I am beginning my third year as a trustee with the International Mission Board with this July meeting in Richmond, Virginia. I flew to Richmond International Airport Monday afternoon and drove to the International Learning Center outside of Richmond and attended the Trustee Forum (a closed door, confidential meeting) at 3:30. At dinner I ate in the ILC cafeteria with a wonderful missionary couple and their children (unnamed due to security). The dad is an MD and the mom is an RN serving with the IMB in a Security Three country in Central Asia. I always enjoy our July trustee meeting, which is always held at the International Learning Center, because of the opportunities I have to meet wonderful missionary couples and their children like this IMB missionary family. The ILC is where IMB missionaries are trained and oriented for their missionary service. It is located in the beautiful rolling hills of central Virginia.
The chairman of the Board of Trustees, John Floyd, has chosen not to appoint me to a regional or standing committee of the IMB for 2007/2008. This is his perogative as chairman, and I have not made an issue of this, nor will I do so in the future. I am not sure of the purpose for Dr. Floyd not appointing me to serve on an IMB trustee committee, but it is within his rights as chairman, and I respect his decision. I always try to make the most of my time at the trustee meetings, and so during those times that various committees meet to prepare for the official plenary sessions, I make it a point to visit with local pastors, as many missionary candidates, and missionary families as possible. During these times I have been able to establish some wonderful friendships with people from all over the world.
Since no official business can be conducted without full board approval, I make it a point to come early and stay late for every plenary session. I take copious notes of the public business sessions because I have a responsibility to be informed and to vote my conscience on behalf of those Southern Baptist Convention messengers who elected me. Today (Tuesday) during the business session, I took notes that filled fourteen legal pages in my notebook.
New Trustees Introduced
The plenary session began with the new trustees introducing themselves. The new trustees are:
(1). Hershael York (Kentucky) - a professor and pastor.
(2). Waylon Moore (Florida) - a retired pastor.
(3). Mike Penny (North Carolina) - a deputy for a local sherriff's department.
(4). Stuart Bell (Arkansas) - a pastor.
(5). Martha Wilson (Georgia) - housewife.
(6). Charlene High (Virgina) - a registered nurse.
(7). Jan Brown (Georgia) - a schoolteacher.
(8). Keith Stephenson (North Carolina) - a pastor.
Jacob Gross and Debbie Brunson, the other two new trustees, were unable to make the meeting due to church and family obligations respectively.
I was impressed with the new trustees, especially the ladies, all of whom were laypeople in their churches. None of the women had sought to serve as a trustee, much less even thought about it. However, each was articulate, passionate and very clear about their sense of calling from God to serve. I also had the pleasure of meeting Dr. York for the first time. I went to him after the plenary session to meet him and shake his hand. He was on his knees picking up his books. He told me to tell everyone that 'he was on his knees' when I met him. I laughed and told him that nobody would be impressed unless I said 'he was on his knees and kissed my ring.' He didn't laugh quite as much as I did at my own joke, but I truthfully found Dr. York the way I felt he would be - warm and engaging. I enjoyed my conversations with him at the ILC and later at the appointment service at Grove Avenue Baptist Church.
The Report of Tom Elliff to the Board of Trustees
I have been praying for Tom's wife, Jeanie, who is between chemotherapy and radiation treatments, and Tom requested to have his report moved up in the 2:30 plenary session in order to catch a flight home to be with his wife. Tom serves as the pastor at large for the IMB and is in charge of the spiritual and doctrinal development of missionary candidates. Tom first gave an explanation of how the International Mission Board is actively pursuing better ways to interact and relate with churches and state conventions. Partner Services of the IMB, led by Mike Hand, is scheduling a conference in the western United States to help states and local churches in terms of mobilization for missions.
Second, Tom described how he is instructing new missionaries in terms of doctrine in order to 'ensure a higher level of doctrinal integrity on the mission field.' Missionaries are charged with planting Baptist churches, or at least churches that 'embrace what it means to be baptistic in nature.' Tom said that it would be a tragedy to place in the bloodstream of any church planting movement doctrines that would make those new Baptist church plants unhealthy. He said that he teaches missionaries during two day sessions how to understand and explain the following seven major doctrinal truths:
God and the Bible
Man and Sin
Christ and Salvation
The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts
The Church and the Ordinances
Divine Guidance
Ultimate Purpose
Tom said that new missionaries are not antagonistic toward learning 'doctrine,' but rather, they have been sent from some churches that have not fully explained the meaning and significance of these doctrines. Tom explained the use of a 25 question True/False test that is given all new missionaries whereby Tom is able to be alerted to any doctrinal concerns and to also measure the missionaries' progress in doctrinal understanding through his two day session. The test is given both before and after the two day lectures.
Tom read the questions in the plenary session and then explained the answers. Most of the questions were very basic. The only questions which I believe Southern Baptists would express various views over would be those on 'The Church and the Ordinances.' The BFM 2000 and the Scripture itself does not list the 'authority' of the baptizer as an essential for 'Christian baptism,' but yet 'proper authority' was given by Tom as 'an essential' to baptism. Don't get me wrong, I am grateful that we are discussing doctrinal matters with our missionaries, because I agree that doctrine is like the skeleton to the human body, but I believe we must be very, very careful that we do not associate true 'Baptist identity' with doctrines over which Baptists have disagreed over for centuries. As I have already shown that even Southern Baptists have pointed out that Christian baptism is not the door into the local Baptist church, but the local church is to ensure that Christian baptism has occurred prior to granting membership.
There are some people who wonder what all the fuss over baptism is, and why it should make a difference. The best answer I could give is to ask a question. If a missionary leads someone to Christ overseas, in a place where there is not 'a Baptist church', does that missionary have the right to baptize that convert, or must a 'church' be establshed before the proper 'authority' exists? In other words, is it 'local church authority' that gives permission to baptize, or is the gospel evangelist - who has had the privilege to see God convert a sinner through his proclamation of the gospel - the only authority needed to baptize? I would answer that on the day of Pentecost 3000 believed and were baptized and it was only 'later' that they were added to the church. Philip shared the gospel with the Ethiopian and baptized him upon his confession of faith, but there was no 'local church' involved. Gill, Spurgeon, all the English Baptists, the First London Confession, and many, many Southern Baptists from the past and present agree with me. If by 'local church authority' one means that the church must examine a believer's baptism before granting membership -- I would AGREE! But, again, we must be very careful that we don't consider as essential to 'Baptist identity' the belief that the only valid baptism is one that occurs in a Baptist church.
Dr. Rankin's Report to the IMB Trustees
Dr. Rankin gave one of the better reports I have ever heard him give. He spoke clearly on the difference between ministry, evangelism and missions. Feeding the hungry and clothing the poor can be considered ministry, but not evangelism or missions. Sharing the gospel with a lost person with the desire to see conversion to faith in Christ is evangelism. But missions is extending the gospel and kingdom of Jesus Christ, via cross-cultural methods, beyond the location and influence of established evangelical churches.
The International Mission Board has been charged by the Southern Baptist Convention to conduct missions by enlarging the kingdom of God through extending the gospel to unreached people groups so that all the world will have the opportunity to come to faith in Jesus Christ. The stated goal of the IMB was to engage all unreached people groups of 100,000 and over by the end of 2005. That goal has been extended to the end of 2008. In addition, the IMB has established a stated goal of engaging with the gospel all people groups of the world, regardless of size, by the end of 2010.
