My friend and fellow trustee Rick Thomposon's blog contained an interesting story about a pastor in Africa who drowned attempting to play Jesus in front of his congregation.
An evangelist who tried replicating Jesus' miracle of walking on water has reportedly drowned off the western coast of Africa. Pastor Franck Kabele, 35, told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle, and he attempted it from a beach in Gabon's capital of Libreville. 'He told churchgoers he'd had a revelation that if he had enough faith, he could walk on water like Jesus,' an eyewitness told the Glasgow Daily Record. 'He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat. He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back.'
Lessons from Africa:
(1). The wise pastor promises nothing and does much, the foolish pastor promises much and does nothing.
(2). None of us pastors is really like Jesus, no matter how much we try to tell our people we are.
(3). When you feel a little overwhelmed today remember this: Somewhere out there in the Atlantic is a pastor who is in it deeper than you.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Your Thoughts on the Opening Statement to the Arlington Roundtable
My thanks go to John Stickley, who along with others, has made available all the audio links to the Arlington Roundtable (John is the first blog I saw the link). We now have the ability to listen to all the sessions of the Roundtable via internet.
I have a favor to ask.
The opening statement that I gave for the meeting is three and a half minutes long and I believe summarizes the purpose for the meeting quite succinctly. More than that, I think it capsules the issues in the SBC.
I would be very interested in the comments of those who listen to the statement, either pro or con. Seriously, I would like for people to tell me where I am wrong. I would like for you to be specific.
Particularly, I would like to know the exact sentences or ideas in the opening statement with which you agree or disagree. If you disagree, why? Where am I missing it? Where is my thinking faulty? Where I am right? Etc . . .
Thanks in advance for taking the time to listen and respond.
In His Grace,
Wade
I have a favor to ask.
The opening statement that I gave for the meeting is three and a half minutes long and I believe summarizes the purpose for the meeting quite succinctly. More than that, I think it capsules the issues in the SBC.
I would be very interested in the comments of those who listen to the statement, either pro or con. Seriously, I would like for people to tell me where I am wrong. I would like for you to be specific.
Particularly, I would like to know the exact sentences or ideas in the opening statement with which you agree or disagree. If you disagree, why? Where am I missing it? Where is my thinking faulty? Where I am right? Etc . . .
Thanks in advance for taking the time to listen and respond.
In His Grace,
Wade
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
'Spooky' Fundamentalism
Words, when well chosen, have so great a force in them that a description often gives us more lively ideas than the sight of things themselves. - Joseph Addison, The Spectator No. 416
The expositional teaching of the Word of God is central to my life and ministry. I unapologetically believe in the sufficiency, authority and power of the Word of God, for it reveals the power of God to save sinners through the Person and work of His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Some might wish to call me a Fundamentalist because of this. If properly defined, I accept the tag. I believe in the fundamentals of the faith. I will defend the faith against all challengers. To deny the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ is to deny the faith. To deny Christ's substitutionary death for sinners, His resurrection from the dead, and His gift of eternal life to all who are in relationship with Him by grace through faith is to deny the faith.
Spooky Fundamentalism
I have recently used a term to describe a philosophy held by a handful of people in evangelicalism which goes beyond the traditional fundamentals of the faith, or even official Fundamentalism, and tagged the philosophy 'spooky Fundamentalism.' 'Spooky' Fundamentalism is to be distinguished from regular 'Fundamentalism' by the characteristics of the spirit and temperament of the persons holding to the tenets of Fundamentalism, as we will see shortly.
It is only fair to define 'spooky Fundamentalism' in order that people know what it is to which I refer. So, I will first give a definition of 'spooky Fundamentalism' followed by two descriptive statements, then three additional descriptions for official "Fundamentalism," which must be differentiated from 'spooky' Fundamentalism.
The Definition
Spooky Fundamentalism is the uncanny or eerie practice of speaking on behalf of God to other people, identifying what God desires, says or feels, without reliable, exegetical support from the all sufficient Word of God, and then being unpredictably excitable (angry, bitter, and intentionally slanderous) when someone challenges what is said.
The Identifying Marks of Spooky Fundamentalism
(1). A personality and temperament bent toward anger
A spooky Fundamentalist is an angry person. He is angry with those who disagree. He is angry with those who won't listen. He is angry with those who 'don't tow the line.' He is full of anger and he can be identified by his anger.
A patient man has great understanding, but a quick-tempered man displays folly (Proverbs 14:29). A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, and a man of understanding is even-tempered (Proverbs 17:27). A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (Proverbs 29:11).
When Frank Page was elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention he was asked what kind of people he would be appointing to Boards and Committees. He responded that he would continue to appoint 'conservatives' but he would not be appointing people who were 'angry about it.' Thus, the term 'irenic' or 'peaceful' conservative came into our lexicon as Southern Baptists.
(2). Intentional and purposeful attempts to slander those who disagree
A spooky Fundamentalist will identify everyone who disagrees with him as a theological liberal or 'moderate' and will do all he can to attack his opponents character, often by making things up. This slanderous attack is to seek to marginalize his opponent in the eyes of the general public.
Slander comes from an evil heart, Luke 6:45. It often arises from hatred, Psa. 109:3. The Bible says the wicked are addicted to it, Psa. 50:20, as well as hypocrites Prov. 11:9.
Those who hold to Spooky Fundamentalism have begun rumors of adulterous affairs, mental breakdowns, theological heresies and other 'problems' in the lives of people who simply stood up and disagreed with the tenets of a 'spooky Fundamentalism.' It serves no purpose to be specific with the details, but I have spoken to at least three individuals personally who have been the target of the above slander, and they themselves will tell you the damage this type of tactic brings to one's family.
This type of rumor mongering is now being directed at Southern Baptist pastors like Rick Warren. Other pastors who are seeking to reach the world in new, creative approaches -- while never compromising on the fundamentals of the faith -- are also the target. We Southern Baptists must be ever vigilant against this ungodly use of the tongue and the pen.
The ABOVE TWO DESCRIPTIONS ARE DEFINITIVE --- without these characteristics nobody can, or should, be called a spooky Fundamentalist.
Three Additional Descriptions of "Fundamentalism" without the 'Spooky' part
Below are three additional descriptions. One may disagree with the following descriptions, not get angry that they have been offered, and seek to work and cooperate with the person who offered them --- that person COULD NOT be considered an adherent to 'spooky' Fundamentalism. Maybe a Fundamentalism, even irenic Fundamentalim, but not a spooky Fundamentalism. :)
The difference is extraordinary --- many of us could vote for anyone who disagrees with the next three points, and has a good spirit about it, as President of the SBC -- but we will adamantly resist anyone who seeks to destroy the character of those who disagree.
Thus, the word "Fundamentalism" replaces the phrase 'spooky Fundamentalism' in the next three descriptive points.
(3). A small belief in God's sovereignty and providence in the affairs of men
Fundamenetalism has little understanding that 'God has established his throne in the heavens and His kingdom rules over all.'
Rather, Fundamentalism teaches the world is under the dominion of the evil one, and all 'evil' in this world is orchestrated by the devil as he often successfully subverts the will of God.
Thus, culture is the enemy. Culture is controlled by the devil. Rather than seeing God building His church by taking people who are 'in' culture and transforming them by His Spirit and power, the Fundamentalist must express his hatred of those 'in' culture and tell them that God condemns them as well.
Fundamentalism mocks those in culture rather than seek to win them by a lifestyle of kindness, goodness, compassion and love. For many there is an inordinate trust (emphasis on the word 'inordinate') in the personal, visible, future, culture-changing second coming of Christ that will transform the world, rather than the modern day good news that Christ died for sinners which transforms culture today -- one life at a time.
(4). An emphasis on a 'pure' and 'holy' church as defined by man made traditions.
Fundamentalism teaches the church's success revolves around his efforts to keep it 'pure.' There is very little understanding that God guarantees the purity of His body by His own work, and that the church is cleansed of sin and peoples' lives are transformed by the power of God's Spirit through the Spirit's application of the Person and work of Jesus Christ to the individual soul. Fundamentalism advocates the church must be transformed by shaming, demanding and ultimately forcing others into a like-minded doctrinal conformity on tertiary issues that are not essential to the faith.
