know how to identify a true liberal of the faith.
Then there were other men like Dr. Clyde Glazener, Dr. Charles Wade, Mr. John Baugh and others who, unlike the preceeding men mentioned, were considered absolute "heretics" by those with whom I associated. I did not know Drs. Glazener, Wade, and Mr Baugh, but I absolutely accepted the word of Bible believing men around me, men that I respected in 1985, and as a result of believing them, I determined to do I could to rescue the convention.
Now I realize I was fighting for the wrong thing. I should have been fighting for Southern Baptists to TALK to each other, to PRAY with each other, to COOPERATE with each other, to LOVE each other, rather than to divide into sides and conquer one another. True, classical liberals need to be removed from any positions of authority in the SBC, but it should be done in a proper manner, following all protocol and procedures established for such an event.
Read carefully. I do not regret any attempt to solidify our respect of the authority and sufficiency of the Word of God. Again, any professor in our seminaries who denies the faith, ridicules the Word of God, or makes a mockery of the person and work of Jesus Christ should be dismissed with haste.
However, I now realize that several good, solid conservative evangelical Christians have been slandered and maligned. Men who are gracious, gentle and gospel believers have been called liberal, heretics, and even worse.
God forbid.
I now have met everyone of the above named men. They all believe the Bible. They all love the Lord Jesus Christ. They all love missions.
They are our brothers in Christ.
There are thousands of kind, gracious, compassionate, Bible believing Southern Baptists in the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Baptist General Convention of Virginia.
In a few months I would hope Dr. Frank Page will be appointing men and women from both the above named Conventions to serve on boards and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention, just as he said he would.
This time, if I hear that "liberals" are being appointed, I will not remain silent, but will hold accountable that Southern Baptist who seeks to divide us.
This time, if something is said about a brother in Christ that calls into question his character, theology or commitment to Christ, I will call the accused, and if it is untrue, I will then confront the accuser, first privately, then publicly if there is not reconciliation.
This time, I will not allow myself to become emotional or get angry. If some of my fellow Southern Baptists say things about my character, my theology, my commitment to the cause of Christ, I will do what I can to defend my conservative, evangelical credentials, but I will not get angry.
I am prepared. I am not leaving. I will not give up.
The Southern Baptist Convention needs to evaluate the tactics of the past in order to map out a better plan for the future.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Yet, I was confused. I remember hearing Dr. Winifred Moore preach when I was a boy (he pastored the church my father eventually pastored), and I always thought Dr. Moore to be a rock solid evangelical conservative. But I was being told in 1985 that he had compromised his convictions about the Word of God. Rather than calling Dr. Moore and asking him personally (who was I to call such a man and waste his time?), I trusted the word of the people I admired, and thus labelled Dr. Moore "the opponent."
I was further confused because I was told other men like Dr. Daniel Vestal and Richard Jackson were also part of those who wished to lead our convention down the slippery slope of liberalism, from which we would never recover. Again, Dr. Vestal had pastored Southcliff Baptist Church in Fort Worth, the same church that my father eventually pastored while I was in high school. Dr. Vestal was highly respected among the people at Southcliff, and considered a solid evangelical conservative, so surely my confusion as to why he was now considered a "liberal" was simply because I was young and did not fully know how to identify a true liberal of the faith.
Then there were other men like Dr. Clyde Glazener, Dr. Charles Wade, Mr. John Baugh and others who, unlike the preceeding men mentioned, were considered absolute "heretics" by those with whom I associated. I did not know Drs. Glazener, Wade, and Mr Baugh, but I absolutely accepted the word of Bible believing men around me, men that I respected in 1985, and as a result of believing them, I determined to do I could to rescue the convention.
Now I realize I was fighting for the wrong thing. I should have been fighting for Southern Baptists to TALK to each other, to PRAY with each other, to COOPERATE with each other, to LOVE each other, rather than to divide into sides and conquer one another. True, classical liberals need to be removed from any positions of authority in the SBC, but it should be done in a proper manner, following all protocol and procedures established for such an event.
Read carefully. I do not regret any attempt to solidify our respect of the authority and sufficiency of the Word of God. Again, any professor in our seminaries who denies the faith, ridicules the Word of God, or makes a mockery of the person and work of Jesus Christ should be dismissed with haste.