Dr. Rankin corrected the misperception that the IMB was ONLY concerned with church planting in unreached people groups. This week at the ILC, there is a very large meeting of the Global Medical Alliance, where volunteers are meeting with IMB personnel to strategize, create partnerships and discuss how to use medical missions in new and creative ways. The IMB simply should never allow any ministry or secondary purpose to supercede the main mission assigned by the Southern Baptist Convention - reaching the unreached people groups of the world with the gospel of Christ.
Hershael York asked the only question of Dr. Rankin after the President's report. Hershael asked, "Dr. Rankin, I only ask because I'm curious and have heard this said before. Is your focus on the unreached people groups driven by an eschatalogical motive?" Dr. Rankin answered by quoting Matthew 24:16, "The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached to the whole world, and then the end shall come" and said that eschatology does not compel the IMB's mission (or his), but obedience does. Dr. Rankin said the timing of the coming of the Son is up to the Father and nothing we do will define when He comes. It is up to God. We are simply to obey His commission.
Treasurer David Steverson's Report to the IMB Trustees
David did not give his usual report regarding the finances, but rather told a very gripping story of a man who donated a parcel of property to the IMB. This property was his only possession, and the man was not well off financially. David visited with the man intending to convince him not to give the property, but this man insisted, saying that he wished the proceeds to go to purchasing Bibles for a particular people group who did not have the Bible in their language. He responded to David's encouragement that he keep the land for himself, due to his poor financial condition, by saying, "Don't you understand? These people need the gospel!" David is a very humble Oklahoman who told this story with passion and made us all realize as trustees the value of every dollar given to the IMB. The donated land amounted to $205,609.73. It is now being used to introduce the Bible to an unreached people group, just as the donor wished
Regional Committe Reports
The various regional committees (Central Asia, Pacific Rim, South America, North Africa and Middle East, East Asia, Central America, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Europe, etc . . . ) gave their reports. We accepted the resignation of some missionaries with appreciation, sadly accepted the termination of just a couple of missionaries for conduct unbecoming a missionary, and eventually voted on approving eighty-four new missionaries who were being appointed at the appointment service at 7:00 p.m. at Grove Avenue Baptist Church.
There was no business from the floor, and nothing about the Southern Baptist Convention's Garner motion was even mentioned.
The meeting was adjourned.
Supper at the International Learning Center
The cafeteria is beautiful at the ILC and the cook staff does a great job. I was one of the first in line and by the time I got my tray and drink I entered the cafeteria to find Jerry Corbaley sitting by himself. I went up to him and said, "Jerry, do you mind if I sit next to you." Jerry said, "Truthfully, I do." I was very surprised, but said, "Jerry, I would just like to sit here and visit with you over dinner as a brother in Christ and enjoy your company." Jerry said a few choice things about me and then said that if I sat down he would get up and leave and if I followed him he would make it a 'public issue.' Well, I sat down anyway because I really feel it is important we as trustees get along even if we don't see eye-to-eye on certain things. Jerry promptly stood up, took his tray and moved to another table. As Jerry walked away I felt like saying to him, "Love Is the Most Excellent Way" but I thought silence was the wiser choice.
Trustee Mike Gonzales from Texas was at the table behind me and I asked if I could join him. He graciously said yes and I moved over and had a wonderful dinner with him and his family who had come to Richmond to see Mike's daughter and husband and three kids appointed as a new missionary family that evening. Soon, the Gonzales' left and several trustees came to sit with me including Mike Smith of Texas, Simon Tsoi of Arizona, Ken Kuwahari of Hawaii, Gene Williams of Florida, Rochelle Davis of Michigan, my good friend John Click of Kansas. What began as a really sad supper ended up being one of the most enjoyable times I have had with the IMB. I laughed as these men told stories - enough to fill a notebook of illustrations for me - and I genuinely enjoyed their company. These men reflect the general spirit of the IMB Board of Trustees, and they form one of the reasons I am very hopeful of the future for both the SBC and the IMB.
Personal Visits During Committee Meetings
I took the opportunity today during some of my free time to visit Berea Baptist Church just outside of Rockville, Virginia. This church was established in 1846, just one year after the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention. The West End of Richmond is growing toward this little church and I predict that in the years to come it will experience some great growth. I also visited Mt. Vernon Baptist Church (SBC), one of the larger BGAV churches in Virginia. I was able to visit with some of the staff about the way they are reaching their community. They are doing some very similar things to what we are doing at Emmanuel and the visit was profitable.
The highlight of the day for me, besides the appointment service (see below), was visiting St. John's Church at 23rd and Broad in Richmond. This historic church was the place in 1775 where Patrick Henry gave his famous "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech before the Virginia House of Burgess. St. John's was the only place in Richmond large enough to house the House delegates who were fleeing the King's soldiers. In attendance at St. John's when Patrick Henry gave his speech was George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. One year later the Revolutionary War began when shots were fired at Colcord and Lexington.
I found a loose stone lying on the public walkway around the church and I intend on washing it, labeling it "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death," and using it as a table weight in my office. The history of the church and surrounding grave yard was remarkable. If you are ever in Richmond St. John's is a must stop.
The Appointment Service at Grove Avenue
The appointment service at Dr. Rankin's home church, the Grove Avenue Baptist Church in Richmond, pastored by Dr. Mark Becton, was the highlight of my day. The service was inspirational, the music uplifting, the commitment of the missionaries heartwarming. I especially enjoyed Dr. Rankin calling the children of the missionaries to the front before we prayed for them in their future missionary endeavors. Eighty-four new missionaries were appointed and afterwards I was able to visit with many of them personally during the reception. I also had good visits with several trustees during the reception including Hershael York and Ken Whitten.
The hour is late. I must get to bed. I have to be up early for the final plenary session in the morning. I will be traveling back to Oklahoma tomorrow night, but I will not be able to post until late Thursday night due to ministry and meetings all day Thursday. I will also be unable to respond to any comments.
I hope you can tell by my post that I am very hopeful and positive about the future of the IMB. Though two or three trustees may still struggle with the past, the overwhelming and vast majority of trustees are moving forward.
Progress is being made.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
Some Suggestions from Emmanuel's Net Friends
We are in the process of unveiling new ministry and worship opportunities at Emmanuel for Sundays and Wednesdays beginning September 2, 2007. Without going into all the details, one of the most signficant changes will be switching to three 'live' services on Sunday morning 8:30; 9:45; and 11:00 a.m. instead of just two (currently our third service uses remote telecast of the message). The 11:00 a.m. service, beginning September 2, 2007, will be broadcast live at 11:00 on the internet via 3:16 Networks. 3:16 Networks began as a joint venture with The North American Mission Board and is now the leading provider for internet broadcast streaming for Christian ministries. 3:16 Networks will broadcast our worship service live , and will also archive all previous worship services on our website. 3:16 Ministries will produce podcasts of the weekly sermons, and our church members will be able to receive vidego weekly devotionals and ministry updates from our staff via their email. Alan Riley, the director of web operations for 3:16 Networks, is a wonderful businessman with many years of service as a worship leader in Southern Baptist Churches. I have been very impressed with the 3:16's incredible technological infrastructure, their employees desires for real Christian ministry, and their vision for internet broadcasting to spread the gospel message around the world.
