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
Friday, December 08, 2006
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
Sunday, October 29, 2006
A Southern Baptist Statement of Cooperation
The gospel is the story about Christ, God’s and David’s Son, who died and was raised and is established as Lord. We as Southern Baptists join together to proclaim the good news that God's Kingdom has come in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Lord and Messiah, in fulfillment of the Word of God.
The gospel we declare evokes faith, repentance and discipleship --- its accompanying effects include the forgiveness of sins, justification, reconciliation, adoption, wisdom and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Southern Baptists accompany our proclamation of the gospel with cooperative works of compassion and mercy for those in need or distress.
We strive to advance Christ’s kingdom on earth with the confession, proclamation, and application of the good news. The Bible is undoubtedly central to our cooperation, but Jesus Christ is the center of it. Therefore, we resolve to cooperate with one another, affirming the essentials of the gospel and our Baptist identity in these five doctrines:
(1). We affirm the authority, sufficiency and reliability of God’s infallible revelation to man in both His written Word and the Living Word Jesus Christ.
(2) We affirm both the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ.
(3). We affirm 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.
(4). We affirm the Baptist distinctive of believer’s baptism by immersion for those who have come to personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
(5). We affirm that those apart from a relationship with Christ will face God’s judgment.
The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Baptist Confessions, including the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, are only guides to interpreting the Bible, and have no authority over the conscience. We Baptists have historically differed in interpretation on finer points of doctrine not essential to Christian faith and Baptist identity. Yet, with all our differences on secondary issues, we as Southern Baptists desire to cooperate in ministry because of our love for the gospel.
Therefore, we intentionally put aside our differences on secondary issues for the sake of cooperative gospel ministry. We desire unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, but charity in all things. This statement of cooperation defines the necessary essentials which must be affirmed in order to participate in the cooperative ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention.
We desire to send to the world and our evangelical brethren through this statement of cooperation a sure and certain message: It is the gospel that unites Southern Baptists, and what unites us is greater than anything that might potentially divide us.
The gospel we declare evokes faith, repentance and discipleship --- its accompanying effects include the forgiveness of sins, justification, reconciliation, adoption, wisdom and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Southern Baptists accompany our proclamation of the gospel with cooperative works of compassion and mercy for those in need or distress.
We strive to advance Christ’s kingdom on earth with the confession, proclamation, and application of the good news. The Bible is undoubtedly central to our cooperation, but Jesus Christ is the center of it. Therefore, we resolve to cooperate with one another, affirming the essentials of the gospel and our Baptist identity in these five doctrines:
(1). We affirm the authority, sufficiency and reliability of God’s infallible revelation to man in both His written Word and the Living Word Jesus Christ.
(2) We affirm both the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ.
(3). We affirm 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.
(4). We affirm the Baptist distinctive of believer’s baptism by immersion for those who have come to personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
(5). We affirm that those apart from a relationship with Christ will face God’s judgment.
The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Baptist Confessions, including the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, are only guides to interpreting the Bible, and have no authority over the conscience. We Baptists have historically differed in interpretation on finer points of doctrine not essential to Christian faith and Baptist identity. Yet, with all our differences on secondary issues, we as Southern Baptists desire to cooperate in ministry because of our love for the gospel.
Therefore, we intentionally put aside our differences on secondary issues for the sake of cooperative gospel ministry. We desire unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, but charity in all things. This statement of cooperation defines the necessary essentials which must be affirmed in order to participate in the cooperative ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention.
We desire to send to the world and our evangelical brethren through this statement of cooperation a sure and certain message: It is the gospel that unites Southern Baptists, and what unites us is greater than anything that might potentially divide us.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Forty Important Days Ahead for Me
November 15, 2006 marks the one year anniversary of the IMB Board of Trustees adoption of the new policies on a private prayer language and baptism.
December 6, 2006 marks the one year anniversary of the beginning of this blog.
For the next forty days, until December 6, 2006 I will be taking a sabbatical from blogging. Tomorrow, Sunday, October 29, 2006 will be my last major post until December 6, 2006.
Three important things are on the horizon in the next forty days for me:
(1). Tomorrow's post entitled "A Statement of Cooperation for the Southern Baptist Convention" expresses hope for the future of missions and ministry cooperation in the SBC.
The post will represent a small attempt to offer a constructive document that helps initiate the conversation on how we can keep our collective focus and excitement on the gospel of Jesus Christ as we cooperate together in Southern Baptist kingdom ministry. Rather than getting bogged down in theological minutiae, the "Statement of Cooperation" will help us join hands around our affirmation of the essentials of the Christian faith and Baptist identity. The Statement of Cooperation will list five basic articles necessary for Southern Baptist cooperation.
I am indebted to Dr. Michael Bird New Testament Lecturer, Highland Theological College,Scotland, United Kingdom, and Joel Willitts, Assistant Professor of New Testament at North Park University in Chicago, and to their soon to be published manifesto Solum Evangelium: Renewing Evangelicalism with the Evangel. These two like-minded, theologically conservative inerrantists desire to see a revival among all evangelicals, but recognize that cooperation around the essentials must first begin within respective denominations before there can ever be a revival in the evangelical world as a whole.
They have graciously dialogued with me to help articulate the importance that conservative Southern Baptists will, as Carl Henry says, 'major on the majors.' With their permission the "Statement of Cooperation" will be built upon some of the concepts formulated by these two Baptist scholars in their manifesto.
(2). On December 5th, 2006, there will be a Baptist pastors and Christian leaders roundtable discussion held at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, Rev. Dwight McKissic, Pastor.
Topics to be covered at the roundtable are as follows:
(a). There will be an announcement regarding the dates, time, place, speakers, and topics for the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit to be held in April of 2007.
(b). There will be an exploration of the possible formation of a Sandy Creek – Charlestonian Baptist Fellowship open to all Baptists for the specific purpose of assisting Southern Baptist church planters and missionaries who are conservative inerrantists but are now excluded from participation in Southern Baptist missions and ministry.
(c). Discuss and dialogue how the SBC can return to her historic openness to all Baptists and address contemporary issues in Baptist life, identify solutions, and develop action plans for the future.
