Some of the Funniest Moments So Far at the SBC

In no particular order of relevance or importance . . .

(1). In the concierge room on the 26th floor, an 83 year old friend, pulled up his chair to the table with a huge piece of cheesecake, properly placed his napkin and took a big bite of -- brie cheese. :) It seems he took the entire wedge (one of only two on the hor d'ouevres table) thinking it was cheesecake. When we laughed at his expression upon attempting to swallow the hunk of cheese he told us "I thought it was sweets!"

(2). A messenger from Oklahoma and fellow blogger, addressed the convention hall about the tendency of 'rumors' to circulate among Southern Baptists and asked Dr. Patterson to address the 'rumor' that there was actually going to be a degree in 'homemaking' offered at Southwestern Theological Seminary. It was obvious to everyone listening to the question being asked that the messenger was attempting to allow Dr. Patterson to dispel this 'rumor.' By the intonation of voice and the wording used by the friendly questioner the phrase 'ridiculous rumor' comes to my mind. We about fell out of our chairs in laughter when Dr. Patterson responded to his opportunity to dispel the rumor by replying that in fact, there WAS going to be a degree in homemaking offered. :) Priceless. I can't wait to watch it again on the archived video.

(3). When a certain seminary President spent his entire report time talking about everything under the sun except those things which pertain to his seminary (enrollment, finances, faculty, degrees, etc . . .). When he spoke for his allotted time about planting of BAPTIST churches, being vigilent against dangerous liberalism, sharing the gospel in the Negev desert, and forbidding anybody speaking in tongues to be employed at his agency, I thought I was listening to the IMB report rather than the seminary report. However, the funny thing occurred when the presenter gave an illustration about a boat tied to a dock, becoming untied and drifting downstream. We were told the boat could drift toward the left into liberalism, or the center into neo-orthodoxy, or the right into conservative cooperation and ecumenicalism . . . all three bad things -- we must work hard to row the boat upstream! At the dramatic point of the illustration a messenger behind me leaned up and whispered in my ear, "Or we could just sink the ship right where she sits." :)

(4). The funniest of all stories though is affiliated with Jerry Corbaley's admission on his blog that he had spoken in a language that was not 'human,' and now believed that God could gift a person to speak this way. His recantation was picked up by the Associated Baptist Press reporter who wrote an article that Jerry was renouncing his former belief that 'tongues' could not be anything but a known human language. Earlier today, when Jerry admitted on his blog that he had lied and deceived his readers intentionally about his change of beliefs, the ABP story was removed. I will be devoting an entire post in the future on the events that made me laugh till I hurt in the Press Room.

Not now -- its time to go debate the BFM 2000.

:)

In His Grace,


Wade

Tuesday Morning at the SBC in San Antonio

This morning at 8:40 a.m. three motions were presented to the Southern Baptist Convention. The first, by Messenger Rick Garner, former Vice-President at Criswell College, calls upon the messengers to adopt the Executive Committee statement regarding the BFM 2000 which reads:

"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

His excellent motion should be debated sometime this evening, and if passed, will be an authoritative action of our convention that should be applied to each of our SBC entities.

My motion on preventing sexual abuse by ministers in the SBC was read into the record, as well as a motion from Les Puryear asking every entity to record the names and votes of trustees on each and every action taken by our SBC entities during the course of their business sessions. I am in favor of Les's recommendation, believing that trustees ought to be accountable to the convention as a whole.

Morris Chapman's Address

All I can say is -- get the tape.

I believe his message this morning will go down in SBC history as the greatest Executive Director address given to an assembly of convention messengers. I am serious when I say I have never been more proud of any leader in the SBC than I am of Morris Chapman today.

He led us this morning with courage, conviction and vision.

Dr. Frank Page's Leadership

The convention so far has been well run, with a great deal of leadership exhibited from the platform in our President, Dr. Frank Page. His annual message this morning was also a wonderful exhortation on Southern Baptists being a people of love and truth. One quality without the other leads to dysfunction - either legalism or liberalism.

I believe our convention will conduct business in a godly fashion because of Frank's leadership.

Other Morning Observations

The Southern Baptist Texan 'Special Edition' was being passed out by people outside the convention hall. The Texan is the newspaper of the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas, and I find it striking that the headlines of the articles seem to say the very opposite of what both the President and Executive Director have said in their addresses this morning.

One particular article in 'The Texan' caught my attention. It was written by 'journalist' and 'editor' of the Florida Baptist Witness, Jim Smith, but it was nowhere near the standards of reporting of professional journalism. It was not highlighted as a guest editorial, but presented as a news article. Several items in the article are misleading, but I would like to close out this morning's review of business at the SBC with just a couple of quotes from the pen of Jim Smith:

Critics of the baptism and tongues/private prayer language guidelines have insisted that it's wrong for the International Mission Board to establish doctrinal qualifications that are not explicitly addressed in Southern Baptist Covnention's confessional statement, the Baptist Faith and Message. But these critics - and I have interviewed the leading ones - have no answer for their own inconsistent application of this criticism. Although they claim that it is wrong to stipulate a doctrinal position on the matteer of private prayer langauge since the BF&M is silent on this matter, they have all told me that it's appropriate for the IMB to decline missionary candidates who bleieve in and practice public tongues. And yet, the BFM is also silent on that matter - as it is on many doctrinal issues raised by charismatic theology.

I hesitate to say Mr. Smith is intentionally misleading anyone, but the above statement is easily contradicted. I have given answers over and over again about Jim's alleged 'apparant inconsistencies.' Maybe he just chooses not to hear them.

Speaking publicly in tongues should be restricted only to the extent the Bible restricts it and no further -- and the Bible does restrict it severely, including statements that God's people should desire to speak publicly five words in a known language than ten thousand in an unknown tongue. Also, it is always to be done decently and in order, and with interpretation.

BUT THE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THIS: 'Why did this conflict arise? We are in this confict NOT BECAUSE anyone wanted to 'remove' an old policy --but because someone, somewhere decided to implement a brand new policy that is far more restrictive than the old policy.'

Jim is arguing for narrowing the BFM post de facto by new agency policies and guidelines by saying -- "Look, there are other things that are already guidelines -- what can't we go further? If you oppose our narrow interpretations we wish to add you are inconsistent."

That makes no sense. You are arguing for doing something we believe to be wrong (narrowing the parameters of cooperating in missions and evangelism ministry by demanding conformity and acceptance on the interpretation of tertiary doctrines) by saying, "We've done it in the past, and we will continue to do it in the future!"

I've got a sneaking suspicion the narrowing will be stopped by this convention.

Soon.