One of the advantages of entering live broadcasting is the ability to broadcast not only worship services, but funerals (at the request of families), weddings (again, if requested by family - so that Great Grandma who can't make it to the ceremony can watch it on a computer) and other church wide events via the internet. We plan to broadcast 'live' the Sam Storm's Conference in October, with guest worship leader Daniel Brymer, and we would encourage you to join us for the conference on your computer at home. 3:16 Networks is the same company that broadcast the Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio, and has had the live broadcast of our convention for the last few years.
This is where we could use a little help from our net friends. Dr. Cyril Kumar, Emmanuel's missionary to Bangalore, India, and now on staff here at Emmanuel while obtaining his Master's of Divinity degree at Southern Seminary, is implementing some of the technological advances we need to make in order to move our church into a new and broader phase of ministry at Emmanuel. Dr. Kumar has been working on our internet site and has so far proposed changing our home page from this -- to -- this design which will offically launch on September 2, 2007 (the scroll links are not yet operational).
Here is where you can help Dr. Kumar and our staff with some of the design work on our site by making a few comments that relate to the following questions.
(1). Have you ever watched a regularly scheduled worship service of another church via the internet (either live or archived)?
(2). Would you watch 'live' a Bible conference, revival service, or special event of interest to you if it were offered via 'live,' real time video streaming through our church's web site?
(3). When you go to a church's web site, what is it that you look for first?
(4). Do you have any specific suggestions on making a web site more user friendly?
(5). If you were a member of a church that provided the ability to real time 'live' broadcast weddings or funerals so that anyone, anywhere, could watch the service or ceremony, would you take advantage of that ministry opportunity for you and your family?
Feel free to answer any or all of the questions, or give us comments that aren't even related to the questions above. We would be interested in your thoughts. Sometimes the best nuggets of advice come from people not affiliated with our church. This post will remain up until late Tuesday night when I will post from Richmond, Virginia regarding the first day's plenary business session of the International Mission Board trustee meeting, which will be held next Monday through Wednesdsay, July 16-18, 2007, in Richmond, Virginia.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
One of the advantages of entering live broadcasting is the ability to broadcast not only worship services, but funerals (at the request of families), weddings (again, if requested by family - so that Great Grandma who can't make it to the ceremony can watch it on a computer) and other church wide events via the internet. We plan to broadcast 'live' the Sam Storm's Conference in October, with guest worship leader Daniel Brymer, and we would encourage you to join us for the conference on your computer at home. 3:16 Networks is the same company that broadcast the Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio, and has had the live broadcast of our convention for the last few years.
This is where we could use a little help from our net friends. Dr. Cyril Kumar, Emmanuel's missionary to Bangalore, India, and now on staff here at Emmanuel while obtaining his Master's of Divinity degree at Southern Seminary, is implementing some of the technological advances we need to make in order to move our church into a new and broader phase of ministry at Emmanuel. Dr. Kumar has been working on our internet site and has so far proposed changing our home page from this -- to -- this design which will offically launch on September 2, 2007 (the scroll links are not yet operational).
Here is where you can help Dr. Kumar and our staff with some of the design work on our site by making a few comments that relate to the following questions.
(1). Have you ever watched a regularly scheduled worship service of another church via the internet (either live or archived)?
(2). Would you watch 'live' a Bible conference, revival service, or special event of interest to you if it were offered via 'live,' real time video streaming through our church's web site?
(3). When you go to a church's web site, what is it that you look for first?
(4). Do you have any specific suggestions on making a web site more user friendly?
(5). If you were a member of a church that provided the ability to real time 'live' broadcast weddings or funerals so that anyone, anywhere, could watch the service or ceremony, would you take advantage of that ministry opportunity for you and your family?
Feel free to answer any or all of the questions, or give us comments that aren't even related to the questions above. We would be interested in your thoughts. Sometimes the best nuggets of advice come from people not affiliated with our church. This post will remain up until late Tuesday night when I will post from Richmond, Virginia regarding the first day's plenary business session of the International Mission Board trustee meeting, which will be held next Monday through Wednesdsay, July 16-18, 2007, in Richmond, Virginia.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Why Some Baptists Stumble Regarding Baptism
I have repeatedly said over the last several months that some Southern Baptists are attempting to push our convention to a completely erroneous and faulty view of baptism. A few get upset when I identify the faulty view as 'Landmarkism,' so I will attempt to highlight the concerns I have without the nomenclature in this post.
There is a very subtle and dangerous movement within the Southern Baptist Convention to make people accept the belief that baptism is the 'door of entry' into the local church. In other words, some are teaching the false doctrine that when a person is baptized he 'joins' the local church. This view is dangerous because it is a distorted view of the teaching of Scripture, it erroneously identifies believer's baptism with the believer's relationship to the 'church' rather than to Christ, and causes proponents of this view to have a very narrow, sectarian view of what constitutes a 'true' and suitable church in which a Christian ought to be baptized (i.e. 'only in a Southern Baptist church or one like it').
This view is so historically non-Baptist it is reflection of our poor understanding of our own history as Baptists that anyone would even begin to think this view even approach being biblical. Rev. Samuel Howard Ford, LL.D., the 19th Century Southern Baptist pastor and editor of The Western Recorder has written a clear, concise and corrective article on this subject. Dr. Ford was a Hebrew and Syriac scholar and one of our forefathers who ought to respected and heard. My father recently reminded me of this article on the subject of "Does Baptism Admit to Membership in a Gospel Church" and I offer to every Southern Baptist pastor as the definitive answer to anyone who would attempt to make you believe it does.
It is absolutely essential that Southern Baptists return to our historic roots and a Biblical perspective on baptism and steadfastly resist any temptation to move beyond our BFM 2000 on the requisites for Christian baptism.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
There is a very subtle and dangerous movement within the Southern Baptist Convention to make people accept the belief that baptism is the 'door of entry' into the local church. In other words, some are teaching the false doctrine that when a person is baptized he 'joins' the local church. This view is dangerous because it is a distorted view of the teaching of Scripture, it erroneously identifies believer's baptism with the believer's relationship to the 'church' rather than to Christ, and causes proponents of this view to have a very narrow, sectarian view of what constitutes a 'true' and suitable church in which a Christian ought to be baptized (i.e. 'only in a Southern Baptist church or one like it').
This view is so historically non-Baptist it is reflection of our poor understanding of our own history as Baptists that anyone would even begin to think this view even approach being biblical. Rev. Samuel Howard Ford, LL.D., the 19th Century Southern Baptist pastor and editor of The Western Recorder has written a clear, concise and corrective article on this subject. Dr. Ford was a Hebrew and Syriac scholar and one of our forefathers who ought to respected and heard. My father recently reminded me of this article on the subject of "Does Baptism Admit to Membership in a Gospel Church" and I offer to every Southern Baptist pastor as the definitive answer to anyone who would attempt to make you believe it does.
Does Baptism Admit To Membership In A Gospel Church?
By Samuel H. Ford, 1899
We must turn to the other general misconception of what constitutes a person a member of the church of Christ.
The Reformers, and Protestants generally, with all their apologies for and explanations of the term invisible as meaning the unseen work or "door" into that church, fell back on the patristic doctrine that "The Sacrament of Baptism was the door into the church" with no term to distinguish it. "In baptism wherein I was made a member of the Church," read the Episcopal Catechism, "whereby they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church." But we need not quote from the confessions and disciplines of the Protestant communions to prove this. It is admitted by {them} that Baptism admits into, or is the door into the Church.
Now, according to the teachings of the {New} Testament and the essential nature of and obligations of church membership, this (which some Baptists hold) is a misconception.