If you would like to be a part of this Christian leaders and pastors Roundtable on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (lunch will be provided), please RSVP at (817)468.0083. All are welcome.
(3). During the next forty days I will be focusing on two key events for me personally.
I plan on concluding the manuscript for my next book entitled "The Gospel According to Jonah: What To Do When You Feel A Million Miles Away from God." The chapters are done, but the transitional portions of the book and the final edits have not yet been completed.
In addition, I will be traveling overseas to dedicate the new construction at our orphange in India. Our church member, Sister Josna, does a phenominal job caring for over 1,000 children who will impact the nation of India in the years to come because of their Christian upbringing in our orphanage. I will also be spending some time with our IMB personnel in the region.
I reserve the right to blog again during this time period if the Lord impresses me to do so, but I anticipate enjoying the next forty days apart from blogging.
I close by thanking all of you who have made this past year and the over 300 posts a very eventful year in my life. Tomorrow's post is only a beginning for the dialogue, and my prayer is that it will lead to profitable and edifying discussion among all who participate.
In His Grace,
Wade
December 6, 2006 marks the one year anniversary of the beginning of this blog.
For the next forty days, until December 6, 2006 I will be taking a sabbatical from blogging. Tomorrow, Sunday, October 29, 2006 will be my last major post until December 6, 2006.
Three important things are on the horizon in the next forty days for me:
(1). Tomorrow's post entitled "A Statement of Cooperation for the Southern Baptist Convention" expresses hope for the future of missions and ministry cooperation in the SBC.
The post will represent a small attempt to offer a constructive document that helps initiate the conversation on how we can keep our collective focus and excitement on the gospel of Jesus Christ as we cooperate together in Southern Baptist kingdom ministry. Rather than getting bogged down in theological minutiae, the "Statement of Cooperation" will help us join hands around our affirmation of the essentials of the Christian faith and Baptist identity. The Statement of Cooperation will list five basic articles necessary for Southern Baptist cooperation.
I am indebted to Dr. Michael Bird New Testament Lecturer, Highland Theological College,Scotland, United Kingdom, and Joel Willitts, Assistant Professor of New Testament at North Park University in Chicago, and to their soon to be published manifesto Solum Evangelium: Renewing Evangelicalism with the Evangel. These two like-minded, theologically conservative inerrantists desire to see a revival among all evangelicals, but recognize that cooperation around the essentials must first begin within respective denominations before there can ever be a revival in the evangelical world as a whole.
They have graciously dialogued with me to help articulate the importance that conservative Southern Baptists will, as Carl Henry says, 'major on the majors.' With their permission the "Statement of Cooperation" will be built upon some of the concepts formulated by these two Baptist scholars in their manifesto.
(2). On December 5th, 2006, there will be a Baptist pastors and Christian leaders roundtable discussion held at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, Rev. Dwight McKissic, Pastor.
Topics to be covered at the roundtable are as follows:
(a). There will be an announcement regarding the dates, time, place, speakers, and topics for the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit to be held in April of 2007.
(b). There will be an exploration of the possible formation of a Sandy Creek – Charlestonian Baptist Fellowship open to all Baptists for the specific purpose of assisting Southern Baptist church planters and missionaries who are conservative inerrantists but are now excluded from participation in Southern Baptist missions and ministry.
(c). Discuss and dialogue how the SBC can return to her historic openness to all Baptists and address contemporary issues in Baptist life, identify solutions, and develop action plans for the future.
If you would like to be a part of this Christian leaders and pastors Roundtable on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (lunch will be provided), please RSVP at (817)468.0083. All are welcome.
(3). During the next forty days I will be focusing on two key events for me personally.
I plan on concluding the manuscript for my next book entitled "The Gospel According to Jonah: What To Do When You Feel A Million Miles Away from God." The chapters are done, but the transitional portions of the book and the final edits have not yet been completed.
In addition, I will be traveling overseas to dedicate the new construction at our orphange in India. Our church member, Sister Josna, does a phenominal job caring for over 1,000 children who will impact the nation of India in the years to come because of their Christian upbringing in our orphanage. I will also be spending some time with our IMB personnel in the region.
I reserve the right to blog again during this time period if the Lord impresses me to do so, but I anticipate enjoying the next forty days apart from blogging.
I close by thanking all of you who have made this past year and the over 300 posts a very eventful year in my life. Tomorrow's post is only a beginning for the dialogue, and my prayer is that it will lead to profitable and edifying discussion among all who participate.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
The Sharp Two Edged Sword Called 'Consistency' in the Demand for Absolute Conformity in the SBC
Yesterday the comment section of Art Roger's blog contained this interesting comment from Bill Brown:
"New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote their own statements of faith, because when they were formed the Southern Baptist Convention did not have one.
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary adopted Southern's Abstract of Principles when it was formed.
Until very recently New Orleans, Southern, and Southeastern's faculty signed ONLY their institution's (respective) statement of faith. Southwestern, Golden Gate, and Midwestern's faculty signed the current version of the Baptist Faith and Message.
After one seminary president pushed behind the scenes to have all International Mission Board missionaries to subscribe to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (this was shortly after the Southern Baptist Convention adopted the BF&M 2000), and to be subject to scrutiny as to their fidelity to the BFM 2000 during the term of their service, International Mission Board executives pointed out that 3 of the 6 seminaries did not require faculty to sign the Baptist Faith and Message.
The presidents then had the trustees adopt the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as a secondary doctrinal standard and faculty had to sign both."
Seems to me like a lot of people have been doing quite a bit of signing in the last five years. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle of employees signing a document that expresses one's general affirmation of foundational Biblical principles of the gospel --- there must be some standards of the Christian faith, without a doubt.
But the problem arises when there is a demand for conformity on the non-essentials. Cooperation within a convention is killed when that happens. When major confessions around which we cooperate are loaded down with doctrines that are not essentials of the Christian faith or Baptist identity, then everyone within the Southen Baptist Convention loses.