:)

Stay tuned.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Most Important Vote at the SBC in 10 Years

Some might believe that the most important vote at the SBC this year will be the vote for First Vice-President between missionary David Rogers and SBCT Executive Director Jim Richards. Though this vote is important, it is not the most important vote.

Some might believe the ballot cast Wednesday for any number of resolutions that will be presented to the SBC tomorrow could be the most important vote at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. Though there are several worthy resolutions, no vote for a resolution will be the most signficant vote cast by messengers at this 2007 convention.

I believe the most important vote of the Southern Baptist Convention this year, not to mention the last ten years, will take place sometime Tuesday night, during the previously scheduled business portion of the agenda, when the seated messengers of the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio will debate, and then ultimately vote for, or against, the adoption of the Executive Committee statement regarding the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which reads:

"The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

The above statement was adopted by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention this past year in response to a motion made at the 2006 Greensboro Southern Baptist Convention by Dr. Boyd Luter, former Dean at Criswell College.

If the Convention herself adopts this statement, it will send a strong and irrefutable message to the trustees of Southern Baptist boards and agencies that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the only consensus statement of doctrinal belief approved by the SBC, and to establish doctrinal guidelines or policies that exceed the BFM 2000 is an act contrary to the wishes of the Convention herself.

Again, in my mind, this recommendation to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is the most important vote to come before the SBC in many years. I pray that the adoption of the statement passes at the Convention, as it did in the Executive Committee of the SBC, WITHOUT opposition.

Why Should The Executive Committee Statement on the BFM 2000 Be Adopted by the SBC?

(1). It will give trustees the authority to lead out in the prevention of any SBC agency from demanding absolute conformity on interpretations of tertiary doctrines, doctrines that are not addressed by the BFM 2000, before there can be participation in SBC missions and ministry.

(2). It will communicate to men who pray in tongues like Dwight McKissic and Jerry Rankin, and men who believe in Calvinism like Al Mohler and Tom Ascol, and men who believe in cessationism like Paige Patterson and Russ Moore, and men who believe in Arminianism like _________ (fill in the blank), and pastors who hold to Landmarkism in their local church, and pastors who don't hold to Landmarkism in their local church, that there is plenty of room in the SBC for both interpretations of these tertiary doctrines, and that not one side, or the other, is free to demand that others take their position in order to cooperate in missions and ministry in the SBC.

(3). It will help us focus on the main thing - sharing the gospel - and will stop cold the continuing narrowing of the parameters of cooperation by insisting we Southern Baptists unite around the essentials and cease making tertiary doctrinal interpretations issues over which we divide.

Probably the more significant question one might ought ponder is this: "What does it mean if people speak out against - or vote against - this Executive Committee statement on the BFM 2000?"

It would seem to me that opposition to this statement would represent a belief by some that the BFM 2000 IS NOT sufficient, and there is definitely a movement afoot by some in the SBC to narrow the doctrinal standards of cooperation by doctrinally adding to the BFM 'post de facto' by changing agency doctrinal policies and guidelines without Convention approval --- a charge that I have consistently made over the past two years.

We'll see how right I may have been by watching carefully the debate. Notice closely 'who' opposes the Executive Committee statement. Listen to the reasons 'why' a person opposes it. You will learn a great deal by just listening. You can watch (and listen) to the convention LIVE by clicking here.

Other Items of Business On Tuesday at the SBC

There will be several interesting reports from our agencies, not the least of which are the Lifeway Report, where I have already heard some are attempting to question the President of Lifeway on the tongues survey released a week before the convention. As most of you know, the Lifeway survey found that over 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believed that tongues was a legitimate gift of the Spirit.

The International Mission Board report will be offered Tuesday night, and the Southwestern Theological Seminary report will be given Tuesday afternoon at 4:45 p.m. There will be other interesting items presented to the convention in the form of recommendations and resolutions. I will update everyone Tuesday night.

The Election of First Vice-President

Tuesday afternoon, right before the supper break the election for First Vice-President will be held. There is a clear choice this year between ideologies of conservative cooperation vs. fundamentalist separation. David Rogers, IMB missionary to Spain and son of legendary Southern Baptist Adrian Rogers represents the fresh wind of cooperation among conservatives around the essentials of the gospel, and freedom to dissent on the non-essentials. Jim Richards represents the ideology that there are no tertiary doctrines in the Bible, and you must agree with me on every issue or you cannot be considered a true Southern Baptist.

Jim Richards is in his home state of Texas and he is expected to win because of the huge number SBCT messengers in San Antonio -- but don't rule out David Rogers pulling off what would be the biggest upset in recent memory.

A Review of the Events at the SBC on Monday, June 11, 2007

Due to the lateness of the hour, I only wish to highlight a couple of events that occurred today at the SBC. Though the Convention officially begins tomorrow, many thousands of Southern Baptists are already here enjoying the Pastor's Conference and the fellowship with other Southern Baptist people.

First, Dwight McKissic did a phenomenal job in debating Dr. Russ Moore of Southern Seminary on the issue of tongues. In the portion of the debate where the two positions were defended from Scripture, Dwight was the hands down clear winner. Someone told me later that Dwight reminded them of Luther at the Diet of Worms where the Catholic bishops excoriated Luther on his lack of knowledge of Catholic history, only to be handed their own heads on the proverbial platter when Luther expertly defended his views on justificaton from Scripture.

I also listened to the talk given by Dr. Patterson on KCBI Radio as he was asked questions by Jerry Johnston, President of Criswell College, about his 'concerns' over the SBC. I couldn't help but smile as Paige articulated his belief that the new enemy in the SBC (again)is the 'liberals.' I was around during the early eighties when Pressler and Patterson made stump speeches about how to 'rescue' the SBC (I was Pressler's driver in Oklahoma), and I really believe if you were to take today's tape and play it against one made by Dr. Patterson 25 years ago, the two would have sounded the same.

Of course, a great deal has changed in the SBC over the past quarter century, not the least of which is the fact that all the liberals are gone.

People are beginning to wake up to the fact that the old mantras don't work anymore.

Finally, it was my pleasure to eat dinner with all the messengers from my church, three of which are attending their first ever Southern Baptist Convention. One of those three, Dr. Cyril Kumar, heads up our orphanage and school in Bangalore, India. I have never seen a man work harder than Cyril, and literally thousands of lives and families have been saved through his ministry called 'Touch India.'

Sometimes I get concerned that Cyril might get jaded by what he sees. However, today, I was thankful to learn that he was excited to be at the SBC and he learned a great deal about Southern Baptists, including that there is propensity in all Southern Baptists to say, "Have a good day" even when it has gotten dark, is night, and the 'day' is almost over.

I pray that tomorrow is 'a good day.'