As a result, religious tradition will eventually supersede the believer's identification with Christ in Fundamentalism. A 'pure' ecclesiology becomes far more important than a persistent missiology. The church of Jesus Christ is not so much a body of universal believers united by their Head, but an institution of ecclesiological hierarchy, where the priests hear from God and the lay people receive the blessings of God through His official, authoritative representatives. And if, God forbid, there is NOT a pure and proper 'church,' then there cannot be pure and proper 'evangelism.'
(5). A fear and skittishness about anything that begins with the word freedom.
Whether it be free debate or free dissent . . . Whether it be freedom of conscience or freedom of expression . . . Whether it be free praise or free worship . . .
Freedom is a curse word to Fundamentalism.
Nobody is free to do, believe, pray or say anything that is not on the 'approved' list. Rather than trusting in the Spirit of God to perform His work of sanctification in the lives of His people, the Fundamentalist will let you know by his desired tight control of your life, even your prayer life, whether or not you are progressing in holiness.
Baptists historically have been the great defenders of freedom. We must never sacrifice our cherished views of freedom on the altar conformity in a denomination controlled by Fundamentalism.
In Conclusion
In order to correct what many believe is wrong in modern evangelicalism it is necessary to define the spooky Fundamentalism which is slowly infiltrating our convention, and unfortunately that is impossible without words that help us understand our dilemma.
Let me also, again, be clear about something already said within this post--- a person in the Southern Baptist Convention can disagree on descriptive points (3), (4) and (5) and NOT participate in (1) and (2) and he could NOT be considered an adherent to spooky Fundamentalism ---
Spooky Fundamentalism is only 'spooky' when anger and slander saturate three, four and five. You can disagree with three, four and five and be an irenic "Fundamentalist" and many of us could vote for you as President of the Southern Baptist Convention!
As there are those who are adamant that 'liberals' should not have leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention, there are others of us who believe there is no room in leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention for 'spooky Fundamentalists.'
Stick with your Fundamentalistim --- but give up your spookiness.
In His Grace,
Wade
The expositional teaching of the Word of God is central to my life and ministry. I unapologetically believe in the sufficiency, authority and power of the Word of God, for it reveals the power of God to save sinners through the Person and work of His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Some might wish to call me a Fundamentalist because of this. If properly defined, I accept the tag. I believe in the fundamentals of the faith. I will defend the faith against all challengers. To deny the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ is to deny the faith. To deny Christ's substitutionary death for sinners, His resurrection from the dead, and His gift of eternal life to all who are in relationship with Him by grace through faith is to deny the faith.
Spooky Fundamentalism
I have recently used a term to describe a philosophy held by a handful of people in evangelicalism which goes beyond the traditional fundamentals of the faith, or even official Fundamentalism, and tagged the philosophy 'spooky Fundamentalism.' 'Spooky' Fundamentalism is to be distinguished from regular 'Fundamentalism' by the characteristics of the spirit and temperament of the persons holding to the tenets of Fundamentalism, as we will see shortly.
It is only fair to define 'spooky Fundamentalism' in order that people know what it is to which I refer. So, I will first give a definition of 'spooky Fundamentalism' followed by two descriptive statements, then three additional descriptions for official "Fundamentalism," which must be differentiated from 'spooky' Fundamentalism.
The Definition
Spooky Fundamentalism is the uncanny or eerie practice of speaking on behalf of God to other people, identifying what God desires, says or feels, without reliable, exegetical support from the all sufficient Word of God, and then being unpredictably excitable (angry, bitter, and intentionally slanderous) when someone challenges what is said.
The Identifying Marks of Spooky Fundamentalism
(1). A personality and temperament bent toward anger
A spooky Fundamentalist is an angry person. He is angry with those who disagree. He is angry with those who won't listen. He is angry with those who 'don't tow the line.' He is full of anger and he can be identified by his anger.
A patient man has great understanding, but a quick-tempered man displays folly (Proverbs 14:29). A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, and a man of understanding is even-tempered (Proverbs 17:27). A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control (Proverbs 29:11).
When Frank Page was elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention he was asked what kind of people he would be appointing to Boards and Committees. He responded that he would continue to appoint 'conservatives' but he would not be appointing people who were 'angry about it.' Thus, the term 'irenic' or 'peaceful' conservative came into our lexicon as Southern Baptists.
(2). Intentional and purposeful attempts to slander those who disagree
A spooky Fundamentalist will identify everyone who disagrees with him as a theological liberal or 'moderate' and will do all he can to attack his opponents character, often by making things up. This slanderous attack is to seek to marginalize his opponent in the eyes of the general public.
Slander comes from an evil heart, Luke 6:45. It often arises from hatred, Psa. 109:3. The Bible says the wicked are addicted to it, Psa. 50:20, as well as hypocrites Prov. 11:9.
Those who hold to Spooky Fundamentalism have begun rumors of adulterous affairs, mental breakdowns, theological heresies and other 'problems' in the lives of people who simply stood up and disagreed with the tenets of a 'spooky Fundamentalism.' It serves no purpose to be specific with the details, but I have spoken to at least three individuals personally who have been the target of the above slander, and they themselves will tell you the damage this type of tactic brings to one's family.
This type of rumor mongering is now being directed at Southern Baptist pastors like Rick Warren. Other pastors who are seeking to reach the world in new, creative approaches -- while never compromising on the fundamentals of the faith -- are also the target. We Southern Baptists must be ever vigilant against this ungodly use of the tongue and the pen.
The ABOVE TWO DESCRIPTIONS ARE DEFINITIVE --- without these characteristics nobody can, or should, be called a spooky Fundamentalist.
Three Additional Descriptions of "Fundamentalism" without the 'Spooky' part
Below are three additional descriptions. One may disagree with the following descriptions, not get angry that they have been offered, and seek to work and cooperate with the person who offered them --- that person COULD NOT be considered an adherent to 'spooky' Fundamentalism. Maybe a Fundamentalism, even irenic Fundamentalim, but not a spooky Fundamentalism. :)
The difference is extraordinary --- many of us could vote for anyone who disagrees with the next three points, and has a good spirit about it, as President of the SBC -- but we will adamantly resist anyone who seeks to destroy the character of those who disagree.
Thus, the word "Fundamentalism" replaces the phrase 'spooky Fundamentalism' in the next three descriptive points.
(3). A small belief in God's sovereignty and providence in the affairs of men
Fundamenetalism has little understanding that 'God has established his throne in the heavens and His kingdom rules over all.'
Rather, Fundamentalism teaches the world is under the dominion of the evil one, and all 'evil' in this world is orchestrated by the devil as he often successfully subverts the will of God.
Thus, culture is the enemy. Culture is controlled by the devil. Rather than seeing God building His church by taking people who are 'in' culture and transforming them by His Spirit and power, the Fundamentalist must express his hatred of those 'in' culture and tell them that God condemns them as well.
Fundamentalism mocks those in culture rather than seek to win them by a lifestyle of kindness, goodness, compassion and love. For many there is an inordinate trust (emphasis on the word 'inordinate') in the personal, visible, future, culture-changing second coming of Christ that will transform the world, rather than the modern day good news that Christ died for sinners which transforms culture today -- one life at a time.
(4). An emphasis on a 'pure' and 'holy' church as defined by man made traditions.
Fundamentalism teaches the church's success revolves around his efforts to keep it 'pure.' There is very little understanding that God guarantees the purity of His body by His own work, and that the church is cleansed of sin and peoples' lives are transformed by the power of God's Spirit through the Spirit's application of the Person and work of Jesus Christ to the individual soul. Fundamentalism advocates the church must be transformed by shaming, demanding and ultimately forcing others into a like-minded doctrinal conformity on tertiary issues that are not essential to the faith.
As a result, religious tradition will eventually supersede the believer's identification with Christ in Fundamentalism. A 'pure' ecclesiology becomes far more important than a persistent missiology. The church of Jesus Christ is not so much a body of universal believers united by their Head, but an institution of ecclesiological hierarchy, where the priests hear from God and the lay people receive the blessings of God through His official, authoritative representatives. And if, God forbid, there is NOT a pure and proper 'church,' then there cannot be pure and proper 'evangelism.'