Again, we should require conformity on the essentials, but every confessional document will contain items that are not essentials of the Christian faith and the historic disctinctives of Baptist believers. Remember, Baptists have always been known as 'people of the Book,' and our inherent Baptist values of religious liberty, free dissent, and freedom of conscience, have been the forces that insure we consistently base our distinctives on the Bible, and not tradition, and if we do happen to fall into the trap of traditionalism, courageous Baptist dissenters have always been there for us to provide correction.
There must be room for some allowances in those areas of NON-ESSENTIALS to the Christian faith and historic Baptist identity or we better change the name of our funding mechanism to the 'non-cooperative program' since there is no need for cooperation in complete uniformity. In short, there must be some flexibility within the SBC regarding doctrinal interpretations over the non-essentials in order for us to continue to expand our ministries to reach the world for Christ.
The demand for absolute creedal conformity can also become a two-edged sword that cuts deeply those who once thought they wielded it. Without flexibility over non-essentials in our statements of faith, a whole lot of good people could be fired, terminated, excluded, and shipped to Siberia, (sorry, just had to throw that one in :) --- right now!
Let me illustrate to you what I mean.
I wish in this post to only address those employees of Southern and Southeastern Seminaries. Your employment is directly tied to your affirmation of the Abstract of Principles, which you signed upon your employment. As you know, your respective seminary's charter contains this fundamental law:
"Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist Church; and all persons accepting professorships in this Seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees."
The future employment of every employee of Southern and Southeastern, by charter and bylaw, is dependent upon an adherence to the Abstract of Principles. Every employee has affirmed by personal signature his or her agreement of, and practice in accordance with, the Abstract of Principles.
Many would say that integrity demands employees either live completely and totally by the Abstract of Principles because they signed them, or they should voluntarily resign from their positions if they choose not to abide by the Abstract of Principles. If they can't totally and completely affirm all of the Abstract and refuse to resign, then the trustees should move to terminate in accordance with the charter. And who could argue? It's a matter of integrity.
Okie dokie. Now that I'm getting in the groove of thinking like a few of my fellow bloggers on this issue, it's time to put this principle into practice. :) Let's take a look at those things which our SBT and SEBT professors should and should not be doing and believing according to the document they personally signed called The Abstract of Principles.
(1). First, every professor must drink wine at the Lord's Table in fulfillment with his contractual obligations.
Article XVI states, "The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be administered with the elements of bread and wine."
Let's not argue about how many brain cells might die when one drinks wine at communion, one's integrity as an employee of the institution is at stake.
If a professor objects by saying, 'Culture' has changed! I know that our Southern Baptist forefathers were drinking wine at communion in 1858 when the Abstract was written, but modern Southern Baptist's don't drink wine at communion! One might understand the professor's thinking, but should it not be expected that a written caveat to the professor's affirmation of the Abstract might be found, possibly right next to his signature? If not, some might say integrity demands he resign. :) Hmmm.
(2). On Sunday, the Lord's Day, the professor had better have not ever gone to a ballgame, or even watched one on television (including in the privacy of his home), or read a secular book, or watched a movie from Blockbuster, or participated in any other 'worldly' amusements or he has violated his contract and the Abstract.
Article XVII states, "The Lord's Day is a Christian institution for regular observance, and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, resting from worldly employments and amusements, works of necessity and mercy only excepted.
No excuses here. His employment is determined by by his unqualified compliance. If a professor has violated this Article, both the charter and personal integrity demands the employee of SBT or SEBT resign. :) Hmm.
Those two were just for grins: Now comes the serious stuff.
(3). A professor better affirm and teach that God graciously elects from before the foundation of the world only some, not all, of the guilty human race for salvation, and that His election of some sinners is not because of anything foreseen by Him, but purely because of His free and sovereign grace.
Article V states: "Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life -- not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ -- in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified."
(4). A professor better believe and teach that the Spirit's regenerating work precedes a sinner's faith, and this regenerative and effectual Spirit work leads to the sinner believing. Further, he better believe that when the Spirit regenerates and the sinner believes, all other graces (repentence, perserverance, etc . . .) are guaranteed.
Articles X and XIII state, "Saving faith . . . is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness." "Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end . . ."
(5). A professor better believe and teach that God alone justifies the ungodly by free grace, and not because of anything they have done, including faith.
Article XI states, "Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal of sinners . . . not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ
What I have written in this post is a logical deduction using the arguments of those who demand 'doctrinal accountability' and 'personal integrity' for those who 'sign' confessions, creeds, or statements of faith.
I am not advocating that the professors who have 'violated their integrity' be terminated. I am simply showing the absurdity of not giving freedom to Southern Baptists to express disagreement in those confessional areas that are non-essentials of the faith. There are some Southern Baptists (maybe one hundred out of 16 million) who would actually believe and do everything the Abstract of Principles demands.
I personally believe that employees of any SBC agency should be able to sign the Abstract and write down where they personally disagree, and unless it is a violation of an essential of the Christian faith and the historic understanding of Baptist identity, we should allow them to keep their jobs.
But I will abide by the wishes of others regarding this issue. I just hope that not too many people listen to those who demand absolute conformity and uniformity, without caveats, when signing confessional documents or a bunch more people will be without jobs in the SBC. :)
I keep having this image in my mind of King Saul falling on his own sword.
Let's keep the doctrinal requisites for our cooperation in the SBC as broad as possible. Let's cooperate around a high view of the nature of Scripture, an evangelical belief in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, our historic Baptist identity (believer's baptism, religious liberty, etc . . . ) and the coming judgment for sinners who reject the only Savior given to men.
I think we might actually be able to continue to expand the kingdom of Christ through our Southern Baptist ministries if that kind of gentle, understanding spirit characterizes our love for one another and our cooperation with each other.
Does anybody else see the logic in what I am saying, or am I whistling in the wind?
:)
Have a great day.
In His Grace,
Wade
"New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote their own statements of faith, because when they were formed the Southern Baptist Convention did not have one.
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary adopted Southern's Abstract of Principles when it was formed.
Until very recently New Orleans, Southern, and Southeastern's faculty signed ONLY their institution's (respective) statement of faith. Southwestern, Golden Gate, and Midwestern's faculty signed the current version of the Baptist Faith and Message.