In His Grace,


Wade

San Antonio -- Day One -- Sunday, June 10th

Sunday morning Rachelle and I attended the worship service at Castle Hills Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Frank Page was the guest speaker and spoke from the heart on the subject of 'missed opportunities.' Rachelle and I sat on the second row right in front of a long time family friend, Dr. Roy Fish. Roy was the former interim pastor of Castle Hills and a highly respected professor by many Southern Baptists during his tenure at Southwestern Theological Seminary. We had a nice conversation with Dr. Fish before the service and the church gave him a standing ovation when he was introduced by the current pastor. The service started at 10:30 and ended about 12:10, and both Rachelle and I felt the worship service atto be both dynamic and uplifting.

There were probably about 300 guests in the service who were in San Antonio for the SBC. Ben Cole and I visited with several pastors, convention staffers, agency trustees and IMB personnel. I particularly enjoyed visiting prior to the service with IMB Regional Leader Rodney Hammer and IMB trustee Harold Booze (who's daughter sings in the choir at Castle Hills). I also spoke briefly with Jim Richards, Executive Director for the SBCT, Bart Barber and Thomas White of SWBTS, and a host of other Southern Baptist messengers after the service. Again, I'm sure that there were some wonderful worship services throughout the San Antonio area Sunday morning, but we were at one of the best.

We ate lunch at a steak restaurant on the Riverwalk and then made our way to the lobby of the hotel where we were able to greet many of the messengers arriving for the convention. I met Les Puryear and his wife for the first time, both of whom were very gracious. My parents also arrived in San Antonio around 3:00 p.m. along with our church member and fellow messenger Dr. Sam Storms. We spent much of the afternoon visiting in the lobby with several people including a few reporters. Jim Jones of the Fort Worth Star Telegram always asks some very perceptive questions and a New York Times and Texas Observer reporter also displayed keen insights into polity of the SBC in the questions that were asked.

Speaking of reporters, the San Antonio Express ran very good article front page article on the convention and possible new directions. There seems to be a larger number of reporters here in San Antonio than are usually at the SBC, and I'm wondering if it is not because of the rumors that President Bush will be speaking at the SBC either Tuesday or Wednesday morning.

The Pastor's Conference

Dr. Hayes Wicker, pastor of First Baptist Church, Naples, Florida and the former pastor of the church where I now pastor, is this year's President of the SBC Pastor's Conference which began at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday evening. We registered as messengers prior to the beginning of the Pastor's Conference and made our way to the hall to listen to some of the speakers. I have always believed that speaking at a Pastor's Conference has to be one of the most difficult venues in which to speak because of the movement and commotion of thousands of people walking around during the sessions. However, we enjoyed the testimony of Paige Patterson and the worship at the conference and then made our way back to the Marriott Rivercenter to catch a light dinner in the concierge room prior to meeting folks in the lobby of the hotel aat 9:00 p.m.

It was a great privilege to meet several people who stopped by the lobby last night just to say hello. There are too many to name individually, but one of the things I have loved about the last two years is the new friendships that I have been able to develop with Southern Baptists from around the nation. At around 10:00 p.m. about twenty five of us made our way up to our suite for an informal prayer meeting. We began the day in worship and ended it in prayer -- I can't think of a better way to start the week in San Antonio.

It is now about 12:25 a.m. Monday morning and the horns are continuing to be honked incessantly in downtown San Antonio. The Spurs won game two and for the last two hours, non-stop, downtown has been a noisy commotion of honking, screaming, cheering and a continous cacophony of noise. I don't know that I could sleep if I wanted. My wife asked, "Did they win the series or just the second game?" I told her, "Just Game 2." She said, "Thank goodness we won't be here when the win the entire series.' I agree. :)

Tomorrow night's post will be just a quick update on Monday's activities and then I will point out three very important events that will occur during the business session of the Southern Baptist Convention on Tuesday. I realize that a few of you will be watching the Convention via live streaming this Tuesday, and I would like to give you a heads up of on those things for which you should be watching. More importantly, I would like to give those of you actually attending the convention a couple of tips regarding the important times you should be present and voting at the SBC.

We prayed tonight that the Holy Spirit might move in a mighty way here at the SBC. I believe if we were to be as excited about His presence in our lives as the Spurs fans are about their basketball team, our convention just might end up changing the world.

Wow. It's amazing.

It's now 12:40 a.m. and the horns completely stopped. I mean, all of the sudden, like a conductor gave the dramatic down beat, all horns stopped honking.

It's quiet.

It's time to go to bed. :)

Blessings to all,

Wade Burleson

Arrived in San Antonio Safely: Church on Sunday

Rachelle and I completed the eight hour drive to San Antonio, arriving around 6:30 p.m. Central Time. We are staying at the Marriott Rivercenter Hotel in downtown San Antonio, right across the street from the convention center where the Southern Baptist Convention will be held beginning Tuesday morning.

Tonight we had dinner on the Riverwalk with Ben Cole and Art Rogers. While we were eating a host of Southern Baptists stopped to say hello. It was quite easy to pick out the Southern Baptists among the throng of people walking the Riverwalk, including thousands who are here for the NBA Finals between San Antonio and Cleveland. Game two of the best of seven series is Sunday night here in San Antonio.

This morning, Sunday, June 10, Rachelle and I plan to attend the worship services at Castle Hills Baptist Church in north San Antonio. The Pastor's Conference begins Sunday night at 6:00 p.m. Immediately after the Pastor's Conference Rachelle and I will be in the lobby of the Marriott Rivercenter and anyone who reads this blog and happens to be in San Antonio is welcome to come to the lobby for a time of fellowship. Lord willing we plan on possibly hosting an informal prayer meeting in one of the suites late Sunday night, but regardless, if you are reading this we would love for you to come to the Marriot Rivercenter lobby around 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. Sunday and meet some very special people who will be with us.

I plan on blogging about tomorrow's events early Monday morning. There are already a huge number of people in downtown San Antonio, but it is hard for me to tell if it is because of the basketball game or the Southern Baptist Convention. Either way, it is an exciting time to be in San Antonio.

In His Grace,


Wade

Preventing Child Abuse Is A Calling For Us All

At the San Antonio Convention this Tuesday morning, at 8:40 a.m., I plan to introduce the following motion:

“I move that the Southern Baptist Convention requests the Executive Committee to conduct a feasibility study concerning the development of a database of Southern Baptist ministers who have been credibly accused of, personally confessed to, or legally been convicted of sexual harrassment or abuse, and that such a database be accessible to Southern Baptist churches in order to assist in preventing any future sexual abuse or harrassment.”

The issue of preventing child abuse must be dealt with by all Christians, including the Southern Baptist Convention. I don't have all the answers, but I know that we must do all we can to stop the victimization of our children, and we cannot turn a blind eye toward those who commit such crimes.