(5). A fear and skittishness about anything that begins with the word freedom.
Whether it be free debate or free dissent . . . Whether it be freedom of conscience or freedom of expression . . . Whether it be free praise or free worship . . .
Freedom is a curse word to Fundamentalism.
Nobody is free to do, believe, pray or say anything that is not on the 'approved' list. Rather than trusting in the Spirit of God to perform His work of sanctification in the lives of His people, the Fundamentalist will let you know by his desired tight control of your life, even your prayer life, whether or not you are progressing in holiness.
Baptists historically have been the great defenders of freedom. We must never sacrifice our cherished views of freedom on the altar conformity in a denomination controlled by Fundamentalism.
In Conclusion
In order to correct what many believe is wrong in modern evangelicalism it is necessary to define the spooky Fundamentalism which is slowly infiltrating our convention, and unfortunately that is impossible without words that help us understand our dilemma.
Let me also, again, be clear about something already said within this post--- a person in the Southern Baptist Convention can disagree on descriptive points (3), (4) and (5) and NOT participate in (1) and (2) and he could NOT be considered an adherent to spooky Fundamentalism ---
Spooky Fundamentalism is only 'spooky' when anger and slander saturate three, four and five. You can disagree with three, four and five and be an irenic "Fundamentalist" and many of us could vote for you as President of the Southern Baptist Convention!
As there are those who are adamant that 'liberals' should not have leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention, there are others of us who believe there is no room in leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention for 'spooky Fundamentalists.'
Stick with your Fundamentalistim --- but give up your spookiness.
In His Grace,
Wade
Monday, December 11, 2006
The End of the Debate on the New Baptism Policy
It seems in the very healthy blogosphere discussion on the subject of baptism, with contributors from all sides of the conservative theological spectrum, that two or three clear possibilities regarding the outcome of the new IMB policy on baptism have arisen to the forefront.
It must be remembered that the only people who can change the IMB policy are trustees themselves. Trustees are called upon to act in the best interest of the International Mission Board, and I, as well as other trustees, take that charge very seriously. I have received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls from people around the United States and have attempted to patiently and personally answer every question.
With the knowledge that only the trustees may reverse the policy on baptism, here are two or three possible scenarios with the most likely first:
(1). The Baptism Ad Hoc Committee issues a report this January 30, 2007, or in a subsequent trustee meeting, that offers new wording for the baptism policy. As most people know, the debate is not over the mode or candidate (nobody is advocating 'sprinkling' or 'pouring;' neither is anyone advocating baptizing infants or 'the lost'), but rather, the debate is over whether one should be baptized to 'identify' with a particular doctrine (eternal security), system of belief, or denomination. Wording could be offered that made it clearer that Christian baptism is identification with Christ -- not a 'denomination.'Again, this committee has no authority to change policy, so any rewording of the new baptism policy would have to be voted on by the entire board in open, plenary session. The rewording might also reflect a recognition of the autonomy of the local church, and a willingness to never subvert said autonomy.
(2). A report is issued this January 30, 2007 during the California trustee meeting, or a subsequent trustee meeting, from the Baptism Ad Hoc Committee that, in effect, recommends the reversal of the new baptism policy passed November 15, 2005. Since the full board must establish policy, all 89 trustees would then have to vote on the reversal. If the new policy on baptism is rescinded, then the Candidate Consultants of the IMB would revert to following the 'guidelines' they used in interviewing a missionary candidate regarding his faith and baptism prior to November 15, 2006.
(3). The Baptism Ad Hoc Committee's report recommends no changes to the new policy. Under this scenario the new policy would remain in effect until there were a change of leadership by either attrition or the placing of new trustees who were of a mind to change the policy by the Southern Baptist Convention and her President, and those trustees then elect a chairman of the board who was sympathetic with the policy's reversal.
These are the three leading scenarios in my mind. There may be more, but I think these three are the major options. I do not know which one the Baptism Ad Hoc Committee will take since I have received no communication from the committee.
The Baptism Ad Hoc Committee includes the following trustees:
Bill Curp, Andy Johnson, Sam Morgan, Herman Pair, Blake Withers.
There are some very sharp individuals on this committee, and their report will be much anticipated. In this age of communication, information and transparency, we trustees must do allw we can to make our rationale public for actions taken, open the dialogue on important decisions to include all Southern Baptists, and to remember that in agencies and documents that desire 'cooperation' among all Southern Baptists it is always best to keep the parameters of cooperation broad and the doctrinal requirements focused on the essentials, not secondary issues over which people disagree.
I have not spoken to anyone on the Baptist Ad Hoc Committee since the committee was appointed earlier this year. I have received no information from them in writing, nor has anyone told me of an impending Board agenda. This post is my best educated guess as to what may take place in the near future. Many of you have asked how all this may play out and I hope this answers your questions. Your discussion of the subject has helped sharpen my understanding of the issues involved.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
It must be remembered that the only people who can change the IMB policy are trustees themselves. Trustees are called upon to act in the best interest of the International Mission Board, and I, as well as other trustees, take that charge very seriously. I have received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls from people around the United States and have attempted to patiently and personally answer every question.
With the knowledge that only the trustees may reverse the policy on baptism, here are two or three possible scenarios with the most likely first:
(1). The Baptism Ad Hoc Committee issues a report this January 30, 2007, or in a subsequent trustee meeting, that offers new wording for the baptism policy. As most people know, the debate is not over the mode or candidate (nobody is advocating 'sprinkling' or 'pouring;' neither is anyone advocating baptizing infants or 'the lost'), but rather, the debate is over whether one should be baptized to 'identify' with a particular doctrine (eternal security), system of belief, or denomination. Wording could be offered that made it clearer that Christian baptism is identification with Christ -- not a 'denomination.'Again, this committee has no authority to change policy, so any rewording of the new baptism policy would have to be voted on by the entire board in open, plenary session. The rewording might also reflect a recognition of the autonomy of the local church, and a willingness to never subvert said autonomy.
(2). A report is issued this January 30, 2007 during the California trustee meeting, or a subsequent trustee meeting, from the Baptism Ad Hoc Committee that, in effect, recommends the reversal of the new baptism policy passed November 15, 2005. Since the full board must establish policy, all 89 trustees would then have to vote on the reversal. If the new policy on baptism is rescinded, then the Candidate Consultants of the IMB would revert to following the 'guidelines' they used in interviewing a missionary candidate regarding his faith and baptism prior to November 15, 2006.
(3). The Baptism Ad Hoc Committee's report recommends no changes to the new policy. Under this scenario the new policy would remain in effect until there were a change of leadership by either attrition or the placing of new trustees who were of a mind to change the policy by the Southern Baptist Convention and her President, and those trustees then elect a chairman of the board who was sympathetic with the policy's reversal.
These are the three leading scenarios in my mind. There may be more, but I think these three are the major options. I do not know which one the Baptism Ad Hoc Committee will take since I have received no communication from the committee.
The Baptism Ad Hoc Committee includes the following trustees:
Bill Curp, Andy Johnson, Sam Morgan, Herman Pair, Blake Withers.
There are some very sharp individuals on this committee, and their report will be much anticipated. In this age of communication, information and transparency, we trustees must do allw we can to make our rationale public for actions taken, open the dialogue on important decisions to include all Southern Baptists, and to remember that in agencies and documents that desire 'cooperation' among all Southern Baptists it is always best to keep the parameters of cooperation broad and the doctrinal requirements focused on the essentials, not secondary issues over which people disagree.
I have not spoken to anyone on the Baptist Ad Hoc Committee since the committee was appointed earlier this year. I have received no information from them in writing, nor has anyone told me of an impending Board agenda. This post is my best educated guess as to what may take place in the near future. Many of you have asked how all this may play out and I hope this answers your questions. Your discussion of the subject has helped sharpen my understanding of the issues involved.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Saturday, December 09, 2006
A Baptism Policy That Excludes Legitimate Christian Baptism?