After one seminary president pushed behind the scenes to have all International Mission Board missionaries to subscribe to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (this was shortly after the Southern Baptist Convention adopted the BF&M 2000), and to be subject to scrutiny as to their fidelity to the BFM 2000 during the term of their service, International Mission Board executives pointed out that 3 of the 6 seminaries did not require faculty to sign the Baptist Faith and Message.
The presidents then had the trustees adopt the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as a secondary doctrinal standard and faculty had to sign both."
Seems to me like a lot of people have been doing quite a bit of signing in the last five years. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle of employees signing a document that expresses one's general affirmation of foundational Biblical principles of the gospel --- there must be some standards of the Christian faith, without a doubt.
But the problem arises when there is a demand for conformity on the non-essentials. Cooperation within a convention is killed when that happens. When major confessions around which we cooperate are loaded down with doctrines that are not essentials of the Christian faith or Baptist identity, then everyone within the Southen Baptist Convention loses.
Again, we should require conformity on the essentials, but every confessional document will contain items that are not essentials of the Christian faith and the historic disctinctives of Baptist believers. Remember, Baptists have always been known as 'people of the Book,' and our inherent Baptist values of religious liberty, free dissent, and freedom of conscience, have been the forces that insure we consistently base our distinctives on the Bible, and not tradition, and if we do happen to fall into the trap of traditionalism, courageous Baptist dissenters have always been there for us to provide correction.
There must be room for some allowances in those areas of NON-ESSENTIALS to the Christian faith and historic Baptist identity or we better change the name of our funding mechanism to the 'non-cooperative program' since there is no need for cooperation in complete uniformity. In short, there must be some flexibility within the SBC regarding doctrinal interpretations over the non-essentials in order for us to continue to expand our ministries to reach the world for Christ.
The demand for absolute creedal conformity can also become a two-edged sword that cuts deeply those who once thought they wielded it. Without flexibility over non-essentials in our statements of faith, a whole lot of good people could be fired, terminated, excluded, and shipped to Siberia, (sorry, just had to throw that one in :) --- right now!
Let me illustrate to you what I mean.
I wish in this post to only address those employees of Southern and Southeastern Seminaries. Your employment is directly tied to your affirmation of the Abstract of Principles, which you signed upon your employment. As you know, your respective seminary's charter contains this fundamental law:
"Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist Church; and all persons accepting professorships in this Seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees."
The future employment of every employee of Southern and Southeastern, by charter and bylaw, is dependent upon an adherence to the Abstract of Principles. Every employee has affirmed by personal signature his or her agreement of, and practice in accordance with, the Abstract of Principles.
Many would say that integrity demands employees either live completely and totally by the Abstract of Principles because they signed them, or they should voluntarily resign from their positions if they choose not to abide by the Abstract of Principles. If they can't totally and completely affirm all of the Abstract and refuse to resign, then the trustees should move to terminate in accordance with the charter. And who could argue? It's a matter of integrity.
Okie dokie. Now that I'm getting in the groove of thinking like a few of my fellow bloggers on this issue, it's time to put this principle into practice. :) Let's take a look at those things which our SBT and SEBT professors should and should not be doing and believing according to the document they personally signed called The Abstract of Principles.
(1). First, every professor must drink wine at the Lord's Table in fulfillment with his contractual obligations.
Article XVI states, "The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be administered with the elements of bread and wine."
Let's not argue about how many brain cells might die when one drinks wine at communion, one's integrity as an employee of the institution is at stake.
If a professor objects by saying, 'Culture' has changed! I know that our Southern Baptist forefathers were drinking wine at communion in 1858 when the Abstract was written, but modern Southern Baptist's don't drink wine at communion! One might understand the professor's thinking, but should it not be expected that a written caveat to the professor's affirmation of the Abstract might be found, possibly right next to his signature? If not, some might say integrity demands he resign. :) Hmmm.
(2). On Sunday, the Lord's Day, the professor had better have not ever gone to a ballgame, or even watched one on television (including in the privacy of his home), or read a secular book, or watched a movie from Blockbuster, or participated in any other 'worldly' amusements or he has violated his contract and the Abstract.
Article XVII states, "The Lord's Day is a Christian institution for regular observance, and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, resting from worldly employments and amusements, works of necessity and mercy only excepted.
No excuses here. His employment is determined by by his unqualified compliance. If a professor has violated this Article, both the charter and personal integrity demands the employee of SBT or SEBT resign. :) Hmm.
Those two were just for grins: Now comes the serious stuff.
(3). A professor better affirm and teach that God graciously elects from before the foundation of the world only some, not all, of the guilty human race for salvation, and that His election of some sinners is not because of anything foreseen by Him, but purely because of His free and sovereign grace.
Article V states: "Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life -- not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ -- in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified."
(4). A professor better believe and teach that the Spirit's regenerating work precedes a sinner's faith, and this regenerative and effectual Spirit work leads to the sinner believing. Further, he better believe that when the Spirit regenerates and the sinner believes, all other graces (repentence, perserverance, etc . . .) are guaranteed.
Articles X and XIII state, "Saving faith . . . is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness." "Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end . . ."
(5). A professor better believe and teach that God alone justifies the ungodly by free grace, and not because of anything they have done, including faith.
Article XI states, "Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal of sinners . . . not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ
What I have written in this post is a logical deduction using the arguments of those who demand 'doctrinal accountability' and 'personal integrity' for those who 'sign' confessions, creeds, or statements of faith.
I am not advocating that the professors who have 'violated their integrity' be terminated. I am simply showing the absurdity of not giving freedom to Southern Baptists to express disagreement in those confessional areas that are non-essentials of the faith. There are some Southern Baptists (maybe one hundred out of 16 million) who would actually believe and do everything the Abstract of Principles demands.
I personally believe that employees of any SBC agency should be able to sign the Abstract and write down where they personally disagree, and unless it is a violation of an essential of the Christian faith and the historic understanding of Baptist identity, we should allow them to keep their jobs.
But I will abide by the wishes of others regarding this issue. I just hope that not too many people listen to those who demand absolute conformity and uniformity, without caveats, when signing confessional documents or a bunch more people will be without jobs in the SBC. :)
I keep having this image in my mind of King Saul falling on his own sword.