Recently, Lane Aspinwall, the national marketing coordinator for the 501C-3 non-profit organization called Darkness to Light, contacted me to ask our church staff to participate in their online training. This organization is committed to help train adults to "prevent, recognize, and react responsibilty to child sexual abuse."

Our children's directer, Paula Minx, and my personal secretary, Barbara Ebert, both took the on-line course. The cost is $15.00 and both ladies told me it was very helpful in learning how to prevent child abuse.

Paula says of the The Stewards of Children Course:

The Darkness to Light truly brings to light the epidemic of child sexual abuse through the Stewards of Children training. The interactive training engages the participant through video testimonies of victims, child advocacy workers, pediatricians and other professionals. The program also incorporates an interactive workbook that contains the full program curriculum for further reference. The format of the program is well done, but the content is life changing.

Darkness to Light opened my eyes to many startling statistics, such as experts estimate that one in six boys and one in four girls will be sexually abused by their eighteenth birthday. That is an epidemic. But, less than one in ten will tell about the abuse. That is heart breaking. Darkness to Light provides insightful training on how adults can help in the battle against childhood sexual abuse through the 7 steps to protecting children. These include learning the facts, minimizing opportunity, talking about it, staying alert, making a plan, acting on suspicions, and getting involved.

The Stewards of Children program has personally led me to assess programs within my church, to determine questions that I should be asking my own children, and to discover how I can be proactive in the fight. Remember, we are the adults. We are the people responsible for the safety of our children. This training helps us to know how to keep the children in our lives safe. I would encourage everyone to join the fight against child sexual abuse, and the Stewards of Children training is a great first step.

Paula Minx
Director of Children’s Ministries
Emmanuel Baptist Church

Barbara Ebert writes . . .

I just finished taking the course and want to say that I would highly recommend it to parents, teachers, children’s workers, youth workers, grandparents, or anyone involved in the stewardship of children.

The training is thorough and easy to follow, although it was somewhat confusing at first to get logged in and get started.

Anyone completing this course will be better informed and equipped to protect children from child sexual abuse. If abuse has already occurred, this program outlines step-by-step procedures to follow; but especially teaches an adult how to sensitively deal with a child who becomes a victim of such abuse.

This course would be especially important to our children’s workers here at Emmanuel, even to Sunday school teachers.

One thing that stood out to me is that the more informed children and adults are, the less sexual abuse is likely to occur. Even those who would abuse children are put off if they know the child is informed of potentially dangerous situations and empowered to say ‘no’.

Darkness to Light has trained over five hundred facilitators in forty three states, and has to date seen over sixty thousand people in five countries trained on-line.

Our own Paula Minx plans to be trained as a facilitor of this ministry, and if you would like to join her to be certified to help people in your community to prevent, recognize and responsibly react to child abuse, we hope to be offering in Oklahoma a regional certified facilitator seminar in the near future. The Charleston Association of the Southern Baptist Convetnion in South Carolina is already a step ahead of us in this, but we hope to catch up soon.

Preventing child abuse is something the Southern Baptist Convention should be proud to be able to set the standard.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

I will post beginning Sunday night from San Antonio and will have daily updates from the SBC all next week.

San Antonio: Welcome To The Big Leagues

For nearly two years now I have been concerned that the there is a brand of leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention that would treat our cooperating convention as if it were a local church. Rather than championing cooperation in missions and evangelism ministry by uniting on the essentials and granting liberty on the non-essentials, authoritarian leaders at a few of our SBC agencies have taken it upon themselves to issue, by fiat, the terms of Southern Baptist identity.

I warned that if we did not draw a line in the sand we would soon see efforts to bring conformity to our convention 'post de fact,' by simply changing policies and guidelines at agencies and then a few years down the road pointing to those changes and saying, "See, how can you not agree with this doctrinal interpretation of Scripture: The _____________ (insert any SBC agency's name you please) has had this as a doctrinal guideline for ten years?"

Some who initially doubted me have now seen the light. The issue before us is very clear. There are those who would, using artful and sophisticated language, make it clear that ANY AGENCY OF THE SBC can move beyond the BFM 2000 and establish any doctrinal standard it chooses. Read carefully the following section of this proposed resolution on the BFM 2000:

RESOLVED, That we acknowledge the appropriateness of entities adopting and enforcing additional theological standards such as the Abstract of Principles as a part of the unique responsibility of the board of trustees of each entity, operating in conscientious accountability to the convention, to govern the entity in its charge in all matters theological and otherwise; and be it further

Other than the fact the Abstract was in force at Southern long before the BFM 2000 was even conceived, there are HUGE problems with this very, very dangerous statement:

(1). If an entity of our convention establishes a policy or guideline that goes well beyond the BFM 2000 (by way of a hypothetical example: you can't pray in your closet in a language our trustees don't understand), there is no way under the sun the Southern Baptist can order, demand, or actually remove that policy or guideline. It CAN'T happen. The only thing the convention has control over is the election of trustees. But the convention cannot INSTRUCT an agency to remove an adopted policy or guideline. Our agencies are autonomous.

Likewise, the agency cannot remove a trustee. Only the Southern Baptist Convention has that authority. So, if an agency does not like the fact a trustee is questioning why a particular SBC agency is narrowing the parameters of our cooperation by establishing a doctrinal guideline that goes beyond the BFM 2000 and demanding conformity by ALL SBC churches in order to participate, then that agency just can't get rid of that trustee because they don't like his challenge -- the Southern Baptist Convention alone has that authority.

Therefore, the trustees of the SBC actually control the direction of the SBC. And the President of the SBC controls the appointment process of all our trustees. I believe we need trustees who are committed to not move our agencies, particularly those that represent the ENTIRE convention (the IMB, NAMB, Lifeway, etc . . .) BEYOND the BFM 2000 and make demands for conformity on interpretations of tertiary doctrines a standard of cooperation. We RIP the delicate fabric of cooperation in the SBC if we do that.

Personally, I don't have near as much of a problem with SEMINARIES having confessions that are narrower than the BFM 2000. If you wish to study at a Calvinistic Seminary -- go to Southern. The Abstract of Principles, the document that all professors must sign, is far more narrower doctrinally than the BFM 2000 --and, it is a Calvinistic document. If you wish to attend a semi-Pelagian seminary, attend Southwestern, for the anti-Calvinistic tendencies of the President are well known, and the policies and guidelines of that school will reflect his views. People in the SBC should have a choice on where, and how, they wish to be trained theologically.