Dr. Dagg has well said: "Baptism is not like the Lord's Supper, a sacred rite. It signifies the fellowship of individual believers with Christ, not the fellowship of believers with one another. The obligation to be baptized is independent of the obligations to form sacred relations, and is prior [to it]. Baptism is therefore a qualification for admission into a church of external organization, but it does not confer membership." (in J. L. Reynolds', Church Polity..., p.48.)
The plain statement in regard to the church in Jerusalem should at once end all controversy about this: "They that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Not that all these were baptized on that same day. Many, perhaps most of them, may have been baptized previously, but they were added to the church in fellowship. Baptism, as well as conversion, or receiving the word, was an indispensable prerequisite, but neither the one nor the other added these thousands, nor Lydia, nor the Jailer, nor the Eunuch, to the church. This was a distinct thing -- the expression of fellowship and assumption of mutual covenant obligations.
If the following condensed objection to the general record, especially of pedo-baptists, be considered, we feel assured that the dogma of baptism, as the door into the church, will be abandoned.
1st. If baptism be the door into the Christian church, then all whom John baptized (allowing his baptism to be Gospel baptism) were, by the reception of this ordinance, made members of some church; but no such intimation is given in the Scriptures. The object of John's baptism is declared to be, "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
2nd. If baptism be the door into the church then there is no such thing as putting a person out of the church; for in order to do this, he must be unbaptized, But his cannot be done.
3rd. If baptism be the door into the church, can one person constitute a church? The Christian public have answered, "no." And, "no" responds {in} every passage of the divine oracles, wherever the name church is mentioned. To what church, then, did the first disciple, whom John baptized, belong? To what church, the first, in every instance, where none had been previously constituted? The answer is obvious, "to no church." If then, the first person, whom John baptized, was not, by the reception of this ordinance, constituted a member of some church; the second was not, nor the third, nor any subsequent subject.
4th. In the account of the Eunuch's baptism, Acts 8, no mention is made of his being added to any particular church; nor have we any reason to believe, that he considered the ordinance in this light. Indeed, as he was traveling, and at considerable distance from his own country, such a relation, if we suppose it to have been consummated at that time, could be of but little avail to him. Nor, is there anything in the account of other baptisms, which make this an initiatory ordinance, or door into the church. It is said, Acts 2:41: "Then they that gladly received the word, were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." In the 47th verse: "And the Lord added to the church daily, such as should be saved." But how were they added? Here we are not informed. We are told, "they that gladly received the word were baptized," that, "they were added to the disciples" and the Lord, "added to the church;" but, it is not said, that they were added "by baptism," any more than "by gladly receiving the word." Both were prerequisites; but neither initiatory.
If then, baptism be not the door into the visible church of Christ, it may be asked, "What is? We answer, nothing more nor less, than fellowship. By fellowship we are admitted; and by disfellowship, we are excluded. "Is then a person, who is received into fellowship as a Christian, to be considered as a church member?" We answer, no; but he must be fellowshipped, as an orthodox, baptized, and regular Christian.
We have endeavored to state as clearly and briefly as we could the two errors -- the one of the Protestants, the other of the Romanists, in regard to what constitutes any one a member of a church. The one affirmed that it was the internal work of grace, the other that it was the sacrament -- baptism. The first, however, was so explained as to mean admission into an "invisible church," because the "door," or that which conferred membership, was invisible. This was borne out by the presence of sponsors, who answered for the infant: "I believe, I renounce the devil," etc., and then as by this profession of faith FOR the infant, who, already a member of the invisible church, was baptized as the door into the actual one.
O, it's all wrong, unscriptural, misleading, and absurd. A church of Christ is a company of baptized believers in faith and fellowship, united to edify each other, and advance the cause and kingdom of Christ. Nothing else is a church.
[From a microfilm copy of the Christian Repository, November 1899, pp. 652-4.}
It is absolutely essential that Southern Baptists return to our historic roots and a Biblical perspective on baptism and steadfastly resist any temptation to move beyond our BFM 2000 on the requisites for Christian baptism.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Line Has Been Drawn for Us in the SBC
This morning I was returning to Enid from delivering a couple of books to my friend Harold Holden, whose studio is located north of town, when I noticed a new sign on the side of Highway 81 about five miles north of the city limits of Enid.
The sign said:
I had forgotten that the Missouri Compromise Line reached into modern day Oklahoma (what was in 1820 part of Arkansas Territory).
The Missouri Compromise was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The free states were becoming concerned that too many slave states were being entered into the union, and the balance was shifting toward slavery because of the number of congressional delegates from these new slave states. The Missouri Compromise insured that any new states from the Western Territories would be free states.
The little strip of what we now call Northern Oklahoma, where slavery was forbidden, is where I live. Even when Congress created Indian Territory, slavery was barred in the land of the red people north of the 36°30' Missouri Compromise line (the Choctaw word for 'land of red people' is "Oklahoma").
In an April 22, 1820 letter to John Holmes, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the division of the country created by the Compromise line would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union. He predicted, forty years before it occurred, what we know as the Civil War. Jefferson wrote:
Pay close attention to Jefferson's words: A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.
I believe there are some extraordinary parallels with the 1820 Missouri Compromise and the 2007 SBC. A line has been drawn in the sand and many in the SBC are saying, "You will go no further in an attempt to enslave us to your views on secondary and tertiary matters." The angry passions of men and women have been aroused and every new irritation seems to make the division only deeper.
How will it end? Only the Lord knows, but it is my prayer that rather than a civil war, Southern Baptists will be able to move forward in a spirit of cooperation as we fulfill our gospel mission. But make no mistake - the line has been drawn - and it is effectively known as the Garner motion.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
The sign said:
The Historic Missouri Compromise Line of 1820
36°30' Latitude
I had forgotten that the Missouri Compromise Line reached into modern day Oklahoma (what was in 1820 part of Arkansas Territory).
The Missouri Compromise was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The free states were becoming concerned that too many slave states were being entered into the union, and the balance was shifting toward slavery because of the number of congressional delegates from these new slave states. The Missouri Compromise insured that any new states from the Western Territories would be free states.
The little strip of what we now call Northern Oklahoma, where slavery was forbidden, is where I live. Even when Congress created Indian Territory, slavery was barred in the land of the red people north of the 36°30' Missouri Compromise line (the Choctaw word for 'land of red people' is "Oklahoma").
In an April 22, 1820 letter to John Holmes, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the division of the country created by the Compromise line would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union. He predicted, forty years before it occurred, what we know as the Civil War. Jefferson wrote:
"... (This Compromise), like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."
Pay close attention to Jefferson's words: A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.
I believe there are some extraordinary parallels with the 1820 Missouri Compromise and the 2007 SBC. A line has been drawn in the sand and many in the SBC are saying, "You will go no further in an attempt to enslave us to your views on secondary and tertiary matters." The angry passions of men and women have been aroused and every new irritation seems to make the division only deeper.
How will it end? Only the Lord knows, but it is my prayer that rather than a civil war, Southern Baptists will be able to move forward in a spirit of cooperation as we fulfill our gospel mission. But make no mistake - the line has been drawn - and it is effectively known as the Garner motion.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Patience Is the Operative Word for the SBC
This next week, Monday through Wednesday, July 16-18, in Richmond, Virginia, the trustees of the International Mission Board will convene to conduct missions business. I do not intend to make any motion at the meeting regarding the new guidelines prohibiting the appointment of missionaries who possess a private prayer language or who have not been baptized in a Southern Baptist Church (or one that believes in 'eternal security').