Let's keep the doctrinal requisites for our cooperation in the SBC as broad as possible. Let's cooperate around a high view of the nature of Scripture, an evangelical belief in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, our historic Baptist identity (believer's baptism, religious liberty, etc . . . ) and the coming judgment for sinners who reject the only Savior given to men.
I think we might actually be able to continue to expand the kingdom of Christ through our Southern Baptist ministries if that kind of gentle, understanding spirit characterizes our love for one another and our cooperation with each other.
Does anybody else see the logic in what I am saying, or am I whistling in the wind?
:)
Have a great day.
In His Grace,
Wade
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Bible Is Sufficient for Me (Part II)
Yesterday I pointed out that the BFM 2000 and the Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary teach two different things regarding the consequences of Adam's sin. The Abstract teaches that all men are condemned on the basis of one man's sin (Adam), while the BFM 2000 teaches that all men are condemned not by one man's sin, but by their own, personal sin upon reaching the age of accountability (or as the BFM 2000 states, 'as soon as they are capable of moral action').
I chuckled when I read a couple of blogs that called for my resignation as an IMB trustee, another that proceeded to call me duplicitous and a few other choice adjectives, and then laughed out loud at a comment from a Baptist pastor who is not even Southern Baptist who said I was attempting to split the convention.
I couldn't help but chuckle. One of these days they may learn that I am in this for the long haul and it might be better to try to understand the point I am making.
This is my point. I made it yesterday, but some seemed to have missed it. I give it again in bold letters:
"I believe that there is room for Southern Baptists who believe both interpretations. Some Southern Baptists believe condemnation is because of Adam's one sin, and others believe that no condemnation comes until there is personal, actual sin. I think the 'tent' is big enough for people who hold to these two different interpretations on this point of doctrine which is not an essential of the faith."
Let me point out, again, for the third time in two days the important sentence on yesterday's post:
I THINK THE TENT IS BIG ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE WHO HOLD TO THESE TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.
The tent is the SBC.
Of course, some are attempting to say that there is no difference between the two documents. All right. Let's say, for now, that there is no difference.
Let's ask Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson: "Gentlemen, since there is no difference between the Abstract and the BFM 2000 what do these documents teach about the fall of Adam? Do they teach . . .
(1). All men, including infants, are under condemnation because of Adam's sin, even if they never personally and actually sin (as in the case of infants who die in infancy)? or . . .
(2). All men, including infants, are under condemnation only when they are capable of moral action and choose to sin personally ('the age of accountability') and no human being is under condemnation for the sin of Adam?
These two statements are not saying the same thing. Which one of the above statements reflects the teaching of the Abstract of Principles and the BFM 2000 if they BOTH teach the same thing?
How would Dr. Patterson respond to the question 'what does the Abstract and BFM 2000 teach about the consequences of Adam's fall'? How would Dr. Mohler respond to the question 'what does the Abstract and BFM 2000 teach about the consequences of Adam's fall'?
Did anybody else hear these two men debate in Greensboro besides me?
These men do not agree on this point of doctrine. I would also propose that the Abstract and the BFM 2000 are contradictory on this point of doctrine, but I will let those who have signed both documents clarify for me which statement above best reflects the teaching of both documents. :)
BUT DON'T MISS THE POINT: HERE IT IS --- AGAIN!
People in the SBC believe different things about the gifts, ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, etc . . .
It is the BIBLE that should be our rule of faith. It is the BIBLE that is inerrant, infallible, and sufficient for our study, memorization, mediation and application.
But two conservative, godly evangelicals can come to DIFFERENT conclusions after READING THE SAME BIBLE about doctrines that are not essentials of the Christian faith.
THERE IS ROOM IN THE SBC FOR MORE THAN ONE INTERPRETATION!
For some reason there are people who are being very deceptive in the blog world by trying to make it look as if I am advocating liberals (those who deny the inerrancy of the Bible) have a place at the table of leadership in the SBC.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was asked via a comment on my blog "If you had the power..would you place an indvidual into a position of influence in the SBC...who believed and lived the Bible to be inspired, infallible, authoritative, sufficient...but truly believed that the Bible is not inerrant?
I responded: Short answer: No.
Anyone who says I am attempting to broaden the tent to include those who are not 'inerrantists' is the problem. All they can do is shout, "He's a liberal!" or "He wants liberals at the table."
No. Not at all. Liberals who deny the accuracy, authority and reliability of the Word of God would be better off in leadership in another convention. It's not that they are not brothers in Christ, and it's not that we wish them harm, they just don't represent what we believe about the Bible.
But in my mind angry Fundamentalists who wish to exclude fellow evangelical conservatives who disagree with their interpretations of the sacred text don't deserve SBC leadership positions either.. If a Fundamentalist demands you interpret the sacred text as he does, and calls you neo-orthodox or 'moderate' or 'liberal' if you don't, then he (the Fundamentalist) is the one who does not deserve leadership in the SBC.
Irenic conservatives must lead the SBC, and a shift is happening.
For Fundamentalists with a capital F it is painful, and the more they see it happening, the more they shout and scream.
By the way, I love Fundamentalists! I mean it. They just seem to have a hard time loving me, and the only thing they understand is someone with courage who will stand up to them and say, "The Bible is authoritative and sufficient and the perfect guide for faith and practice --- and I will not accept what you say is 'truth' just because you say it --- you must PROVE it from the text. And if you don't prove it to my satisfaction, then I will not change my mind. By the way, it is not important to me that you change your mind either --- let's work together."
For some reason that is hard for some to comprehend.
There are at least two interpretations on the gifts (cessationists and continualists), there are at least two interpretations on soteriology (Calvinism and Arminiansm and everything in between), there are at least two interpretations on ecclesiological government (congregational and elder rule), there are at least two interpretations on separation of church and state, there are at least two interpretations the authority and credentials of the baptizer, there are at least two interpretations on the consequences of Adam's sin, etc . . . I could go on, and on, and on . . .