But if we don't wake up we will find every single one of our agencies has overnight decided to be anti-Calvinistic, hyper-dispensationalist, Landmark, cessationist and non-cooperative in our work with fellow evangelicals. I have often called the above 'Fundamentalism' simply because my independent, fundamentalist Baptist brothers and sisters at Bible Baptist Church right down the street here in Enid believe exactly like the above. Some have asked me to use a different nomenclature than 'Fundamentalist', and if I could figure out another descriptive adjective to use, I promise, I would. All I know is I don't want our agencies to become like Bible Baptist Church, and only the trustees can insure we don't.

(2). I get confused. Initially the BFM 2000 was supposed to be the document for 'doctrinal accountability' and though those SBC missionaries, who were initially commissioned under the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, were told they would not have to sign the BFM 2000, over time, leaders either forgot - or intentionally broke - their early pledge and demanded all missionaries sign the BFM 2000. In one day, more missionaries resigned from mission field service than at any other time in the history of the SBC. These men and women refused to sign what they saw was becoming a 'creed' rather than a confession.

Someone might ask, why would they not sign? Were they liberal? No, those who resigned ALL affirmed the essentials of the Christian faith and true Baptist identity(they never would have been appointed if they had not) - but they were now being told EVERYTHING in the BFM 2000 is ESSENTIAL to believe in order to be identified as a Southern Baptist. Frankly, in some regions, missionaries were rightly told they could sign the BFM 2000 and express in writing their disagreements on tertiary doctrines, and after review, they were allowed to stay in the field. THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. There should be unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, and charity in all things. (By the way, I have shown my disagreements with the BFM 2000 on tertiary doctrines including 'closed communion,' 'the innocency of infants prior to personal transgression,' a statement that the Holy Spirit 'baptizes' us when the Bible teaches Christ baptizes us in the Holy Spirit, and the statement that 'justification' is simply acquital and not the declaration of being righteous, but of course, I wholeheartedly affirm the doctrinal essentials of the BFM 2000).

It is very, very evident that there is a growing demand that EVERY single Southern Baptist believe EXACTLY like those who 'are in charge' demand you believe. Now remember -- those in charge are those who are running the agencies -- trustees.
I am of the firm opinion that trustees should be focusing upon the business that the convention gives us and should STAY COMPLETELY AWAY from establishing doctrinal guidelines that go way beyond the BFM 2000, not to mention the Bible.

HOWEVER, if some trustee group, somewhere, gets an itch to narrow the parameters of cooperation at one of our agencies, and then issues an edict that "ninety five percent" of all Southern Baptists believe the way we have written this doctrinal guideline, and then tries to remove that trustee from service who has the gall to stand up and say, 'Wait a minute, that's not OUR JOB' to narrow the our doctrinal standards,' then maybe in the providence of God that becomes the impetus to turn the entire convention around. Maybe.

The man who wrote the BFM resolution to be submitted in San Antonio for convention approval is saying, "IT IS THE JOB OF OUR TRUSTEES TO NARROW THE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF OUR CONVENTION -- AND WE SHOULD TRUST THEM." I will borrow a word from my thirteen year old son to describe my feeling to that view -- 'Beans.' :) It's not our job. It's not an issue of trust, it is an issue of responsibility -- we trustees don't have it.

(3). There is a clear choice as to how people should respond to this narrowing of the parameters of cooperation and demands for conformity on interpretions of tertiary doctrines -- conscientiously vote for those resolutions, recommendations and candidates that (who) say, 'Enough is enough.'

Allow me to conclude today's post with the following comments from people who have frequented this blog:

R. Graneemann writes:

The debate is about two SLIGHTLY different views of what Baptists are. One side glories in Baptist distinctives, the other in a broader evangelicalism. One side wants denominational power to enforce their view, the other is affronted by the attempt. One side wants to sign creeds to protect the mother denomination, the other side's conscience is offended. One side sees security in rule making, the other the very death of the denomination. Perhaps it's about two human temperaments, one authoritative and the other free-spirited.

T.D. Webb states,

"Apparently, those who want to impose their view of Baptist doctrine as a prerequisite for anyone holding a SBC leadership position, are sufficiently aroused to do their best at what they do best, especially when they can't specifically address the issues you raise . . . that is, to distract readers from the focal issues of your remarks with clever rhetorical sophistry coupled with personal attacks on the messenger!

In my opinion Chris Hilliard nails it when he write:

We acknowledge that there are Christians (who meet 1st tier essentials) who don’t agree on the 2nd tier doctrines. We won’t declare them unsaved but we believe these doctrines are clearly presented in the Word and should not be compromised. Thus, it’s what separates us (Baptist) from the others. Third tier doctrines are simply ones that we all acknowledge we aren’t quite sure about. We have our opinions (even convictions) but we aren’t dogmatic about them.

Personally, I believe we have allowed some 3rd tier doctrines to come into the argument and confuse us. Is baptism by immersion a 1st tier, 2nd tier, or 3rd tier? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it clear in Scripture? Yes. Thus it’s second tier. Is being a continuationist/cessationist a 1st tier doctrine? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it a second tier issue? Is it absolutely clear in Scripture? Debated, in my opinion. Thus, it’s a 3rd tier doctrine.

If the BFM is simply a confession of 1st tier doctrines, then I believe we should be held accountable to them. If the BFM is a confession of 1st and 2nd tier doctrines we must ask whether or not we should be held accountable to it as well. If 2nd tier doctrines are as I defined them, I could possibly see the merit in saying yes. But, the problem with the BFM is that it contains what I believe are 1st, 2nd, and possibly even 3rd tier doctrines. Plus, I believe many are beginning to confuse 2nd and 3rd tier doctrines. And as long as the possibility lies that 3rd tier doctrines are currently a part of the BFM or might be in the future, we must not let the BFM become a “creed”.

Chris Hillard does not agree with me on everything. He has let me know that often. :) However, he is an example of a person that I not only could be friends with, but a fellow conservative, evangelical Southern Baptist pastor with whom I and my church are honored to serve with in missionary and evangelistic cooperation. His logic is crystal clear.

There is nothing wrong with a confession containing third tier doctrines, as long as the convention acknowledges that the confession is 'a consensus of opinion,' a 'mutable (changeable) document,' and dissent and disagreement over third tier doctrines is allowed. In other words, it is a confession - not a creed.

That's the way ALL Southern Baptist confessions should be viewed.

Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, charity in all things.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

P.S. Tomorrow, my most meaningful post of the year - preventing child sexual abuse in our churches and our convention.

The 2000 BFM: A Confession, Creed, Or A Club?

At Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma we have a wonderful group of conservative evangelical men and women who are doctrinally sound and able to articulate various theological positions in soteriology, ecclessiology, eschatology and pneumatology. We have Calvinists and Arminians, proponents of elder rule and advocates of congregationalism, dispensationalists and preterists, and cessationists and continuationists. But yet we all get along in fellowship, cooperate with each other in missions, and love each other without conditions. Our basis of fellowship is around Jesus Christ and the essentials of the gospel. Our unofficial motto: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."

Allow me to give an example. Recently I gave a series of messages on the end times. Since this was a departure from my usual expositional manner of teaching, I resolved to not spoon feed people a particular viewpoint, but rather, I taught all four major positions held by evangelicals: (1). The historic premillenial view, (2). The dispensational view, (3). The amillenial view, and (4). The preterist and/or postmillenial view(s) -- and only at the end of teaching the entire series did I give my opinion, but I tell people that they must come to a conviction on their own as to what Scripture teaches. Every time I teach a series that allows me to articulate various opinions or viewpoints of people regarding the same doctrine, I will always emphasize that evangelicals who hold to those various viewpoints often also hold to a high view of the authoritative, sufficient and inerrant Word of God. When asked how conservative Christians can arrive at different interpretations I remind people that all of us sometimes slip into frail, insufficient and fallible interpretations of the infallible Word. Only Bible teachers filled with pride will never question whether or not they may be wrong in their interpretations.

This is where Al Mohler's brilliant proposal to establish a theological triage system whereby people may know the difference between first tier (primary), second tier (secondary), and third tier (tertiary) doctrines would be healthy for our SBC. There are some who say that everything in the BFM 2000 is PRIMARY DOCTRINE, and if a Southern Baptist expresses any disagreement with any portion of the BFM 2000, he is not a true Southern Baptist and is not worthy of leadership in the SBC.

This kind of thinking is very, very dangerous. Why? It is more 'cultic' than it is Baptist. If a Southern Baptist cannot point out where he/she believes the BFM 2000 is in contradiction with Scripture we are in trouble. In fact, if a Southern Baptist voices a disagreement with some of the interpretations of tertiary doctrines found within the BFM 2000, and we then begin to 'question' that Southern Baptist's conservative credentials, we have prostituted our heritage as Baptists. Why? We will have placed ourselves in the very bizarre place of having people in the SBC being called 'liberal' when they champion their belief of the authority of the Bible over a man-made confession. Think about it -- in 2007 it is possible for Southern Baptists to call 'a liberal' someone within the convention whose conscience is bound to the Word of God, and not the BFM 2000!

Even worse, we now have people in the SBC who are attempting to move the entire convention to an acceptance of interpretations of tertiary doctrines that go far BEYOND those contained in the BFM 2000. Those who are demanding conformity to policies and guidelines that are based upon specific interpretations of tertiary doctrines, without giving room for disagreement, will ultimately destroy our cooperating convention.

Southern Baptists have fallen asleep at the wheel. We had better wake up and speak up. Someone needs to have the prophetic courage and fortitude to show, RIGHT NOW, that to publicly disagree over tertiary doctrines, even those tertiary doctrines found in the BFM 2000, is NOT A REASON to disfellowship, end cooperation, or remove people from leadership in the SBC.

By the way, one might advocate the following as a possible definition of Fundamentalism -- any philosophy that adds to the sacred Word of God. Liberalism takes away from the sacred Word of God; Fundamentalism adds to it. Both ideologies are dangerous, and whereas it seems we successfully resisted the dangers of liberalism in the latter portion of the 20th Century, we must now resist the dangers of fundamentalism in the 21st Century

Allow me to illustrate. It is possible for me to point out at least five tertiary doctrines in the BFM 2000 where solid, conservative evangelical Southern Baptists disagree. Unlike fundamentalists who wish to exclude those who disagree with tertiary doctrines in the BFM 2000, I believe it is a healthy thing for people to discuss and debate various interpretative views on those doctrines that are not essential to the faith, but contained in the BFM 2000. Some wish to remove people who publicly disagree with ANYTHING in the BFM, even if it is a TERTIARY doctrine. Bart Barber recently suggested that I make a list of those places in the BFM 2000 where there are differing interpretations on tertiary doctrines. Dr. Barber believes everything in the BFM is a PRIMARY doctrine, and I'm sure he wishes to prove I can't point to disagreements among Baptists on tertiary issues in the BFM 2000.

I can, and I will.

Listen carefully: Even though I am pointing out five differing interpretations of non-essentials doctrines below, I am not saying these doctrines are not important. They are. And we should debate them, discuss them, and try to come to some consensus. However, I am saying as clearly as I know how that differing interpretations of the doctrines below should not be a reason to cease cooperation in SBC missions, or exclude from SBC missionary service or leadership.

EXAMPLE ONE: The BFM 2000 Teaches Infants Are Innocent And NOT Under God's Condemnation Until They Personally Sin

My blog has contained an interesting discussion about the point at which people are condemned by God.

The BFM 2000 in Article III says infants come under God's judgment 'as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.'

Dr. Greg Welty and Dr. Bart Barber of Southwestern Seminary have both publicaly agreed that BFM 2000 does not teach infants are condemned for the sin of Adam.

However, The Abstract of Principles, the institutional confession of Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary teaches:

"Adam 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 . . ."

This 'condemnation,' according to the Abstract is BEFORE anyone has committed 'actual transgressions' or even are capable of 'moral action.' It is interesting to note that the Abstract of Principles is consistent with the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message on this point of condemnation. We are all condemned, according to the Abstract of Principles, for the sin of ONE man (and of course I would say this is very consistent with Romans 5).

The fact that the Abstract says people become 'actual transgressors' when they are capable of 'moral judgment' only compounds the judgment those without moral judgment (infants) ARE ALREADY UNDER due to the sin of Adam.

These two statements on the fall of Adam, one in the Abstract and the the other in the BFM 2000, are NOT compatible.

However, read carefully -- there is room for both interpretations in the SBC regarding the point at which people actually fall under the just condemnation of God, either, (1). At the impartation of the soul (the Reformed view), or (2). When that soul grows to maturity and is capable of moral action (the 'age of accountability,' the Semi-palagian view).

For the purpose of missions cooperation this particular doctrine is tertiary and not essential. Nobody, neither the Calvinist nor the semi-palagian better DEMAND conformity to his viewpoint in the SBC or there will be an irreversible rip in the fabric of our cooperation.

EXAMPLE TWO: The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Teaches Closed Communion

Article VII states: Being a church ordinance, (baptism) is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

Baptism has already been defined in Article VII as baptism by immersion, and since the very word 'baptism' (Gk. 'baptizo') means 'to immerse,' one would be hard-pressed to call himself Baptist without believing in baptism by immersion.