The mood and tone of the board continues to change. New trustees are elected every year, but those who pushed for the new guidelines are still in trustee leadership until 2008, including Chairman John Floyd, who was the Chairman of the particular Personnel Committee that was pushing the new guidelines when I joined the board in 2005. I commend John for his gracious leadership, but he and I are on polar opposite ends of the belief spectrum when it comes to the board's authority to establish doctrinal requisites that exceed the BFM 2000.
I believe the right thing to do is to reverse the guideline that forbids the appointment of missionaries who have a private prayer language, while reinforcing the former policy that any missionary will face disciplinary action for any of the gifts that are overemphasized or abused publicly. Further, any baptismal guideline that subverts the authority of the local church's acceptance of believer's baptism is unwise and ought be reversed. If a Southern Baptist missionary candidate is trusting in Christ alone for salvation, has publicly confessed his faith in Christ through believer's baptism by immersion, and that candidates local Southern Baptist church to which he belongs has accepted his Christian baptism, then I believe we as a board of trustees should fall under the authority of that local church because the IMB board of trustees is not a higher authority on the matter of baptism than the candidate's local church.
It can no longer be argued that the decision of the IMB board of trustees reflects the majority views of the SBC. LIFEWAY's survey took that argument away. It can also no longer be argued that the SBC desires the board to go beyond the BFM 2000 in establishing missionary service criteria - the Garner motion took that away. All that can be said now is what I have been saying for two years: There seem to be some who wish the convention to reflect their own personal and specific doctrinal viewpoints on the gifts (cessationism) and baptism (the 'authority' of the baptizer is as important as the heart of the candidate).
I am patient. I will wait it out to insure we remain a cooperative convention, open to various interpretations of tertiary doctrines as we work together around the essentials of the gospel for the furtherance of the kingdom of Christ through cooperative efforts in missions and evangelism.
In His Grace,
Wade
The mood and tone of the board continues to change. New trustees are elected every year, but those who pushed for the new guidelines are still in trustee leadership until 2008, including Chairman John Floyd, who was the Chairman of the particular Personnel Committee that was pushing the new guidelines when I joined the board in 2005. I commend John for his gracious leadership, but he and I are on polar opposite ends of the belief spectrum when it comes to the board's authority to establish doctrinal requisites that exceed the BFM 2000.
I believe the right thing to do is to reverse the guideline that forbids the appointment of missionaries who have a private prayer language, while reinforcing the former policy that any missionary will face disciplinary action for any of the gifts that are overemphasized or abused publicly. Further, any baptismal guideline that subverts the authority of the local church's acceptance of believer's baptism is unwise and ought be reversed. If a Southern Baptist missionary candidate is trusting in Christ alone for salvation, has publicly confessed his faith in Christ through believer's baptism by immersion, and that candidates local Southern Baptist church to which he belongs has accepted his Christian baptism, then I believe we as a board of trustees should fall under the authority of that local church because the IMB board of trustees is not a higher authority on the matter of baptism than the candidate's local church.
It can no longer be argued that the decision of the IMB board of trustees reflects the majority views of the SBC. LIFEWAY's survey took that argument away. It can also no longer be argued that the SBC desires the board to go beyond the BFM 2000 in establishing missionary service criteria - the Garner motion took that away. All that can be said now is what I have been saying for two years: There seem to be some who wish the convention to reflect their own personal and specific doctrinal viewpoints on the gifts (cessationism) and baptism (the 'authority' of the baptizer is as important as the heart of the candidate).
I am patient. I will wait it out to insure we remain a cooperative convention, open to various interpretations of tertiary doctrines as we work together around the essentials of the gospel for the furtherance of the kingdom of Christ through cooperative efforts in missions and evangelism.
In His Grace,
Wade
Monday, July 09, 2007
A Great Book on Marriage For Use In Counseling
As a pastor of a fairly large congregration, I am always looking for books that I can recommend to couples who come to me for marriage counseling. When I meet with a couple for the first time I usually try to give them an assignment of reading a good book on marriage, and tell them to complete the task before they try to schedule a second appointment. This helps me see very quickly who is, and who isn't, serious about getting help for their marriage.
Needless to say I am always looking for good books on the subject of marriage, particularly helpful books that give practical, Biblical advice on how to restore a broken marriage. I have recently discovered an outstanding book on the subject of marriage entitled The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another: A Christian Hedonist Guide to a Happy Marriage by F. Darby Livingston. I believe this book will be extraordinarily helpful to those couples who find they have no more 'feelings' for the person they married. Darby provides a virtual 'how to' manual for those couples whose relationship has grown cold - and the reason I like the book so much is because it doesn't contain a list of 'dos' and 'donts' for the husband or the wife. Rather, the book shows couples with brilliant clarity how God has designed marriage to magnify the truth and worth and beauty and greatness of God. Darby shows that a passion for the supremacy of Jesus Christ displayed in the gospel is the fountain that sustains a God-glorifying, enjoyable and durable marriage. No marriage that rivals God's glory is going to be a happy one.
In short, this book will show every husband and wife that marriage will not be deeply pleasurable - in every good sense of the word - until both the husband and wife quit looking at each other to find his or her pleasure.
Stephen Davis, Executive Director of the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana commends this book saying:
Darby Livingston is the founding pastor and a counselor at Come as You are Fellowship in Union City, Ohio. Darby is also co-founder of Joyful Hope Ministries, a cell-church planting ministry, and a Christian author. He is happily married to Amanda and they have five young children.
Order "The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another: A Christian Hedonist Guide to a Happy Marriage" here.
You'll be glad you did.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Needless to say I am always looking for good books on the subject of marriage, particularly helpful books that give practical, Biblical advice on how to restore a broken marriage. I have recently discovered an outstanding book on the subject of marriage entitled The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another: A Christian Hedonist Guide to a Happy Marriage by F. Darby Livingston. I believe this book will be extraordinarily helpful to those couples who find they have no more 'feelings' for the person they married. Darby provides a virtual 'how to' manual for those couples whose relationship has grown cold - and the reason I like the book so much is because it doesn't contain a list of 'dos' and 'donts' for the husband or the wife. Rather, the book shows couples with brilliant clarity how God has designed marriage to magnify the truth and worth and beauty and greatness of God. Darby shows that a passion for the supremacy of Jesus Christ displayed in the gospel is the fountain that sustains a God-glorifying, enjoyable and durable marriage. No marriage that rivals God's glory is going to be a happy one.
In short, this book will show every husband and wife that marriage will not be deeply pleasurable - in every good sense of the word - until both the husband and wife quit looking at each other to find his or her pleasure.
Stephen Davis, Executive Director of the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana commends this book saying:
"Is your marriage blessed, joyful, delightful, intoxicating? That’s how God wants it to be. God has provided everything husbands and wives need to experience this kind of intimacy and bring Him glory at the same time. This book shows how a passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ is the fountain that sustains a Godglorifying, enjoyable and durable marriage. “Looking for fresh insights on the joy and glory of marriage as God intended? Then this book is for you. Pastor Darby brings excellent biblical scholarship and thoughtful, practical, wholesome ideas for improving your marriage relationship. None of that syrupy stuff with no real substance, but wise counsel from God’s Word challenging couples to experience God’s best as He designed it to be.”
Darby Livingston is the founding pastor and a counselor at Come as You are Fellowship in Union City, Ohio. Darby is also co-founder of Joyful Hope Ministries, a cell-church planting ministry, and a Christian author. He is happily married to Amanda and they have five young children.