WE MUST BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T GET TO THE POINT WHERE A DISAGREEMENT OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCTRINES CONTAINED IN THE SACRED TEXT SEPARATE AND EXCLUDE ONE GROUP OR THE OTHER.
I would like to close with a very practical thought from my father, Paul Burleson, who has had the benefit of pastoring Southern Baptist Churches for over fifty years:
"For many years of pastoring, long before and during the resurgence, I always led our congregation to affirm two things in the opening of our constitution and bylaws. One was a...commitment to the holding of the Bible to be the inspired, infallible, and inerrant in the original manuscripts, Word of God. [This being important because a confidence in the inerrancy of those original documents gave cause to seriously translate from the earliest manuscripts we have to get the best translations.]
A second was a...commitment to the BF@M INSOFAR as and as LONG as it was and remained true to the text of the scripture. This permitted us to differ with a minor point or two without being argumentative or being unbaptistic about it. This also allowed our folks to see the difference in the authority and nature of the BF@M in relation to the Scriptures themselves.
We believed this gave guidance to the people to practice their study of the Word with real conviction as to it's integrity and to appreciate our Baptist doctrinal heritage without elevating it to a level of sacredness reserved for Scripture alone.
I think personally that that is a good way to hold both in proper appreciation."
Couldn't have said it better, Dad.
In His Grace,
Wade
I chuckled when I read a couple of blogs that called for my resignation as an IMB trustee, another that proceeded to call me duplicitous and a few other choice adjectives, and then laughed out loud at a comment from a Baptist pastor who is not even Southern Baptist who said I was attempting to split the convention.
I couldn't help but chuckle. One of these days they may learn that I am in this for the long haul and it might be better to try to understand the point I am making.
This is my point. I made it yesterday, but some seemed to have missed it. I give it again in bold letters:
"I believe that there is room for Southern Baptists who believe both interpretations. Some Southern Baptists believe condemnation is because of Adam's one sin, and others believe that no condemnation comes until there is personal, actual sin. I think the 'tent' is big enough for people who hold to these two different interpretations on this point of doctrine which is not an essential of the faith."
Let me point out, again, for the third time in two days the important sentence on yesterday's post:
I THINK THE TENT IS BIG ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE WHO HOLD TO THESE TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.
The tent is the SBC.
Of course, some are attempting to say that there is no difference between the two documents. All right. Let's say, for now, that there is no difference.
Let's ask Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson: "Gentlemen, since there is no difference between the Abstract and the BFM 2000 what do these documents teach about the fall of Adam? Do they teach . . .
(1). All men, including infants, are under condemnation because of Adam's sin, even if they never personally and actually sin (as in the case of infants who die in infancy)? or . . .
(2). All men, including infants, are under condemnation only when they are capable of moral action and choose to sin personally ('the age of accountability') and no human being is under condemnation for the sin of Adam?
These two statements are not saying the same thing. Which one of the above statements reflects the teaching of the Abstract of Principles and the BFM 2000 if they BOTH teach the same thing?
How would Dr. Patterson respond to the question 'what does the Abstract and BFM 2000 teach about the consequences of Adam's fall'? How would Dr. Mohler respond to the question 'what does the Abstract and BFM 2000 teach about the consequences of Adam's fall'?
Did anybody else hear these two men debate in Greensboro besides me?
These men do not agree on this point of doctrine. I would also propose that the Abstract and the BFM 2000 are contradictory on this point of doctrine, but I will let those who have signed both documents clarify for me which statement above best reflects the teaching of both documents. :)
BUT DON'T MISS THE POINT: HERE IT IS --- AGAIN!
People in the SBC believe different things about the gifts, ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, etc . . .
It is the BIBLE that should be our rule of faith. It is the BIBLE that is inerrant, infallible, and sufficient for our study, memorization, mediation and application.
But two conservative, godly evangelicals can come to DIFFERENT conclusions after READING THE SAME BIBLE about doctrines that are not essentials of the Christian faith.
THERE IS ROOM IN THE SBC FOR MORE THAN ONE INTERPRETATION!
For some reason there are people who are being very deceptive in the blog world by trying to make it look as if I am advocating liberals (those who deny the inerrancy of the Bible) have a place at the table of leadership in the SBC.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was asked via a comment on my blog "If you had the power..would you place an indvidual into a position of influence in the SBC...who believed and lived the Bible to be inspired, infallible, authoritative, sufficient...but truly believed that the Bible is not inerrant?
I responded: Short answer: No.
Anyone who says I am attempting to broaden the tent to include those who are not 'inerrantists' is the problem. All they can do is shout, "He's a liberal!" or "He wants liberals at the table."
No. Not at all. Liberals who deny the accuracy, authority and reliability of the Word of God would be better off in leadership in another convention. It's not that they are not brothers in Christ, and it's not that we wish them harm, they just don't represent what we believe about the Bible.
But in my mind angry Fundamentalists who wish to exclude fellow evangelical conservatives who disagree with their interpretations of the sacred text don't deserve SBC leadership positions either.. If a Fundamentalist demands you interpret the sacred text as he does, and calls you neo-orthodox or 'moderate' or 'liberal' if you don't, then he (the Fundamentalist) is the one who does not deserve leadership in the SBC.
Irenic conservatives must lead the SBC, and a shift is happening.
For Fundamentalists with a capital F it is painful, and the more they see it happening, the more they shout and scream.
By the way, I love Fundamentalists! I mean it. They just seem to have a hard time loving me, and the only thing they understand is someone with courage who will stand up to them and say, "The Bible is authoritative and sufficient and the perfect guide for faith and practice --- and I will not accept what you say is 'truth' just because you say it --- you must PROVE it from the text. And if you don't prove it to my satisfaction, then I will not change my mind. By the way, it is not important to me that you change your mind either --- let's work together."
For some reason that is hard for some to comprehend.
There are at least two interpretations on the gifts (cessationists and continualists), there are at least two interpretations on soteriology (Calvinism and Arminiansm and everything in between), there are at least two interpretations on ecclesiological government (congregational and elder rule), there are at least two interpretations on separation of church and state, there are at least two interpretations the authority and credentials of the baptizer, there are at least two interpretations on the consequences of Adam's sin, etc . . . I could go on, and on, and on . . .