Brad McCain, Pastor of FaithPointe Baptist Church in Norman, Oklahoma recently contacted me about a member of his church that he calls "Ed" who has served as a Great Commisson missionary, cooperating with IMB missionaries, on the missionary field. He has been Southern Baptist for several years and has recently applied to be career missionary for the International Mission Board. However, he has been rejected for service because of the 'new' policy on baptism at the IMB. Pastor Brad's story about Ed is compelling. (Update: I have been told by IMB staff that the missionary candidate "Ed" could have continued the process if he would have submitted to 'rebaptism' and thus, was not 'rejected.' However, Pastor Brad and 'Ed' both believe that to be rebaptized in order to identify with a particular doctrine or'system of denominational beliefs' is contrary to the New Testament teaching that baptism identifies you with Christ and would make a mockery of 'Ed's' Christian baptism. Thus, Pastor Brad and 'Ed' see a 'rejection' by the IMB while others would say 'Ed' pulled out because he refused to be 'rebaptized.')
The following is an open letter Pastor Brad sent to me and every other trustee of the International Board. He asked that I post his letter on my blog that those who read it can help him make sense of why the couple, whose Christian baptism has already been accepted by the local Southern Baptist Church he pastors, is now being told they are disqualified from serving as missionaries for the International Mission Board because their baptism violates the 'new' policy.
An Open letter to the Trustees of the International Mission Board and all Southern Baptists,
It is through the encouragement of a number of pastors and convention leaders that I have come in contact with, that I write these words. The intent of them is to cause us to reflect on the path we are taking and make the corrections that are necessary.
Oftentimes, it is much easier to deal with policies than it is to deal with the people those policies end up affecting. If we are not careful we end up getting so disconnected from reality that the process resembles edicts being passed down from a governing entity that simply does not care. I fear we are getting perilously close to that as a convention and especially as a mission board. With that in mind, I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine.
For purposes of anonymity and the safety of current IMB missionaries who are in country, I will call my friend “Ed”. Ed grew up in a Christian home in Norman, Oklahoma – with a brief time in St. Louis and New Jersey - where his parents were sure to raise him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. As a child Ed came to an understanding of his need for a Savior and surrendered his life to Christ. Afterwards, he obediently followed Christ in being baptized as a testimony of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, as well as his commitment to strive to faithfully walk in his “new life.”
Upon graduation of high school, Ed attended Oklahoma Baptist University, from where he graduated with a degree in history. Following college, he began to explore God’s call on his life concerning missions. After raising his own support, he went as a Great Commission Christian (GCC) to a level 3 country.
Ed worked closely with IMB personnel while he was on the field and came to appreciate their spirit and the way Southern Baptists support missionaries around the world. After his time on the field was up, he returned to Norman, desiring to join a Southern Baptist church. He knew that one day he would want to return to this country and preferred to go through the IMB.
He found our church. At the time, FaithPointe was not even a year old. He joined us because of our intense focus on being missionaries to the culture in which God has placed us.
Before joining he came to me and we talked for quite some time concerning the details of his salvation experience. Ed’s parents had raised him in a church that did not teach the security of the believer. This church believed that a person, of their own free will, could choose to turn away from Christ, never to return. While I do not agree with this church theologically, I do understand their interpretation of scripture and believe they are allowed the freedom to see it that way. I do not believe one’s leaning toward Arminianism or Calvinism invalidates their salvation. Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace through faith. Intricate understanding of the finer points of Soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation, is not a requisite of salvation, according to scripture.
After, our conversation, I assured Ed that he would be allowed to join our church on a statement of his faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord and he did. Since that time, Ed has returned to the same country, at his own expense, to get reacquainted with contacts he made, both with the IMB and with indigenous people of the region. After much prayer, he realized it was time to pursue being in country on a more permanent basis, and so he sought appointment through the IMB. He began that process this fall.
Now Ed is being told that he cannot be appointed through IMB because of policy that was implemented in November of 2005. I am deeply concerned with this. On November 15, 2005, the Trustees of the International Mission Board approved a baptism guideline for candidates desiring appointment. This guideline is self-contradictory and also non-Biblical. Your policy states…
That each candidate’s baptismal experience be examined, during the application process, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message statement and the points listed below:
BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE: ARTICLE VII – BAPTISM
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior; the believer’s death to sin; the burial of the old life; and the resurrection to walk in the newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
I have no problem with any of these statements, as I find them to be scripturally based. The problem I am having is concerning added statements you have placed on candidates in item 2B of the same policy.
A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.
On one page of this document, you have called baptism “a testimony to…faith” and “an act of obedience.” While on the second page you have downgraded baptism to “a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.” Which one is it? Is baptism to be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in testimony of Christ’s redemption for me through his shed blood on the cross? Or is baptism to be done in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention, in testimony to their “system of beliefs”? Can both coexist? One highlights the “traditional” view most Southern Baptist churches have held for decades concerning admission to membership, while one adheres to scripture alone. With which would you prefer Southern Baptists to side?
You are asking Ed to be baptized again because the church in which he was baptized does not perfectly align with what is “acceptable salvation theology.” In so doing, you have made two mistakes that I wish to address.
First, asking Ed to be baptized again “as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches” is shameful. Any candidate that would treat baptism so lightly should not be a candidate at all. Any Trustee that would treat the ordinance of baptism so lightly should not be a Trustee at all. Baptism is in the name of Christ alone! Not in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. To ask a candidate to “go through the motions” because their first baptism was not “good enough” is, in my mind, making a mockery of the ordinance itself. I hold Christ’s sacrifice too high in my life to ask someone to do such a thing. I believe most of you do as well, but overlooked the implications of the words being used for this guideline. It is not at all that Ed is ashamed of his commitment to Christ. It isn’t even that he is opposed to being baptized again as a testimony of Christ’s saving grace in his life. He is, however, opposed to being baptized in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. Additionally, I, as his pastor, refuse to baptize him in that manner. While the intent of this wording may have been honest, the implications are dangerous.
Second, if the Trustees of the International Mission Board can reject a person who is already a member of a Southern Baptist church, based upon there credentials for membership, then the Trustees of the IMB are holding authority over that church. Each church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention is a local, autonomous body, responsible for governing itself according to the word of God. The International Mission Board is an extension of the local, autonomous church, and not an agency with the authority to govern over the church. The action the Trustees have taken in this matter has placed the IMB in authority - an authority that is not granted apart from convention approval. Was this your intent? The action itself denotes a lack of trust on your part for each church to do its due diligence in regards to each person desiring to join the local, autonomous church. The ultimate end to this path will lead our convention to some form of presbytery in which churches have no authority to govern themselves, but rather, must adhere to mandates passed down to them through governing boards, or face expulsion from the convention. This should be alarming to any Southern Baptist pastor and congregation.
I respectfully wish to request that you reconsider your action concerning this matter. I would like to invite all Southern Baptists to join me in dialogue on this topic. My goal is not further division within our ranks. We have had enough of that. My desire is for us to examine ourselves and see if these are the paths we are intentionally taking. If not, we need to learn from these mistakes and seek to head in the right direction. Our enemy is delighted by the way he has side-tracked us with political, social, and doctrinal debates which are important, yet non-essential to the exaltation of Christ. Please, let’s move into this century with the overwhelming desire to “make disciples” as we are going. If you wish to dialogue with me and other concerned Southern Baptists, I invite you to visit www.faithpointe.org/IMB to discuss the issue further. May God shine His light before us to illuminate the path we must follow.
In His Service,
Brad McCain, Pastor
FaithPointe Baptist Church
Norman, OK 73069
The following is an open letter Pastor Brad sent to me and every other trustee of the International Board. He asked that I post his letter on my blog that those who read it can help him make sense of why the couple, whose Christian baptism has already been accepted by the local Southern Baptist Church he pastors, is now being told they are disqualified from serving as missionaries for the International Mission Board because their baptism violates the 'new' policy.
An Open letter to the Trustees of the International Mission Board and all Southern Baptists,
It is through the encouragement of a number of pastors and convention leaders that I have come in contact with, that I write these words. The intent of them is to cause us to reflect on the path we are taking and make the corrections that are necessary.
Oftentimes, it is much easier to deal with policies than it is to deal with the people those policies end up affecting. If we are not careful we end up getting so disconnected from reality that the process resembles edicts being passed down from a governing entity that simply does not care. I fear we are getting perilously close to that as a convention and especially as a mission board. With that in mind, I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine.