Order "The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another: A Christian Hedonist Guide to a Happy Marriage" here.
You'll be glad you did.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Sunday, July 08, 2007
"We Fight And Sometimes Die So That Our Families Don't Have To" Marcus Golcyznski
This amazing picture has drawn a lot of comments from readers of the Nashville paper, The Tennessean. One of the hundreds of letters received is from a man who attended the funeral where this young boy received the flag in honor of his father.
Dear Tennessean:
The Tennessean's April 5 photograph of young Christian Golczynski accepting the American flag from Marine Lt. Col. Ric Thompson is one of the most moving and emotion provoking images I have ever seen.
My wife and I attended funeral services for Christian's father, Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski, on April 4, along with our six year-old son, dozens of Marines, and several hundred others who came to pay tribute to this fallen hero.
As one would expect, many of your readers were touched by this incredible picture. Staff Sergeant Golczynski had previously served one full tour in Iraq. Shortly before his death on March 27 he wrote to his family that he had volunteered to do this a second time due to our deep desire to finish the job we started. In his letter he said, "We fight and sometimes die so that our families don't have to." Tragically, Staff Sergeant Golczynski had only two weeks remaining on his second tour. We look at the photograph of Christian every day. It is displayed prominently in our home. Our hearts ache for Christian and for all those who have lost loved ones in this controversial conflict.
Our nation is at a historical crossroads. Do we call an end to the struggle in Iraq or press on? Staff Sergeant Golczynski eloquently told his son how he felt about not giving up. Perhaps there is a lesson for all of us in this man's life and the choices he made. He was undeniably a man of tremendous courage and conviction. America must now choose whether to complete the job.
When looking at the face of Christian Golczynski I am reminded that doing what is right is not always easy and doing what is easy is not always right. Christian's dad knew that too.
James Drescher
I pray my own children never take for granted their freedoms, or the freedoms of other people in democratic societies, obtained by the sacrifice of men and women like Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski. Our prayers are with the Golcyzynski family, particularly young Christian Golczynski.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Thursday, July 05, 2007
On Caveats, Consistency and Good Compromise
There has been a particularly thoughtful dialogue over at SBC Outpost on a problem identified by Alan Cross as "Gnostic Creedalism Creeping into the SBC." Alan says,
Dr. Greg Welty, a professor at Southwestern Seminary and one who believes that the BFM 2000 should serve as the minimum doctrinal standard of cooperation and that SBC agencies and institutions should have every right to add other doctrinal requisites as they please, responds to Alan's concerns by bringing yours truly into the conversation. Dr. Welty says,
Dr. Welty must be referring to the two minor points of doctrine in the BFM 2000 that I have publicly stated disagreement over. The BFM 2000 teaches 'closed communion' and I and my church both believe and practice 'modified open communion.' The BFM 2000 also teaches God does not condemn a human until that human being personally and actually sins, but I and my church congregation both teach and believe that condemnation comes to every human being because of the sin of one man (Adam) regardless of personal or actual sins. Personal sins only compound the judgment already in place.
I believe that the majority of Southern Baptists agree with me on the first caveat, and probably close to a majority of Southern Baptists agree with me on the second caveat. My point is simply that there is disagreement on these two minor doctrines among Southern Baptists. However, I believe these two disagreements illustrate the difference between a confession and a creed. You can't disagree with a creed and keep your denominational identity. But since Baptists are a confessional people, and the BFM 2000 is a confession, cooperation can occur in the midst of minor differences over doctrines that are not essential to the Christian faith or Baptist identity. The two tertiary doctrines I have identified in the BFM 2000 are examples of how not every doctrine in the BFM 2000 is an essential doctrine of the faith or Southern Baptist identity. I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Southern Baptists would agree with me, because many of us are beginning to awaken to one of the major problems in our convention in recent years: Some Southern Baptists are attempting to make every doctrine an 'essential' doctrine and removing people who disagree. Even the BFM 2000 in its preamble states:
When I, or anyone else for that matter, expresses written caveats to the BFM 2000 on minor doctrines, we are displaying a clear Southern Baptist identity. :) But here is where the rub comes: What doctrines are to be considered 'minor' and 'who' is the ultimate final authority on the subject? Dr. Welty asks these same questions in a little more accusatory tone when he says to Alan:
In reading all the comments offered by Dr. Welty, I can't help but feel he must be confusing Alan Cross with me. Poor Alan. :)
Alan has never given any written caveats to the BFM 2000. I have. So, to me, it seems rather silly for Dr. Welty to ask Alan to 'come clean.' However, since Dr. Welty has used me as the example of someone who 'can't even manage to affirm the BFM 2000 as a *minimal* standard' I think I will answer his charge of 'inconsistency' and show how we as Southern Baptists can be very consistent in this matter of who the ultimate authority is regarding the doctrinal boundaries of cooperation.
The messengers of the SBC make the decision on who should serve as trustees of their insitutions, not fellow trustees (at least, that is the way it is supposed to work). If a trustee has caveats to the BFM 2000, then that trustee should make those known to the convention as a whole, and if the convention wishes for that person to continue to serve as a trustee, even with his stated caveats, then let them give their approval.
The same should be true of any board of trustees who wishes to go beyond the BFM 2000 in establishing doctrinal requisites for Southern Baptist cooperation.
By the way, the boards of trustees of SBC agencies and entities have already been advised by the convention to bring all doctrinal requisites beyond the BFM 2000 to the convention for approval. This is clearly what the Garner motion was all about -- and it passed by a 58% majority of voting messengers. I expect boards who take seriously the wishes of the convention to do just as the convention asked.
And by the way, I have absolutely no problem falling under the same rules. I should be brought before the convention. In fact, I predict I will be brought before the convention in two years when I am up for renomination as a trustee of the IMB. My written disagreements regarding two minor doctrines in the BFM 2000 are known, and will be made known. Let's see whether the convention votes to keep me as a trustee. If the convention determines I should serve, we will all know, by that one act, that the BFM 2000 is a confession, not a creed, and cooperation in the SBC is around the gospel and the essential doctrines of the faith with room for disagreement over minor doctrines.
I, of course, will abide by the convention's wishes since I am a duly elected trustee of the SBC. Likewise, every other duly elected trustee, and trustee boards as a whole, should also abide by the wishes of our convention. In light of the adoption of the Garner motion at the 2007 convention, every SBC board of trustees should make it their official practice to never implement doctrinal requisites that exceed the BFM 2000 without first getting convention approval.
That, Dr. Welty, is consistency. And I think you will find that a 'Clear Baptist Identity' will be discovered in the process. Baptists are people who affirm the essentials of the faith, but give freedom to disagree in areas of non-essentials, for we are a confessional people, not a creedal people.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
There are voices of substantial weight in SBC life who are telling us that there is a “Clear Baptist Identity” beyond what is articulated in the BF&M. When we ask what it is, they tell us that it involves doctrine regarding the church, private prayer language, and baptism, among other things. It has shown up in actions taken by trustee boards of our entities. But, this “Clear Baptist Identity” is known as being absolute nowhere else in Baptist life, least of all in our confession of faith.