However, I now realize that several good, solid conservative evangelical Christians have been slandered and maligned. Men who are gracious, gentle and gospel believers have been called liberal, heretics, and even worse.
God forbid.
I now have met everyone of the above named men. They all believe the Bible. They all love the Lord Jesus Christ. They all love missions.
They are our brothers in Christ.
There are thousands of kind, gracious, compassionate, Bible believing Southern Baptists in the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Baptist General Convention of Virginia.
In a few months I would hope Dr. Frank Page will be appointing men and women from both the above named Conventions to serve on boards and agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention, just as he said he would.
This time, if I hear that "liberals" are being appointed, I will not remain silent, but will hold accountable that Southern Baptist who seeks to divide us.
This time, if something is said about a brother in Christ that calls into question his character, theology or commitment to Christ, I will call the accused, and if it is untrue, I will then confront the accuser, first privately, then publicly if there is not reconciliation.
This time, I will not allow myself to become emotional or get angry. If some of my fellow Southern Baptists say things about my character, my theology, my commitment to the cause of Christ, I will do what I can to defend my conservative, evangelical credentials, but I will not get angry.
I am prepared. I am not leaving. I will not give up.
The Southern Baptist Convention needs to evaluate the tactics of the past in order to map out a better plan for the future.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Body Mass Measurement and Culture
One of the policies that applies to missionary candidates for the International Mission Board involves an appropriate "body mass" for the individual applying to serve as a long term or short term missionary. The BMI (Body Mass Index) Policy is as follows:
Long Term or Short Term Missionaries
Body Mass Index Must be 30 or less for missionaries less than 35 years of age.
Body Mass Index must be 31 or less for missionaries between 35 and 44 years of age.
Body Mass Index must be 32 or less for missionaries between 45 and 54 years of age.
Body Mass Index must be 33 or less for missionaries 55 years of age or older.
You can measure your Body Mass Index over the Internet here
The Rationale for the BMI Policy
One of the staff members of the medical department gave me some very good reasons for such a policy via phone. Rationale included increased medical costs for missionaries on the field because of health problems related to weight. There were some other very practical concerns, that I will not enumerate here --- except for one. The very helpful medical department employee mentioned that in some cultures an overweight caucasion is an offense, and the missionary could be hindered in his/her work because of weight. Sensitivity to culture is necessary for any career missionary.
This BMI policy is an example of an extra-biblical regulation required by the International Mission Board for her employees. It is necessary for the IMB to have some policies that are not rooted in Scripture, but if we do, we must have very good reasons for them.
I just have a couple of questions which I would like to ask. I don't have the answers myself, but I think you will see that not everything is as black and white as some would like.
(1). In light of recent suggestions that no trustee should ever serve the International Mission Board without himself or herself being willing to abide by every policy required for IMB employees, should trustees of the IMB be required to abide by this BMI Policy as well?
(2). What happens if the IMB decides to send a SBC missionary to an island where body fat is treasured? What if, on this island, fat were beautiful and an outward picture of a loving heart while being skinny was a sign that you were "cursed"? Should we send a skinny American to the island and expect him to share the gospel ---with nobody being willing to listen? In other words, can we agree that being fat is not a sin, but that some might possibly choose to become fat in order to win people to Christ, or should we be so driven by extra Biblical policy that we never make exceptions for the sake of culture?
This is just some food for thought (pardon the pun),
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Long Term or Short Term Missionaries
Body Mass Index Must be 30 or less for missionaries less than 35 years of age.
Body Mass Index must be 31 or less for missionaries between 35 and 44 years of age.
Body Mass Index must be 32 or less for missionaries between 45 and 54 years of age.
Body Mass Index must be 33 or less for missionaries 55 years of age or older.
You can measure your Body Mass Index over the Internet here
The Rationale for the BMI Policy
One of the staff members of the medical department gave me some very good reasons for such a policy via phone. Rationale included increased medical costs for missionaries on the field because of health problems related to weight. There were some other very practical concerns, that I will not enumerate here --- except for one. The very helpful medical department employee mentioned that in some cultures an overweight caucasion is an offense, and the missionary could be hindered in his/her work because of weight. Sensitivity to culture is necessary for any career missionary.