However, there has been disagreement for years among Baptists over whether or not Baptists could share communion with believers who have not been 'properly' baptized. There is no question that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper (or fellowship/communion) with other believers, but the question becomes, if someone is not baptized by immersion, can they still be a partaker of 'communion' with the family of Christ?

Spurgeon said, yes, absolutely! His church welcomed at the table of communion all Christians, whether properly baptized (by immersion) or not. Why? There was the belief that the Kingdom of Christ transcends the 'local' church, and if we will all share the 'Marriage Supper of the Lamb" together in heaven, even with Christians not 'properly' baptized - as we Baptists define it - then why would we withhold the cup of fellowship and communion from believers here? Like Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle, our church invites all Christians, regardless of the 'mode' of their baptism, to the Lord's Table. Our local church 'membership' is strict (only believers who have been baptized by immersion), but our table of 'communion' is open.

Nathan Finn, a professional historian and an employee of Southeastern Seminary, has written that he believes a large majority of Southern Baptist Churches practice the same form of modified open communion our church practices. I believe there is room in the SBC for both views and if there are attempts by either side on this view to DEMAND that the other side do it their way, then a rip in our fabric of cooperation takes place. I can't sign the BFM 2000 without expressing my disagreement to this article, and if there are people who believe that I should not serve as a trustee because of my disagreement with closed communion, then we have lost our moorings. Closed communion is a legitimate interpretation of the Scripture -- but it is not the only, conservative Southern Baptist view.

EXAMPLE THREE: The Baptist Faith and Message Teaches Justification Is Simply 'Acquittal' and Makes NO Mention of Christ's Righteousness Received.

The BFM 2000, in Article IV B, states, "Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ."

Dr. Sam Storms has done an excellent job in pointing out the weakness of this statement in his post entitled Two Theological Concerns With the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

(Justification) is defined/explained in the BFM 2000 as "God's gracious and full acquittal . . ." But justification is not simply acquittal; it is not simply God saying "Not Guilty." It is the positive and forensic declaration that the believer in Christ is righteous. Acquittal alone won't get anyone into heaven. We need the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Protestant theologians in the tradition of the Reformation have traditionally defined justification in terms of forensic or legal declaration of righteousness because of the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to our account.

Now certainly it is true that justification includes the notion of "acquittal" or the declaration: Not guilty. But acquittal is not itself justification. Justification is the declaration by God that we are reckoned righteous through faith in Christ.

Now, in my opinion, there is room in our convention for people who have the defective view of justification as defined in the BFM 2000. I would never seek to remove those who hold to it; though I would hope they could be taught better, and in accordance with the Scripture. In addition, even though The Abstract of Principles is different from the BFM 2000 and correctly states that justification includes receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, I don't believe we should demand SWBTS and other agencies of the SBC to sign the Abstract. There is room for both interpretations on justification for the purpose of missionary cooperation.

Let me say it again -- if there are demands for TOTAL CONFORMITY to what the BFM 2000 teaches, without allowing for disagreements on issues like this, then anyone who believes justification is more than just simple acquittal will have to step down from SBC leadership or missionary service because he can't 'endorse' such a low view of justification. (By the way, I just noticed this discrepancy between the BFM and the Abstract today through Dr. Storm's blog).

EXAMPLE FOUR: The BFM 2000 States, Contrary to Scripture, That The Holy Spirit Baptizes Every Believer Into the Body of Christ

In Article II C, on 'God the Holy Spirit,' the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states, "At the moment of regeneration He [i.e., the Holy Spirit] baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ."

Again, read carefully Dr. Sam Storms on this subject . . .

I agree with the BFM that Spirit baptism occurs at the moment of regeneration for all believers. The classical Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit baptism as separate from and subsequent to conversion lacks biblical warrant.

But this statement asserts that the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. The problem is that there isn't a single, solitary biblical text which says that the Spirit baptizes anyone into anything. It is always and in every text Jesus Christ who baptizes believers in the Holy Spirit, the result of which is that we are incorporated into the Body of Christ.

Some have argued from 1 Corinthians 12:13 that Paul is describing a baptism "by" the Holy Spirit into Christ or into his body. Part of the motivation for this is the seemingly awkward phrase, "in one Spirit into one body," hence the rendering, "by one Spirit into one body." But what sounds harsh in English is not at all so in Greek. Indeed, as D. A. Carson points out, "the combination of Greek phrases nicely stresses exactly the point that Paul is trying to make: all Christians have been baptized in one Spirit; all Christians have been baptized into one body" (Showing the Spirit, 47).

The translation of the ESV is certainly the most accurate in 1 Cor. 12:13. It reads:

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (emphasis mine).

Much the same terminology appears in 1 Corinthians 10:2 where Paul says that "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Here the cloud and the sea are the "elements" that surrounded or overwhelmed the people and Moses points to the new life of participation in the Mosaic Covenant and the fellowship of God's people of which he was the leader (see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 768).

In the other texts referring to Spirit-baptism (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16), the preposition en means "in", describing the element in which one is, as it were, immersed. In no text is the Holy Spirit ever said to be the agent by which one is baptized. Jesus is the baptizer. The Holy Spirit is he in whom we are engulfed or the "element" with which we are saturated and deluged, resulting in our participation in the spiritual organism of the church, the body of Christ.

If the biblical authors had intended to teach that the believer is baptized "by" the Spirit they would most likely have used another preposition, probably hupo followed by the genitive, not en with the dative. This is what we see in such texts as Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:5, and Luke 3:7 where people were baptized "by" John the Baptist; or texts such as Matthew 3:13 and Mark 1:9 where Jesus was baptized "by" John; or Luke 7:30 where the Pharisees had not been baptized "by" John.

I can only conclude that those responsible for writing the BFM 2000 were misled by a mistranslation of 1 Cor. 12:13. As I said, the Holy Spirit doesn't baptize anyone in anything. I encourage all to read again the prophecy of John the Baptist that Jesus "will baptize you with [lit., "in", the Gk. Preposition en] the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16).

Dan Wallace, noted Greek scholar, disagrees and argues that the preposition en is an example of "means". He writes: "the Holy Spirit is the instrument that Christ uses to baptize, even though he is a person" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 374). However, Wallace is also clear that it is still Christ himself who is the agent of the baptism, i.e., he baptizes, not the Spirit. So, even if one accepts Wallace's understanding (which I don't), the point is still the same: Jesus Christ baptizes either "by means of" or "in" the Spirit, but the Spirit himself, contrary to the BFM, never baptizes anyone.

I have yet to fully digest this statement by Sam Storms, but I can assure you, I am sharper theologically after having read it. Were we to exclude a man from SBC leadership like Dr. Sam Storms, simply because he points out his disagreement with the BFM 2000 on this particular doctrine, we would be like the blind man who doesn't see his own medicine bottle lying on the counter. We put people in leadership who can't even articulate the issues, and ignore the very person who can help us get a better understanding of the Bible. Championing free and open debate on doctrinal issues allows the cream to rise to the top.