For purposes of anonymity and the safety of current IMB missionaries who are in country, I will call my friend “Ed”. Ed grew up in a Christian home in Norman, Oklahoma – with a brief time in St. Louis and New Jersey - where his parents were sure to raise him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. As a child Ed came to an understanding of his need for a Savior and surrendered his life to Christ. Afterwards, he obediently followed Christ in being baptized as a testimony of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, as well as his commitment to strive to faithfully walk in his “new life.”
Upon graduation of high school, Ed attended Oklahoma Baptist University, from where he graduated with a degree in history. Following college, he began to explore God’s call on his life concerning missions. After raising his own support, he went as a Great Commission Christian (GCC) to a level 3 country.
Ed worked closely with IMB personnel while he was on the field and came to appreciate their spirit and the way Southern Baptists support missionaries around the world. After his time on the field was up, he returned to Norman, desiring to join a Southern Baptist church. He knew that one day he would want to return to this country and preferred to go through the IMB.
He found our church. At the time, FaithPointe was not even a year old. He joined us because of our intense focus on being missionaries to the culture in which God has placed us.
Before joining he came to me and we talked for quite some time concerning the details of his salvation experience. Ed’s parents had raised him in a church that did not teach the security of the believer. This church believed that a person, of their own free will, could choose to turn away from Christ, never to return. While I do not agree with this church theologically, I do understand their interpretation of scripture and believe they are allowed the freedom to see it that way. I do not believe one’s leaning toward Arminianism or Calvinism invalidates their salvation. Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by grace through faith. Intricate understanding of the finer points of Soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation, is not a requisite of salvation, according to scripture.
After, our conversation, I assured Ed that he would be allowed to join our church on a statement of his faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord and he did. Since that time, Ed has returned to the same country, at his own expense, to get reacquainted with contacts he made, both with the IMB and with indigenous people of the region. After much prayer, he realized it was time to pursue being in country on a more permanent basis, and so he sought appointment through the IMB. He began that process this fall.
Now Ed is being told that he cannot be appointed through IMB because of policy that was implemented in November of 2005. I am deeply concerned with this. On November 15, 2005, the Trustees of the International Mission Board approved a baptism guideline for candidates desiring appointment. This guideline is self-contradictory and also non-Biblical. Your policy states…
That each candidate’s baptismal experience be examined, during the application process, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message statement and the points listed below:
BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE: ARTICLE VII – BAPTISM
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior; the believer’s death to sin; the burial of the old life; and the resurrection to walk in the newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
I have no problem with any of these statements, as I find them to be scripturally based. The problem I am having is concerning added statements you have placed on candidates in item 2B of the same policy.
A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.
On one page of this document, you have called baptism “a testimony to…faith” and “an act of obedience.” While on the second page you have downgraded baptism to “a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.” Which one is it? Is baptism to be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in testimony of Christ’s redemption for me through his shed blood on the cross? Or is baptism to be done in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention, in testimony to their “system of beliefs”? Can both coexist? One highlights the “traditional” view most Southern Baptist churches have held for decades concerning admission to membership, while one adheres to scripture alone. With which would you prefer Southern Baptists to side?
You are asking Ed to be baptized again because the church in which he was baptized does not perfectly align with what is “acceptable salvation theology.” In so doing, you have made two mistakes that I wish to address.
First, asking Ed to be baptized again “as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches” is shameful. Any candidate that would treat baptism so lightly should not be a candidate at all. Any Trustee that would treat the ordinance of baptism so lightly should not be a Trustee at all. Baptism is in the name of Christ alone! Not in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. To ask a candidate to “go through the motions” because their first baptism was not “good enough” is, in my mind, making a mockery of the ordinance itself. I hold Christ’s sacrifice too high in my life to ask someone to do such a thing. I believe most of you do as well, but overlooked the implications of the words being used for this guideline. It is not at all that Ed is ashamed of his commitment to Christ. It isn’t even that he is opposed to being baptized again as a testimony of Christ’s saving grace in his life. He is, however, opposed to being baptized in the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. Additionally, I, as his pastor, refuse to baptize him in that manner. While the intent of this wording may have been honest, the implications are dangerous.
Second, if the Trustees of the International Mission Board can reject a person who is already a member of a Southern Baptist church, based upon there credentials for membership, then the Trustees of the IMB are holding authority over that church. Each church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention is a local, autonomous body, responsible for governing itself according to the word of God. The International Mission Board is an extension of the local, autonomous church, and not an agency with the authority to govern over the church. The action the Trustees have taken in this matter has placed the IMB in authority - an authority that is not granted apart from convention approval. Was this your intent? The action itself denotes a lack of trust on your part for each church to do its due diligence in regards to each person desiring to join the local, autonomous church. The ultimate end to this path will lead our convention to some form of presbytery in which churches have no authority to govern themselves, but rather, must adhere to mandates passed down to them through governing boards, or face expulsion from the convention. This should be alarming to any Southern Baptist pastor and congregation.
I respectfully wish to request that you reconsider your action concerning this matter. I would like to invite all Southern Baptists to join me in dialogue on this topic. My goal is not further division within our ranks. We have had enough of that. My desire is for us to examine ourselves and see if these are the paths we are intentionally taking. If not, we need to learn from these mistakes and seek to head in the right direction. Our enemy is delighted by the way he has side-tracked us with political, social, and doctrinal debates which are important, yet non-essential to the exaltation of Christ. Please, let’s move into this century with the overwhelming desire to “make disciples” as we are going. If you wish to dialogue with me and other concerned Southern Baptists, I invite you to visit www.faithpointe.org/IMB to discuss the issue further. May God shine His light before us to illuminate the path we must follow.
In His Service,
Brad McCain, Pastor
FaithPointe Baptist Church
Norman, OK 73069
Friday, December 08, 2006
There Is No Anecdotal Evidence of Charismatic Problems Not Appropriately Handled by IMB Administration
On Les Puryear's blog today he asks a very important question.
"Is there evidence of a charismatic movement on the (mission) field?"
Pastor Tim Rogers, in the comment section, expressed concern that only the trustees should be asking that question, not Les, and we should trust the trustees' conclusions.
It might be helpful for Pastor Tim to know that I have asked a very similar question repeatedly since I first heard of the proposed policies during my first International Mission Board trustee meeting.
My question was this:
"Can you please give to me, as an International Mission Board trustee, anecdotal evidence that the new policies are needed in order to combat charismatic problems on the field, or in the case of baptisms, evidence that candidate consultants have approved missionaries to be appointed who were not scripturally baptized by immersion after having come to faith in Jesus Christ?"
Nobody in trustee leadership would ever answer this question for me.
It was also strange to hear from President Jerry Rankin publicly, and repeatedly, a vigorous denial that there has ever been a 'charismatic' problem on the field that has not been swiftly, efficiently and properly handled by staff and administration according to the existing (now old) policies, while at the same time attempting to logically comprehend why, according to trustee leadership, the new policies were allegedly needed.
On my blog nearly six months ago I reported that the question I had been asking, as a duly elected trustee, was finally answered for me --- one year after I began asking it and six months after the new policies were approved. I was chagrined that it was only answered after the approval of the policies, but grateful that it was at least finally answered.
You may read the full acount here, in a post entitled "The Problem Is Too Little Communication, Not Too Much," but I have placed the pertinent part of that post below for your information.
The IMB is your agency. You have the right to know.
Here is what I wrote on on July 20, 2006:
{Beginning Quote}
As a trustee I asked at my first meeting, over a year ago, for anecdotal evidence that the new policies were needed in order to combat charismatic problems on the field, or inappropriate baptisms on the field. I never received an answer to my question. I believe that had there been an attempt to answer my question with straightforward, clear communication when I initially asked the question, then much of what happened last year could have been avoided.
However, my question was only finally answered THIS week, one year after I initially asked it --- and I was told that there is no anecdoctal evidence of IMB staff not dealing appropriately with charismatic problems on the field, or unbiblical baptisms taking place on the field, that would support the need for the new policies. I really appreciated the honesty in answering my question by the Chairman of the Committee that dealt with the policies, and now I know that the policies were pushed not because of any anecdotal evidence of problems on the field not handled properly by the IMB administration, but because of a particular doctrinal mindset within the Board (in other words --- "this is what we believe the Scripture to teach").