This BMI policy is an example of an extra-biblical regulation required by the International Mission Board for her employees. It is necessary for the IMB to have some policies that are not rooted in Scripture, but if we do, we must have very good reasons for them.
I just have a couple of questions which I would like to ask. I don't have the answers myself, but I think you will see that not everything is as black and white as some would like.
(1). In light of recent suggestions that no trustee should ever serve the International Mission Board without himself or herself being willing to abide by every policy required for IMB employees, should trustees of the IMB be required to abide by this BMI Policy as well?
(2). What happens if the IMB decides to send a SBC missionary to an island where body fat is treasured? What if, on this island, fat were beautiful and an outward picture of a loving heart while being skinny was a sign that you were "cursed"? Should we send a skinny American to the island and expect him to share the gospel ---with nobody being willing to listen? In other words, can we agree that being fat is not a sin, but that some might possibly choose to become fat in order to win people to Christ, or should we be so driven by extra Biblical policy that we never make exceptions for the sake of culture?
This is just some food for thought (pardon the pun),
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Get Behind Me Satan?
I consider Don Hinkle, editor of The Missouri Pathway a friend, as I do the Executive Director of Missouri, former Oklahoma Associate Executive Director, David Clippard. These men are doing all they can to strengthen all Southern Baptists in Missouri through their work and ministry.
However, in the August 15th issue of The Pathway, editor Don Hinkle, in an editorial entitled "The Bible is inerrant, but is it sufficient?" makes the following statement:
"It is one thing to declare oneself a conservative and affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, but it is another to affirm its sufficiency. There is, I believe, a strong, pervasive and somewhat subtle strategy unfolding today among 'evangelical Christians.' It involves the sufficiency of the Bible and it is, of course, orchestrated by Satan."
For fifteen years I worked on a special task force that helped young people leave the occult and the Satanic arts. In the early 90's I was a consultant to NASA as they worked with law enforcement in the State of Florida to prosecute one of their own, John Crutchley, who the media tabbed "The Vampire Rapist." I have probably taught over 25 conferences for law enforcement on Satanism. I realize that Satan is not always a "roaring lion" and will disguise himself as "an angel of light," and I'm sure there are a few people who would offer that I'm an expert on "Satan" for other reasons than the above :), but in light of a little experience with people who have been under the direct control and manipulation of Satan, I would offer the following perspective on Don's statement.
When we can come to the place where disagreements over the interpretation of the sacred text by evangelical Christians can be discussed, debated, and even argued without attributing the other side as being "orchestrated by Satan" we will move much further down the road in cooperation as evangelical Christians.
I'm giving Don the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he intends his language to be taken as "literal" as it sounds, but I would urge all my brothers who make very public statements to pull back just a tad on what could only be called rhetoric.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
However, in the August 15th issue of The Pathway, editor Don Hinkle, in an editorial entitled "The Bible is inerrant, but is it sufficient?" makes the following statement:
"It is one thing to declare oneself a conservative and affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, but it is another to affirm its sufficiency. There is, I believe, a strong, pervasive and somewhat subtle strategy unfolding today among 'evangelical Christians.' It involves the sufficiency of the Bible and it is, of course, orchestrated by Satan."
For fifteen years I worked on a special task force that helped young people leave the occult and the Satanic arts. In the early 90's I was a consultant to NASA as they worked with law enforcement in the State of Florida to prosecute one of their own, John Crutchley, who the media tabbed "The Vampire Rapist." I have probably taught over 25 conferences for law enforcement on Satanism. I realize that Satan is not always a "roaring lion" and will disguise himself as "an angel of light," and I'm sure there are a few people who would offer that I'm an expert on "Satan" for other reasons than the above :), but in light of a little experience with people who have been under the direct control and manipulation of Satan, I would offer the following perspective on Don's statement.
When we can come to the place where disagreements over the interpretation of the sacred text by evangelical Christians can be discussed, debated, and even argued without attributing the other side as being "orchestrated by Satan" we will move much further down the road in cooperation as evangelical Christians.
I'm giving Don the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he intends his language to be taken as "literal" as it sounds, but I would urge all my brothers who make very public statements to pull back just a tad on what could only be called rhetoric.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)