WE MUST BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T GET TO THE POINT WHERE A DISAGREEMENT OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCTRINES CONTAINED IN THE SACRED TEXT SEPARATE AND EXCLUDE ONE GROUP OR THE OTHER.
I would like to close with a very practical thought from my father, Paul Burleson, who has had the benefit of pastoring Southern Baptist Churches for over fifty years:
"For many years of pastoring, long before and during the resurgence, I always led our congregation to affirm two things in the opening of our constitution and bylaws. One was a...commitment to the holding of the Bible to be the inspired, infallible, and inerrant in the original manuscripts, Word of God. [This being important because a confidence in the inerrancy of those original documents gave cause to seriously translate from the earliest manuscripts we have to get the best translations.]
A second was a...commitment to the BF@M INSOFAR as and as LONG as it was and remained true to the text of the scripture. This permitted us to differ with a minor point or two without being argumentative or being unbaptistic about it. This also allowed our folks to see the difference in the authority and nature of the BF@M in relation to the Scriptures themselves.
We believed this gave guidance to the people to practice their study of the Word with real conviction as to it's integrity and to appreciate our Baptist doctrinal heritage without elevating it to a level of sacredness reserved for Scripture alone.
I think personally that that is a good way to hold both in proper appreciation."
Couldn't have said it better, Dad.
In His Grace,
Wade
Monday, October 23, 2006
The Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Bible Is Sufficient for Me
Southern Baptists have historically been people of the book. We have consistently stated that the Bible is 'authoritative and sufficient in all matters of faith and practice.'
In the last five years there has been a push for trustees, employees and administrators of Southern Baptist agencies to sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 to affirm their agreement with this modern confession of Southern Baptists or be removed from service.
It is my understanding that employees of Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary are asked to sign both the BFM 2000 and The Abstract of Principles which governs both institutions.
The charter of both seminaries contains the following statement that continues to be a part of the 'fundamental laws.' "Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist Church; and all persons accepting professorships in this Seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees."
I have four questions:
(1). Would you be surprised to know that the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 contradict each other on a point of doctrine?
(2). Would integrity demand that professors, who by contract and charter must affirm and teach according to the Abstract of Principles, simply refuse to sign the BFM 2000 because it contradicts what the professors believe on just one or two points of doctrine that are not essentials of the faith?
(3). Is it reasonable, and should it be expected, that seminary professors might be allowed to sign the BFM 2000, expressing general affirmation, but write down their disagreement on a couple of points of doctrine that are not essentials of the faith?
(4). If it is considered reasonable for number (3) to happen, would it not be logical and consistent to allow all signers of the BFM 2000 to do the same?
Let me give you an example:
The Abstract of Principles, which every professor and employee at Southern Southern and Southeastern Seminary must sign, has an excellent statement on the fall of man.
VI. The Fall of Man (The Abstract of Principles)
God originally created man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.
The abstract teaches that every descendent of Adam is 'under condemnation' even though they are not 'actual transgressors.'
In other words, infants are under 'condemnation' by God because of Adam's sin, even though they have not yet personally sinned.
This seems to be very consistent with the teaching of the Apostle Paul who said, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).
However, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message clearly teaches something different:
III. Man (The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message)
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.
The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 teaches that the descendents of Adam are not under condemnation 'until' they are capable of moral action.
In other words, according to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 nobody is actually condemned for the sin of Adam, but rather, condemnation comes as a result of one's own personal, actual sin.
In other words, infants are 'innocent' before God and not under condemnation until they are capable of moral action and 'choose' to sin, and are then placed 'under condemnation.'
Now, I frankly believe that there is room for Southern Baptists who believe both interpretations. Some Southern Baptists believe condemnation is because of Adam's one sin, and others believe that no condemnation comes until there is personal, actual sin. I think the 'tent' is big enough for people who hold to these two different interpretations on this point of doctrine which is not an essential of the faith.
What really puzzles me is the inconsistency by some Southern Baptists.
The inconsistency of at least one seminary professor who is very vocal about the 'integrity' of the signers of the BFM 2000 when he himself believes and teaches a doctrine that is contradicted by the BFM 2000 (or at least in his contract of employment has 'signed' that he believed something different than what is written in the BFM 2000).
The inconsistency of those who label as 'moderate,' 'liberal,' or 'neo-conservative' anyone who questions anything in the BFM 2000, but then fail to realize that the charter for Southern Baptists' mother seminary teaches a doctrine contradicted by the BFM 2000.
The inconsistency of those who belong to a convention that has historically affirmed the Bible the sole and sufficient authority for faith and practice, but then act as if a confessional document is on par with the Bible itself.
I believe in the inerrant and infallible Word of God. I treasure it as the authoritative and sufficient expression of God's revealed will for man. I study it. I memorize it. I preach it. I live it.
My conscience is bound to it.
When I am asked to affirm a human document, I will. But I will not hesitate to show where I believe it is not in line with the Word of God.
By the way, when it comes to the consequences of Adam's sin I affirm the Abstract of Principles and believe the BFM 2000 to be in error on this point of doctrine.
Only the Bible is without error. Man's interpretation of the Bible is fallible.
The man who can't admit he may at times be wrong in his interpretation of the sacred text is the man undeserving of leadership in the SBC. He won't know how to be humble and gracious with those who disagree with him.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
In the last five years there has been a push for trustees, employees and administrators of Southern Baptist agencies to sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 to affirm their agreement with this modern confession of Southern Baptists or be removed from service.
It is my understanding that employees of Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary are asked to sign both the BFM 2000 and The Abstract of Principles which governs both institutions.
The charter of both seminaries contains the following statement that continues to be a part of the 'fundamental laws.' "Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist Church; and all persons accepting professorships in this Seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees."
I have four questions:
(1). Would you be surprised to know that the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 contradict each other on a point of doctrine?
(2). Would integrity demand that professors, who by contract and charter must affirm and teach according to the Abstract of Principles, simply refuse to sign the BFM 2000 because it contradicts what the professors believe on just one or two points of doctrine that are not essentials of the faith?