Dr. Greg Welty, a professor at Southwestern Seminary and one who believes that the BFM 2000 should serve as the minimum doctrinal standard of cooperation and that SBC agencies and institutions should have every right to add other doctrinal requisites as they please, responds to Alan's concerns by bringing yours truly into the conversation. Dr. Welty says,
Wade speaks of dividing up the BFM into “essentials” and “non-essentials”. But the BFM says in its own preamble that the doctrines contained within it “are doctrines we hold precious and as *essential* to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice”
Dr. Welty must be referring to the two minor points of doctrine in the BFM 2000 that I have publicly stated disagreement over. The BFM 2000 teaches 'closed communion' and I and my church both believe and practice 'modified open communion.' The BFM 2000 also teaches God does not condemn a human until that human being personally and actually sins, but I and my church congregation both teach and believe that condemnation comes to every human being because of the sin of one man (Adam) regardless of personal or actual sins. Personal sins only compound the judgment already in place.
I believe that the majority of Southern Baptists agree with me on the first caveat, and probably close to a majority of Southern Baptists agree with me on the second caveat. My point is simply that there is disagreement on these two minor doctrines among Southern Baptists. However, I believe these two disagreements illustrate the difference between a confession and a creed. You can't disagree with a creed and keep your denominational identity. But since Baptists are a confessional people, and the BFM 2000 is a confession, cooperation can occur in the midst of minor differences over doctrines that are not essential to the Christian faith or Baptist identity. The two tertiary doctrines I have identified in the BFM 2000 are examples of how not every doctrine in the BFM 2000 is an essential doctrine of the faith or Southern Baptist identity. I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Southern Baptists would agree with me, because many of us are beginning to awaken to one of the major problems in our convention in recent years: Some Southern Baptists are attempting to make every doctrine an 'essential' doctrine and removing people who disagree. Even the BFM 2000 in its preamble states:
That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
When I, or anyone else for that matter, expresses written caveats to the BFM 2000 on minor doctrines, we are displaying a clear Southern Baptist identity. :) But here is where the rub comes: What doctrines are to be considered 'minor' and 'who' is the ultimate final authority on the subject? Dr. Welty asks these same questions in a little more accusatory tone when he says to Alan:
You want the BFM to be a maximal standard, beyond which no one can go, but you can’t even manage to affirm it as a *minimal* standard! Which position shows less respect for the BFM? I’ll let you make that call. . . If you and others don’t come clean about these palpable inconsistencies in your position, it’s going to be hard to take your criticisms seriously.
In reading all the comments offered by Dr. Welty, I can't help but feel he must be confusing Alan Cross with me. Poor Alan. :)
Alan has never given any written caveats to the BFM 2000. I have. So, to me, it seems rather silly for Dr. Welty to ask Alan to 'come clean.' However, since Dr. Welty has used me as the example of someone who 'can't even manage to affirm the BFM 2000 as a *minimal* standard' I think I will answer his charge of 'inconsistency' and show how we as Southern Baptists can be very consistent in this matter of who the ultimate authority is regarding the doctrinal boundaries of cooperation.
The messengers of the SBC make the decision on who should serve as trustees of their insitutions, not fellow trustees (at least, that is the way it is supposed to work). If a trustee has caveats to the BFM 2000, then that trustee should make those known to the convention as a whole, and if the convention wishes for that person to continue to serve as a trustee, even with his stated caveats, then let them give their approval.
The same should be true of any board of trustees who wishes to go beyond the BFM 2000 in establishing doctrinal requisites for Southern Baptist cooperation.
By the way, the boards of trustees of SBC agencies and entities have already been advised by the convention to bring all doctrinal requisites beyond the BFM 2000 to the convention for approval. This is clearly what the Garner motion was all about -- and it passed by a 58% majority of voting messengers. I expect boards who take seriously the wishes of the convention to do just as the convention asked.
And by the way, I have absolutely no problem falling under the same rules. I should be brought before the convention. In fact, I predict I will be brought before the convention in two years when I am up for renomination as a trustee of the IMB. My written disagreements regarding two minor doctrines in the BFM 2000 are known, and will be made known. Let's see whether the convention votes to keep me as a trustee. If the convention determines I should serve, we will all know, by that one act, that the BFM 2000 is a confession, not a creed, and cooperation in the SBC is around the gospel and the essential doctrines of the faith with room for disagreement over minor doctrines.
I, of course, will abide by the convention's wishes since I am a duly elected trustee of the SBC. Likewise, every other duly elected trustee, and trustee boards as a whole, should also abide by the wishes of our convention. In light of the adoption of the Garner motion at the 2007 convention, every SBC board of trustees should make it their official practice to never implement doctrinal requisites that exceed the BFM 2000 without first getting convention approval.
That, Dr. Welty, is consistency. And I think you will find that a 'Clear Baptist Identity' will be discovered in the process. Baptists are people who affirm the essentials of the faith, but give freedom to disagree in areas of non-essentials, for we are a confessional people, not a creedal people.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
'We Know Who You Are and What You Expect From Us' Is Code for 'We Know Who We Want You To Be'
Bob Cleveland has pointed out to me this article by Bob Terry, editor of The Alabama Baptist.
Mr. Terry says this about the adoption of the Garner Motion on the Baptist Faith and Message at this summer's Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio:
Anyone who reads the transcript of the debate in a non-biased, non-partisian fashion would draw the same conclusion of Mr. Terry. Dr. Al Mohler seemed to dismiss the messengers concerns by saying in his seminary 'report,' “We know who you are and what you expect of us". The editor of the editor of The Alabama Baptist responds to Dr. Mohler's statement with erudite logic:
I would simply add if Dr. Mohler knows 'who we are' (meaning 'Southern Baptists' who don't practice 'tongues' in public or private), then why does he have C.J. Mahaney speak at his Southern's campus chapels and revivals - a man who not only speaks in tongues but advocates quite clearly that any teaching this gift has ceased is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.
Read carefully. I am one of C.J. Mahaney's biggest fans. I am glad he speaks at Southern. What bothers me is that Dr. Mohler desires the freedom to have a person who speaks in tongues to be able to teach his seminary students, but he believes it is appropriate for a trustee board to forbid Southern Baptists who speak in tongues PRIVATELY from serving on the mission field.
If there is not some kind of convention control on the establishment of tighter doctrinal boundaries for Southern Baptist missions and ministry service, then any board or insitution can mandate doctrinal requisites that have nothing to do with the BFM. The convention should have the final say on the boundaries of cooperation in terms of 'doctrine,' not the autonomous insititutions.
Dr. Morris Chapman, expressing the same belief as the editor of The Alabama Baptist regarding the motion, said,
May I answer that question?
(1). It ends when everyone looks the same, acts the same, and believes the same.
(2). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of soteriology.
(3). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of eschatology.
(4). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of ecclesiology.
(5). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of pneumatology.
(6). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of theology.
(7). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of . . . .
The Southern Baptist Convention is ceasing to be a convention of loosely knit autonomous churches of Bible-believing Southern Baptists who cooperate in spite of differences on secondary issues because disagreement is allowed, and we are becoming a much smaller convention (8,000 messengers in TEXAS) of controlled churches and pastors who are demanded to conform to all secondary and tertiary doctrinal issues before there is ANY cooperation in missions and evangelism ministry because those in charge say to us 'we know who you are and what you expect of us.'
There is a Greek word for that kind of thinking. :)
In reality, there are some who think they know best what Southern Baptists should be and are orchestrating trustee boards to reflect their view of 'doctrinal purity.'
It's past time for that to stop.
We'll see very soon (July 16-18 in Richmond, Virginia) if the trustee boards got the message.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Mr. Terry says this about the adoption of the Garner Motion on the Baptist Faith and Message at this summer's Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio:
It is hard to understand the vote by the messengers as anything other than their expression of unhappiness and rebuke to the trustees involved for arbitrarily excluding Bible-believing Southern Baptists from service because of a practice most consider a secondary issue on which disagreement is allowed.