Again, if that information had been communicated to me early last year we could have moved on to other issues, but there was too little communication, not too much.
{End Quote}
I hope this answers the questions that are being asked by people on Les's blog. In my opinion, this is one of the beauty of blogs. Information is available at the fingertips.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
"Is there evidence of a charismatic movement on the (mission) field?"
Pastor Tim Rogers, in the comment section, expressed concern that only the trustees should be asking that question, not Les, and we should trust the trustees' conclusions.
It might be helpful for Pastor Tim to know that I have asked a very similar question repeatedly since I first heard of the proposed policies during my first International Mission Board trustee meeting.
My question was this:
"Can you please give to me, as an International Mission Board trustee, anecdotal evidence that the new policies are needed in order to combat charismatic problems on the field, or in the case of baptisms, evidence that candidate consultants have approved missionaries to be appointed who were not scripturally baptized by immersion after having come to faith in Jesus Christ?"
Nobody in trustee leadership would ever answer this question for me.
It was also strange to hear from President Jerry Rankin publicly, and repeatedly, a vigorous denial that there has ever been a 'charismatic' problem on the field that has not been swiftly, efficiently and properly handled by staff and administration according to the existing (now old) policies, while at the same time attempting to logically comprehend why, according to trustee leadership, the new policies were allegedly needed.
On my blog nearly six months ago I reported that the question I had been asking, as a duly elected trustee, was finally answered for me --- one year after I began asking it and six months after the new policies were approved. I was chagrined that it was only answered after the approval of the policies, but grateful that it was at least finally answered.
You may read the full acount here, in a post entitled "The Problem Is Too Little Communication, Not Too Much," but I have placed the pertinent part of that post below for your information.
The IMB is your agency. You have the right to know.
Here is what I wrote on on July 20, 2006:
{Beginning Quote}
As a trustee I asked at my first meeting, over a year ago, for anecdotal evidence that the new policies were needed in order to combat charismatic problems on the field, or inappropriate baptisms on the field. I never received an answer to my question. I believe that had there been an attempt to answer my question with straightforward, clear communication when I initially asked the question, then much of what happened last year could have been avoided.
However, my question was only finally answered THIS week, one year after I initially asked it --- and I was told that there is no anecdoctal evidence of IMB staff not dealing appropriately with charismatic problems on the field, or unbiblical baptisms taking place on the field, that would support the need for the new policies. I really appreciated the honesty in answering my question by the Chairman of the Committee that dealt with the policies, and now I know that the policies were pushed not because of any anecdotal evidence of problems on the field not handled properly by the IMB administration, but because of a particular doctrinal mindset within the Board (in other words --- "this is what we believe the Scripture to teach").
Again, if that information had been communicated to me early last year we could have moved on to other issues, but there was too little communication, not too much.
{End Quote}
I hope this answers the questions that are being asked by people on Les's blog. In my opinion, this is one of the beauty of blogs. Information is available at the fingertips.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
A Baptist Elf Wishes You Merry Christmas
Notwithstanding the protestations of my lovely wife, I have decided to show you what was sent to me tonight. I initially admitted to secretly dancing like this, but on second thought I got 'spooked' thinking someone might actually try to censure me, or possibly remove me as an IMB trustee, for admitting to dancing.
However, I figured I could not let this opportunity go to waste, so I am using the following link as my official Christmas Greeting Card to all my friends. So, "Merry Christmas!"
If you protest that I would actually make you watch this, just be grateful some computer nerd didn't figure out how to morph me and Ben Cole together on the same dance floor.
That would really be a nasty thing to do.
:)
Merrily,
Wade
However, I figured I could not let this opportunity go to waste, so I am using the following link as my official Christmas Greeting Card to all my friends. So, "Merry Christmas!"
If you protest that I would actually make you watch this, just be grateful some computer nerd didn't figure out how to morph me and Ben Cole together on the same dance floor.
That would really be a nasty thing to do.
:)
Merrily,
Wade
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Outsiders Can Be Encouragers of the Insiders
There is a tendency in any movement, including true evangelical movements of God, for there to be an overemphasis on one area of Christian ministry to the neglect of other important areas of ministry.
One could argue that the Reformation began with an emphasis on justification by faith, but the corresponding lack of emphasis on Christian unity, as evidenced by the wars between the Reformers and the Catholics, and the eventual break in fellowship between like-minded Reformers over interpretations regarding Communion (Luther and Melancthon), give illustration to the fact that sometimes we end up 'throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater' when we try to correct a Christian doctrinal or behavioral problem.
The Church Planting Movement within the International Mission Board has brought some appropriate correction to IMB strategy in reaching the world with the gospel. The desire to reach the nations for Christ is in the forefront of our minds, and reaching out to unreached people groups through CPM is working.
But I would issue a caution that we don't unilaterally neglect established work in countries where the IMB has had a presence for years. While maintaining an emphasis on missions and evangelism we must remember our brothers and sisters in Christ who have established Christian churches in their native homelands, many of which were begun by the efforts of our former FMB missionaries.
For instance, in Japan our IMB missionaries are considered to be 'gaikokujin', which means 'outsiders.'
No matter how deeply immersed in Japanese culture the American missionaries are, they will always be considered 'gaikokujin.'
There are, however, tens of thousands of Japanese Christians among the 127 million Japanese who are 'insiders.' Granted, the work by Japanese nationalists has not been near as evangelistic and mission minded as it could have been over the last several decades, but that doesn't mean it can't change.
The Great Commission of our Lord includes the words 'make disciples' and our IMB missionaries on the field would be serving the kingdom well by making disciples of those national Christians who have already come to faith and are working in established churches.
New churches are great. Apostolic missionaries from the IMB are needed. But it would not be a waste of SBC time or resources for our missionaries to be pastors, teachers, instructors, and helpers to those nationals who are in Baptist churches already.
I realize that you cannot pour new wine into old wineskins, but I think we might could miss the blessing of enjoying the old wine if we throw it out. (Maybe this is not such a good analogy in SBC circles :) ).
The old proverb that says if you catch a fish you can feed a man for a day, but if you teach a man to fish you feed his family for a lifetime applies. I think we must think long and hard before we turn our backs on established Christian work among nationals in the countries in which we have a presence. Some of our brothers in Christ among the nationals could use our encouragement, our support, and our love.
As I try to place myself in the shoes of our missionaries, I believe we must be careful that we don't turn them into a factory machines that churn out numbers of new converts and new works so that the powers that be are satisfied, but instead allow the Spirit of God to work in and through our missionaries to support both the established works of the countries in which they serve, and also be used of God to establish and new works.
These are just my personal thoughts and they are given for dialogue purposes only. And by the way, I have the utmost respect for the missiologists and CPM movers and shakers in our world, realizing that some of the best are right here in the SBC.
In His Grace,
Wade
One could argue that the Reformation began with an emphasis on justification by faith, but the corresponding lack of emphasis on Christian unity, as evidenced by the wars between the Reformers and the Catholics, and the eventual break in fellowship between like-minded Reformers over interpretations regarding Communion (Luther and Melancthon), give illustration to the fact that sometimes we end up 'throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater' when we try to correct a Christian doctrinal or behavioral problem.
The Church Planting Movement within the International Mission Board has brought some appropriate correction to IMB strategy in reaching the world with the gospel. The desire to reach the nations for Christ is in the forefront of our minds, and reaching out to unreached people groups through CPM is working.
But I would issue a caution that we don't unilaterally neglect established work in countries where the IMB has had a presence for years. While maintaining an emphasis on missions and evangelism we must remember our brothers and sisters in Christ who have established Christian churches in their native homelands, many of which were begun by the efforts of our former FMB missionaries.
For instance, in Japan our IMB missionaries are considered to be 'gaikokujin', which means 'outsiders.'
No matter how deeply immersed in Japanese culture the American missionaries are, they will always be considered 'gaikokujin.'