(3). Is it reasonable, and should it be expected, that seminary professors might be allowed to sign the BFM 2000, expressing general affirmation, but write down their disagreement on a couple of points of doctrine that are not essentials of the faith?
(4). If it is considered reasonable for number (3) to happen, would it not be logical and consistent to allow all signers of the BFM 2000 to do the same?
Let me give you an example:
The Abstract of Principles, which every professor and employee at Southern Southern and Southeastern Seminary must sign, has an excellent statement on the fall of man.
VI. The Fall of Man (The Abstract of Principles)
God originally created man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.
The abstract teaches that every descendent of Adam is 'under condemnation' even though they are not 'actual transgressors.'
In other words, infants are under 'condemnation' by God because of Adam's sin, even though they have not yet personally sinned.
This seems to be very consistent with the teaching of the Apostle Paul who said, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).
However, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message clearly teaches something different:
III. Man (The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message)
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.
The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 teaches that the descendents of Adam are not under condemnation 'until' they are capable of moral action.
In other words, according to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 nobody is actually condemned for the sin of Adam, but rather, condemnation comes as a result of one's own personal, actual sin.
In other words, infants are 'innocent' before God and not under condemnation until they are capable of moral action and 'choose' to sin, and are then placed 'under condemnation.'
Now, I frankly believe that there is room for Southern Baptists who believe both interpretations. Some Southern Baptists believe condemnation is because of Adam's one sin, and others believe that no condemnation comes until there is personal, actual sin. I think the 'tent' is big enough for people who hold to these two different interpretations on this point of doctrine which is not an essential of the faith.
What really puzzles me is the inconsistency by some Southern Baptists.
The inconsistency of at least one seminary professor who is very vocal about the 'integrity' of the signers of the BFM 2000 when he himself believes and teaches a doctrine that is contradicted by the BFM 2000 (or at least in his contract of employment has 'signed' that he believed something different than what is written in the BFM 2000).
The inconsistency of those who label as 'moderate,' 'liberal,' or 'neo-conservative' anyone who questions anything in the BFM 2000, but then fail to realize that the charter for Southern Baptists' mother seminary teaches a doctrine contradicted by the BFM 2000.
The inconsistency of those who belong to a convention that has historically affirmed the Bible the sole and sufficient authority for faith and practice, but then act as if a confessional document is on par with the Bible itself.
I believe in the inerrant and infallible Word of God. I treasure it as the authoritative and sufficient expression of God's revealed will for man. I study it. I memorize it. I preach it. I live it.
My conscience is bound to it.
When I am asked to affirm a human document, I will. But I will not hesitate to show where I believe it is not in line with the Word of God.
By the way, when it comes to the consequences of Adam's sin I affirm the Abstract of Principles and believe the BFM 2000 to be in error on this point of doctrine.
Only the Bible is without error. Man's interpretation of the Bible is fallible.
The man who can't admit he may at times be wrong in his interpretation of the sacred text is the man undeserving of leadership in the SBC. He won't know how to be humble and gracious with those who disagree with him.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Sunday, October 22, 2006
A Fly in the Holy Water and an Enemy at the Gates
Oklahoma is filled with Southern Baptist pastors that are both bright and biblical, and they make me proud to be an Oklahoma Southern Baptist. Several of these pastors blog, and do a great job of causing me to think --- deeply.
One such pastor is Paul Littleton of Faith Baptist Church, Sapulpa, Oklahoma. His blog -- caught in the middle -- is a must read, including this post from a few weeks ago.
"I was talking to a friend recently who told me an interesting story about the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman Turks. I've done a little research and haven't been able to confirm the story historically, but even if it is nothing more than legend it makes a profound point. [It's possible that the point is even stronger if the story isn't true since that would mean that people tell this story for the explicit reason of shaping ideas and behavior rather than just relating some interesting history]
It's said that while the Ottoman Turks were breaching the walls of Constantinople the people were inside debating a theological issue. The question was this: 'If a fly lands in holy water, does the fly make the water unholy, or does the water make the fly holy?'
Meanwhile, the Turks invaded and overthrew Constantinople raping and pilliging the city. One fact that is historically true is that The Church of Holy Wisdom was soon converted into a mosque.
I often think that the evangelical church, and my denomination in particular, is busy debating things that may in fact have some limited theological value, but we do so to the neglect of much weightier issues around us. The North American continent is one of the very few places in the world where Christianity is on the decline. Meanwhile we debate whether or not we can cooperate in missions and education with people who might pray in tongues in private, whether we show enough gratitude to denominational leaders of the past and present and whether a person who drinks alcohol without getting drunk has committed an unholy act. It should be no surprise if we get sacked by an army of Turks."
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
P.S. I originally saw Paul's essay referred to in Todd Littleton's blog.
One such pastor is Paul Littleton of Faith Baptist Church, Sapulpa, Oklahoma. His blog -- caught in the middle -- is a must read, including this post from a few weeks ago.
"I was talking to a friend recently who told me an interesting story about the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman Turks. I've done a little research and haven't been able to confirm the story historically, but even if it is nothing more than legend it makes a profound point. [It's possible that the point is even stronger if the story isn't true since that would mean that people tell this story for the explicit reason of shaping ideas and behavior rather than just relating some interesting history]
It's said that while the Ottoman Turks were breaching the walls of Constantinople the people were inside debating a theological issue. The question was this: 'If a fly lands in holy water, does the fly make the water unholy, or does the water make the fly holy?'
Meanwhile, the Turks invaded and overthrew Constantinople raping and pilliging the city. One fact that is historically true is that The Church of Holy Wisdom was soon converted into a mosque.
I often think that the evangelical church, and my denomination in particular, is busy debating things that may in fact have some limited theological value, but we do so to the neglect of much weightier issues around us. The North American continent is one of the very few places in the world where Christianity is on the decline. Meanwhile we debate whether or not we can cooperate in missions and education with people who might pray in tongues in private, whether we show enough gratitude to denominational leaders of the past and present and whether a person who drinks alcohol without getting drunk has committed an unholy act. It should be no surprise if we get sacked by an army of Turks."
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
P.S. I originally saw Paul's essay referred to in Todd Littleton's blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)