Anyone who reads the transcript of the debate in a non-biased, non-partisian fashion would draw the same conclusion of Mr. Terry. Dr. Al Mohler seemed to dismiss the messengers concerns by saying in his seminary 'report,' “We know who you are and what you expect of us". The editor of the editor of The Alabama Baptist responds to Dr. Mohler's statement with erudite logic:
Some ask if the trustee boards in question really do “know who you (Southern Baptists) are and what you expect of us” in light of the recent LifeWay Christian Resources study that found about 50 percent of Southern Baptist ministers believe a private prayer language could be a legitimate spiritual gift.
I would simply add if Dr. Mohler knows 'who we are' (meaning 'Southern Baptists' who don't practice 'tongues' in public or private), then why does he have C.J. Mahaney speak at his Southern's campus chapels and revivals - a man who not only speaks in tongues but advocates quite clearly that any teaching this gift has ceased is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.
Read carefully. I am one of C.J. Mahaney's biggest fans. I am glad he speaks at Southern. What bothers me is that Dr. Mohler desires the freedom to have a person who speaks in tongues to be able to teach his seminary students, but he believes it is appropriate for a trustee board to forbid Southern Baptists who speak in tongues PRIVATELY from serving on the mission field.
If there is not some kind of convention control on the establishment of tighter doctrinal boundaries for Southern Baptist missions and ministry service, then any board or insitution can mandate doctrinal requisites that have nothing to do with the BFM. The convention should have the final say on the boundaries of cooperation in terms of 'doctrine,' not the autonomous insititutions.
Dr. Morris Chapman, expressing the same belief as the editor of The Alabama Baptist regarding the motion, said,
“Other doctrines are beginning to be required aside from our adopted confession. It causes one to ask, ‘Where does it end?’”
May I answer that question?
(1). It ends when everyone looks the same, acts the same, and believes the same.
(2). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of soteriology.
(3). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of eschatology.
(4). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of ecclesiology.
(5). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of pneumatology.
(6). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of theology.
(7). It ends when everyone is the same in terms of . . . .
The Southern Baptist Convention is ceasing to be a convention of loosely knit autonomous churches of Bible-believing Southern Baptists who cooperate in spite of differences on secondary issues because disagreement is allowed, and we are becoming a much smaller convention (8,000 messengers in TEXAS) of controlled churches and pastors who are demanded to conform to all secondary and tertiary doctrinal issues before there is ANY cooperation in missions and evangelism ministry because those in charge say to us 'we know who you are and what you expect of us.'
There is a Greek word for that kind of thinking. :)
In reality, there are some who think they know best what Southern Baptists should be and are orchestrating trustee boards to reflect their view of 'doctrinal purity.'
It's past time for that to stop.
We'll see very soon (July 16-18 in Richmond, Virginia) if the trustee boards got the message.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Sunday, July 01, 2007
From Trickle to Torrent: Welcome SBC Outpost!
The Mississippi River is often called the 'mighty' Mississippi because of the awesome size and power of the river near its entry into the Gulf of Mexico. Over forty percent of the continental United States drains into the river along its route to the Gulf. At New Orleans, the mighty Mississippi is over two hundred feet deep and carries into the Gulf of Mexico enough water to fill one hundred and sixty six semi-trailers of water per second. The movement of water at the Mississippi's mouth is so powerful that nearly a half million metric tons of sediment pours into the Gulf of Mexico every day via the river.
But the Mississippi has its start in a much more humble fashion.
Two thousand three hundred and twenty miles north of the Gulf of Mexico is a little picturesque lake called Itasca, where a small stream, less than three feet deep, overlows Lake Itasca. This little stream is the beginning of the Mighty Mississippi.
The Gulf of Mexico is due south of Lake Itasca, but the Mississippi, in contrary fashion, embarks on its trek by flowing due north. The first of many indications that this river itself and the history that surround it are, as Mark Twain said, "in all ways remarkable."
The word Itasca is a fabricated name made up by borrowing and splicing together halves of two latin words, "veritas caput" which translates as "true head." 19th Century survyer Henry Schoolcraft made up the name (with a little missionary help since only the missionaries in those days knew Latin) and it has stuck. Mr Schoolcraft was the first person of European descent to visit Lake Itasca or at least the first person of European descent who was expressly searching for the source of the Mississippi when he arrived there in July 1832.
SBC Outpost and Other SBC Blogs: A Trickle That Grows More Powerful
Today, July 2, 2007, marks the beginning of a new SBC Outpost. Several Southern Baptists will be making contributions on this new and revamped blog. SBC Outpost joins the stream of blogs that are leading to change in the Southern Baptist Convention. The flow of information grows greater with every post and new entrant into the SBC blog world. Contrary to the expecations of some, the presence of SBC bloggers will only be magnified in the coming months as the Southern Baptist Convention returns toward a more conservative, missional and peaceful place among evangelical Christianity - a place where we belong.
Frankly, for those of us who tire of reading what it is that we as Southern Baptists are supposed to be against, we read with anticipation those posts that highlight what we as Baptists are for - and are actually doing - in the area of church missions, church plants, and church ministry.
Welcome, again, SBC Outpost into the Southern Baptist blog world.
You join the flow downstream - not to the left, or the center, or the right - but to the powerful reason for our existence as a cooperating convention - the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to unreached peoples everywhere.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
But the Mississippi has its start in a much more humble fashion.
Two thousand three hundred and twenty miles north of the Gulf of Mexico is a little picturesque lake called Itasca, where a small stream, less than three feet deep, overlows Lake Itasca. This little stream is the beginning of the Mighty Mississippi.
The Gulf of Mexico is due south of Lake Itasca, but the Mississippi, in contrary fashion, embarks on its trek by flowing due north. The first of many indications that this river itself and the history that surround it are, as Mark Twain said, "in all ways remarkable."
The word Itasca is a fabricated name made up by borrowing and splicing together halves of two latin words, "veritas caput" which translates as "true head." 19th Century survyer Henry Schoolcraft made up the name (with a little missionary help since only the missionaries in those days knew Latin) and it has stuck. Mr Schoolcraft was the first person of European descent to visit Lake Itasca or at least the first person of European descent who was expressly searching for the source of the Mississippi when he arrived there in July 1832.
SBC Outpost and Other SBC Blogs: A Trickle That Grows More Powerful
Today, July 2, 2007, marks the beginning of a new SBC Outpost. Several Southern Baptists will be making contributions on this new and revamped blog. SBC Outpost joins the stream of blogs that are leading to change in the Southern Baptist Convention. The flow of information grows greater with every post and new entrant into the SBC blog world. Contrary to the expecations of some, the presence of SBC bloggers will only be magnified in the coming months as the Southern Baptist Convention returns toward a more conservative, missional and peaceful place among evangelical Christianity - a place where we belong.
Frankly, for those of us who tire of reading what it is that we as Southern Baptists are supposed to be against, we read with anticipation those posts that highlight what we as Baptists are for - and are actually doing - in the area of church missions, church plants, and church ministry.
Welcome, again, SBC Outpost into the Southern Baptist blog world.
You join the flow downstream - not to the left, or the center, or the right - but to the powerful reason for our existence as a cooperating convention - the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to unreached peoples everywhere.
Blogs are making a difference.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)