There are, however, tens of thousands of Japanese Christians among the 127 million Japanese who are 'insiders.' Granted, the work by Japanese nationalists has not been near as evangelistic and mission minded as it could have been over the last several decades, but that doesn't mean it can't change.
The Great Commission of our Lord includes the words 'make disciples' and our IMB missionaries on the field would be serving the kingdom well by making disciples of those national Christians who have already come to faith and are working in established churches.
New churches are great. Apostolic missionaries from the IMB are needed. But it would not be a waste of SBC time or resources for our missionaries to be pastors, teachers, instructors, and helpers to those nationals who are in Baptist churches already.
I realize that you cannot pour new wine into old wineskins, but I think we might could miss the blessing of enjoying the old wine if we throw it out. (Maybe this is not such a good analogy in SBC circles :) ).
The old proverb that says if you catch a fish you can feed a man for a day, but if you teach a man to fish you feed his family for a lifetime applies. I think we must think long and hard before we turn our backs on established Christian work among nationals in the countries in which we have a presence. Some of our brothers in Christ among the nationals could use our encouragement, our support, and our love.
As I try to place myself in the shoes of our missionaries, I believe we must be careful that we don't turn them into a factory machines that churn out numbers of new converts and new works so that the powers that be are satisfied, but instead allow the Spirit of God to work in and through our missionaries to support both the established works of the countries in which they serve, and also be used of God to establish and new works.
These are just my personal thoughts and they are given for dialogue purposes only. And by the way, I have the utmost respect for the missiologists and CPM movers and shakers in our world, realizing that some of the best are right here in the SBC.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Thank God Dwight McKissic Is a Southern Baptist
In this day when a junior pastor of a small start up church who fawns over the title senior pastor takes direct shots at a genteel Southern Baptist statesman like Dwight McKissic . . .
In this day when leaders of Southern Baptist Conservatives of Texas will look Pastor Dwight McKissic eye ball to eye ball and glad hand him when they need him for purposes which further a denominational agenda, but not so subtly turn their backs on him when he dares to speak his personal convictions regarding the Word of God which happen to run contrary to pontifical bulls from on high . . .
In this day when self-appointed protectors of spooky Fundamentalism who don't know Dwight McKissic, nor have ever spoken to Dwight, much less shared a meal with him, prayed with him, or spent time in worship with him, proceed to make judgments about him and boldly write of his motives, condemn his actions as a trustee at Southwestern, and then proclaim THEY never would have done what Dwight has done . . .
In this day when Mid-America Seminary seems to have her fingers in the Southern Baptist pie more than Southern or Southwestern Seminary respectively, and when professors, administrators and employees of Mid-America seem to have heard from on high that the SBC would be better off if Southwestern graduate and current SWBTS board member Dwight McKissic would resign . . .
In this day when a great deal of false information, slanderous accusations, and downright unchristian statements are being made against one of the finest African American pastors our convention has ever produced . . .
Allow this person who actually knows Dwight McKissic to say the following five things about him in order to set the unofficial record straight --- :)
Dwight McKissic has a heart of gold.
He cares for pastors. He cares for his church. He cares for the poor and underprivileged. He cares for the lost. He cares for his family. He cares for his enemies. He cares for everybody. There is not a confrontational bone in this man's body. He will stand on truth, speak to sin, but he cringes at the thought that someone thinks he doesn't love them -- or even like them. He paid out of his own pocket for the pastors to attend the Roundtable in Arlington yesterday. That's how much he cares. He knows no more what a temper tantrum is than a colorblind man knows Green from Read (an intentional pun). :)
Dwight McKissic has a tongue of silver.
Yesterday was the first time I ever heard Dwight preach in person. He is a mastor orator. Ezekiel's valley of dry bones were not only made alive centuries ago by the Word of God and the Wind of God, they came alive in my imagination twenty four hours ago as Dwight beautifully articulated, with abounding alliteration and searing similes, that the SBC will only live when the Word of God is proclaimed and the Spirit of God is petitioned. We need more preachers like Dwight McKissic in the SBC.
Dwight McKissic has a mind of steel.
You know his mind is sharp because he always pauses before he speaks. The fool runs off at the mouth, but the wise man listens. Often times during the Roundtable I watched Dwight's eyes as others spoke and this man listened. He soaked up information. Then decisions were made; not rashly, nor in a peurile manner by speaking before he actually had any first hand information. His mind is made of steel because the molten information has time to cool before his silver tongue protrudes.
Dwight McKissic has a voice of velvet.
There were more than a few times I and others had to strain to hear Pastor Dwight. He does not push anyone around. He wins you over by his calm demeanor, his simultaneous glistening and twinkling eyes, and the dimples at the two crowns of his broad smile. He is courteous in tone and resepectful, at all times, in demeanor. Young pastors would do well to imitate this velvet personality style of Pastor Dwight's, or else you may find your influence will actually spread less than frozen butter, a fact that is already coming to the fore for some.
Dwight McKissic has a family of jewels
He has a beautiful, hospitable wife. Sons that honor him in both words and ministry. A church family that reveres and admires him, to the point that some vie to simply carry his Bible or water bottle --- all of which makes Pastor Dwight uncomfortable because he sees himself no different from anyone else in the church. From the custodians to the children, from the secretaries to the seniors, from high and mighty to the forgotten and lowly --- Dwight McKissic sees himself in them all. He is a shephered among all his people, and his people reflect the humility of their leader.
You can evaluate yesterday's Southern Baptist Pastors' and Leaders' Rountable held at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington by reading what others say about it in the mainstream press and via the blogs.
I chose to post today about Cornerstone's pastor, the man I have grown to know and love --- Dwight McKissic.
I have enjoyed writing this post, and yes, it is a little stronger than my usual template - intentionally - because I made a solemn promise to God that if I ever came across a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention that I felt was being mistreated, marginalized, or falsely accused, I would not sit by quietly and let it happen. The words have flown from my fingers easily because I now know Dwight. It's much easier for a Christian to sleep at night when he writes or speaks about a man that he takes the time to get to know personally. If I saw problems that I felt needed to be addressed with Pastor Dwight - I would not use the internet - I would talk to him personally.
I myself see no problems that require my intervention in the life of Dwight McKissic, nor are there any foibles known to me that would prohibit me from writing what I have written in this post. I write what I know in my heart to be true about the man Dwight McKissic.
Add it all up. He has gold in the heart, silver in the tongue, steel in the mind, velvet in the voice and jewels in the family.
Dwight McKissic is one valuable man.
Thank God there are hundreds of pastors who know this to be true and will not sit idly by while any denominational leader, whoever he may be, or any other puerile pontificating person tells us Dwight McKissic needs to leave the Southern Baptist Convention or step down as a leader of the SBC. Get used to him. He's in this for the long haul.
Thank God Dwight McKissic is a Southern Baptist.
Thank God, Dwight McKissic is a Southern Baptist.
Thank God Dwight McKissic IS a Southern Baptist.
In His Grace,
Wade
By the way, for the handful of you who are irate with me for what I have written today because you are the ones who have slammed Dwight publicly by either your spoken words or your written words, please know that I also look forward to working with you in cooperative Southern Baptist gospel ministry.
You just need to get used to fellow Southern Baptists refusing to allow the marginalization or character assassination of godly, conservative men and women who disagree with you. Those days of you being able to do that with impugnity are now over. :)
In this day when leaders of Southern Baptist Conservatives of Texas will look Pastor Dwight McKissic eye ball to eye ball and glad hand him when they need him for purposes which further a denominational agenda, but not so subtly turn their backs on him when he dares to speak his personal convictions regarding the Word of God which happen to run contrary to pontifical bulls from on high . . .
In this day when self-appointed protectors of spooky Fundamentalism who don't know Dwight McKissic, nor have ever spoken to Dwight, much less shared a meal with him, prayed with him, or spent time in worship with him, proceed to make judgments about him and boldly write of his motives, condemn his actions as a trustee at Southwestern, and then proclaim THEY never would have done what Dwight has done . . .
In this day when Mid-America Seminary seems to have her fingers in the Southern Baptist pie more than Southern or Southwestern Seminary respectively, and when professors, administrators and employees of Mid-America seem to have heard from on high that the SBC would be better off if Southwestern graduate and current SWBTS board member Dwight McKissic would resign . . .
In this day when a great deal of false information, slanderous accusations, and downright unchristian statements are being made against one of the finest African American pastors our convention has ever produced . . .
Allow this person who actually knows Dwight McKissic to say the following five things about him in order to set the unofficial record straight --- :)
Dwight McKissic has a heart of gold.
He cares for pastors. He cares for his church. He cares for the poor and underprivileged. He cares for the lost. He cares for his family. He cares for his enemies. He cares for everybody. There is not a confrontational bone in this man's body. He will stand on truth, speak to sin, but he cringes at the thought that someone thinks he doesn't love them -- or even like them. He paid out of his own pocket for the pastors to attend the Roundtable in Arlington yesterday. That's how much he cares. He knows no more what a temper tantrum is than a colorblind man knows Green from Read (an intentional pun). :)
Dwight McKissic has a tongue of silver.
Yesterday was the first time I ever heard Dwight preach in person. He is a mastor orator. Ezekiel's valley of dry bones were not only made alive centuries ago by the Word of God and the Wind of God, they came alive in my imagination twenty four hours ago as Dwight beautifully articulated, with abounding alliteration and searing similes, that the SBC will only live when the Word of God is proclaimed and the Spirit of God is petitioned. We need more preachers like Dwight McKissic in the SBC.
Dwight McKissic has a mind of steel.
You know his mind is sharp because he always pauses before he speaks. The fool runs off at the mouth, but the wise man listens. Often times during the Roundtable I watched Dwight's eyes as others spoke and this man listened. He soaked up information. Then decisions were made; not rashly, nor in a peurile manner by speaking before he actually had any first hand information. His mind is made of steel because the molten information has time to cool before his silver tongue protrudes.
Dwight McKissic has a voice of velvet.
There were more than a few times I and others had to strain to hear Pastor Dwight. He does not push anyone around. He wins you over by his calm demeanor, his simultaneous glistening and twinkling eyes, and the dimples at the two crowns of his broad smile. He is courteous in tone and resepectful, at all times, in demeanor. Young pastors would do well to imitate this velvet personality style of Pastor Dwight's, or else you may find your influence will actually spread less than frozen butter, a fact that is already coming to the fore for some.
Dwight McKissic has a family of jewels
He has a beautiful, hospitable wife. Sons that honor him in both words and ministry. A church family that reveres and admires him, to the point that some vie to simply carry his Bible or water bottle --- all of which makes Pastor Dwight uncomfortable because he sees himself no different from anyone else in the church. From the custodians to the children, from the secretaries to the seniors, from high and mighty to the forgotten and lowly --- Dwight McKissic sees himself in them all. He is a shephered among all his people, and his people reflect the humility of their leader.
You can evaluate yesterday's Southern Baptist Pastors' and Leaders' Rountable held at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington by reading what others say about it in the mainstream press and via the blogs.
I chose to post today about Cornerstone's pastor, the man I have grown to know and love --- Dwight McKissic.
I have enjoyed writing this post, and yes, it is a little stronger than my usual template - intentionally - because I made a solemn promise to God that if I ever came across a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention that I felt was being mistreated, marginalized, or falsely accused, I would not sit by quietly and let it happen. The words have flown from my fingers easily because I now know Dwight. It's much easier for a Christian to sleep at night when he writes or speaks about a man that he takes the time to get to know personally. If I saw problems that I felt needed to be addressed with Pastor Dwight - I would not use the internet - I would talk to him personally.
I myself see no problems that require my intervention in the life of Dwight McKissic, nor are there any foibles known to me that would prohibit me from writing what I have written in this post. I write what I know in my heart to be true about the man Dwight McKissic.
Add it all up. He has gold in the heart, silver in the tongue, steel in the mind, velvet in the voice and jewels in the family.
Dwight McKissic is one valuable man.
Thank God there are hundreds of pastors who know this to be true and will not sit idly by while any denominational leader, whoever he may be, or any other puerile pontificating person tells us Dwight McKissic needs to leave the Southern Baptist Convention or step down as a leader of the SBC. Get used to him. He's in this for the long haul.
Thank God Dwight McKissic is a Southern Baptist.
Thank God, Dwight McKissic is a Southern Baptist.
Thank God Dwight McKissic IS a Southern Baptist.
In His Grace,
Wade
By the way, for the handful of you who are irate with me for what I have written today because you are the ones who have slammed Dwight publicly by either your spoken words or your written words, please know that I also look forward to working with you in cooperative Southern Baptist gospel ministry.
You just need to get used to fellow Southern Baptists refusing to allow the marginalization or character assassination of godly, conservative men and women who disagree with you. Those days of you being able to do that with impugnity are now over. :)
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
A One Year Anniversary
As over one hundred Southern Baptist pastors and leaders meet today at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas to model the ability to cooperate in ministry, I thought it appropriate to repost what I wrote exactly one year ago tomorrow regarding the struggle for the future of our beloved convention.
I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but the words I wrote last December seem to me to have been profoundly prescient. Some who disagree with my views have sought to label me 'moderate' or 'liberal,' which causes those who know me personally and have worked with me in ministry to laugh out loud at such sophomoric attempts to avoid the issue by attacking the messenger.
It won't work.
The Southern Baptist Convention is turning --- for the better. We will continue to maintain our strong stand on the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, but we will no longer allow the political ploys of character assassination and personal marginalization to quiet those who stand for gospel cooperation and kingdom building.
The handwriting is on the wall. A great deal has been accomplished in the last year. There is an irenic conservative serving as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. The International Mission Board is quietly reevaluating the policies that began this controversy, and new people who are conservative but not angry will soon be appointed to boards and committees of our convention.
Great things are happening in the SBC. I recently returned from the mission field where I had opportunity to visit with missionaries in South Asia and the Pacific Rim. The work of Southern Baptist missionaries is fantastic. There is vision, passion and dedication among Southern Baptist field personnel that makes me proud to be a Southern Baptist, and encourages me to give more to both the Lottie Moon and the Cooperative Program.
A new course is being set in the SBC. A bright future is on the horizon. The struggle for our future is by no means over, but significant steps have been taken to insure our continued broad cooperation, freedom of conscience, and a continued emphasis on the essentials --- particularly the spreading of the good news of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me to be appropriate as I break my forty day blogging fast and celebrate this one year anniversary to look back at the post that seemed to resound in the hearts of many Southern Baptists when they first read it.
With a positive spirit and bright hope for the future . . .
I look forward to continue blogging in 2007.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
The following was originally posted on December 6, 2005
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 theses 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
I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but the words I wrote last December seem to me to have been profoundly prescient. Some who disagree with my views have sought to label me 'moderate' or 'liberal,' which causes those who know me personally and have worked with me in ministry to laugh out loud at such sophomoric attempts to avoid the issue by attacking the messenger.
It won't work.
The Southern Baptist Convention is turning --- for the better. We will continue to maintain our strong stand on the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, but we will no longer allow the political ploys of character assassination and personal marginalization to quiet those who stand for gospel cooperation and kingdom building.
The handwriting is on the wall. A great deal has been accomplished in the last year. There is an irenic conservative serving as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. The International Mission Board is quietly reevaluating the policies that began this controversy, and new people who are conservative but not angry will soon be appointed to boards and committees of our convention.
Great things are happening in the SBC. I recently returned from the mission field where I had opportunity to visit with missionaries in South Asia and the Pacific Rim. The work of Southern Baptist missionaries is fantastic. There is vision, passion and dedication among Southern Baptist field personnel that makes me proud to be a Southern Baptist, and encourages me to give more to both the Lottie Moon and the Cooperative Program.
A new course is being set in the SBC. A bright future is on the horizon. The struggle for our future is by no means over, but significant steps have been taken to insure our continued broad cooperation, freedom of conscience, and a continued emphasis on the essentials --- particularly the spreading of the good news of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me to be appropriate as I break my forty day blogging fast and celebrate this one year anniversary to look back at the post that seemed to resound in the hearts of many Southern Baptists when they first read it.
With a positive spirit and bright hope for the future . . .
I look forward to continue blogging in 2007.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
The following was originally posted on December 6, 2005
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 theses 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)