EXAMPLE FIVE: The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Says That All Southern Baptists Should Do All IN Their Power to Put An End To War

Article XVI on 'Peace and War' states, "It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.

The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord.

All I will say about this is to give a simple anecdote: If we applauded more at the 2006 SBC when Dr. Condoleezza Rice when she said that we will obliterate the terrorists with our bombs than we did when Dr. Jerry Rankin stated we should do more to win the world for Christ through our mission efforts, are we actually in fulfillment of the BFM 2000?

Now a time for confession. I am a George Bush fan. I am, frankly, in agreement with the Iraqi War. I have never wavered on this, and believe if we do not militarily move preemptively against Islamic extremists, we will find ourselves attacked by them.

My point, however, is this -- I would never seek to promote my political ideology upon our convention. There is room enough in our convention for people with differing views on the Iraqi War -- and if and when our convention is identified too closely with any political party -- either Democratic or Republican, we are in violation of the BFM 2000. Let's keep our focus on the gospel.

I do believe this post is probably the longest one I have ever written. I hope you read it carefully. If you did, you will then understand my closing three thoughts.

Conclusions:

(1). Demands to 'sign' the BFM 2000 and 'remove' from leadership anyone who expresses disagreement with the BFM 2000 on the tertiary issues mentioned above is evidence of a seismic shift in the historic understanding of what it means to be a Baptist. Many of us were silent when 'liberals' were attacked, but now, some of us who are 'conservative' are being attacked because we dare express disagreement with a handful of tertiary doctrines in the BFM 2000. Friend, the BFM 2000 is NOT the Bible -- and nobody should pretend it is. The BFM 2000 is fallible and mutable. God's Word is infallible and unchangeable.

(2). Among the reasons scholar J. Gresham Machen opposed Fundamentalism in his day, according to John Piper, were these: (a). The absence of historical perspective; (b). The lack of appreciation of scholarship; (c). The substitution of brief, skeletal creeds for the historic confessions; (d). The lack of concern with precise formulation of Christian doctrine.

My concern is similar to Machen's: If we close our eyes and let people act as if 'orthodoxy' is 'signing a creed' and forget that Baptists have historically debated quite vigorously different and various tertiary doctrines, while at the same time working together for the furtherance of the kingdom at large, we will eventually lose our spirit of cooperation. Let's work toward better, more doctrinally precise confessions of faith -- but let us never succumb to the temptation of believing 'signing' something is 'evidence of orthodoxy.' Confessions are a consensus of belief, but majority views are not necessarily orthodox views. That's why we never sign confessions without the ability to express dissent on those interpretations of tertiary doctrines with which we disagree.

(3). It is time that Southern Baptists realized that doctrine is important -- but so is debate. You never really get more precise doctrinally unless you champion free and vigorous dissent. We should NEVER seek to remove from missionary or ministry any Southern Baptist who affirms the primary doctrines of the faith, but believes differently on tertiary doctrines from those who are 'in charge.' Frankly, if we let 'those in charge' demand conformity to their particular interpretations of tertiary doctrinal issues -- letting them convince us that to agree with them is synonymous with 'Baptist' orthodoxy -- we wind up losing the very Baptist orthodoxy we seek to protect.

I affirm wholeheartedly the major doctrinal and gospel tenets of the BFM 2000, but unless we begin to realize that debate of tertiary doctrines is not harmful to the gospel and come to the place where our convention is characterized by unity in the essentials; liberty in the non-essentials; and charity in all things, we will be unable to figure out how to keep the main thing (the glory of God in the proclamation of the gospel) the main thing.

All of us should approach any resolution or recommendation that demands Southern Baptists to treat the BFM 2000 like a cultic creed and refrain from 'public' disagreement as a huge caution flag. We are a confessional people who champion the freedom of dissent and debate. I for one do not believe doctrinal preciseness is a bad thing -- it's the growing demand that SBC'rs sign faulty, skeletal creeds that contain interpretative 'fiats' regarding tertiary doctrines that will get us in trouble. Soon, leadership may very well begin to issue interpretative fiats they wish to worm into the BFM 2000 (i.e. 'A cessationist's view of the gifts' or Landmark view of ecclesiology' etc . . .).

The restoration of a cooperative spirit among Southern Baptists around the gospel of Jesus Christ and the freedom to express conscientious dissent on interpretations of tertiary Biblical doctrines is essential to the expansion of His kingdom through the sharing of the gospel and our own growth in understanding Biblical doctrine.

The stifling of public dissent on doctrinal matters, and the inability to base our cooperation in missions on agreement over the fundamentals of the gospel alone, ultimately dumbs down the entire convention to the point of real Biblical illiteracy.

Let's work toward a more doctrinal preciseness as a convention, but let us be crystal clear that confessions that form the basis of our cooperation in missions and ministry should be as broad as possible, for until we see Christ face to face, all of us see in a glass darkly and will struggle with fallible interpretations of tertiary doctrines of the infallible.

Unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, charity in all things.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

We Need David Rogers for 1st VP of the SBC

David Dykes, pastor of Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas, the largest Cooperative Program giving church in the United States, announced today that he would be nominating David Rogers to become First Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention at the annual convention in San Antonio next week.

David is a longtime field missionary with the International Mission Board and the son of legendary Southern Baptist pastor Adrian Rogers. For the past thirteen years, Rogers has served as a church-planter and mobilization coordinator in Madrid, Spain.

"For 162 years, Southern Baptists have been driven by a missionary heart," Dykes said of his reason for nominating Rogers. "Like never before, we need to refocus our convention on the fields that are white unto harvest. I believe a convention that is serious about missions should have a missionary leading us."

"Southern Baptists need a new vision to plant churches," Dykes continued. "Who better than an experienced church planter to lead this effort?"

During his service with the International Mission Board, Rogers has focused his evangelistic efforts to plant new Baptist churches in one of the most culturally, ethnically, and religiously diverse mission fields, Dykes noted. Madrid boasts the third largest population in Western Europe at 5.8 million, with a fast-growing immigrant population pushing into the hundreds of thousands every year. Recently, North African Muslims and South American Catholics have flooded the city, though Baptist churches have struggled to keep pace.

Rogers, a 1989 graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, first sensed God's call on his life to foreign missions as an eleven year-old boy at a Royal Ambassador camp. As a young man, Rogers obeyed the call by serving as a summer missionary among Navajo peoples in North America, and then for two years aboard the missionary ship M.V. Doulos with Operation Mobilization.

"As a pastor, I've made a commitment to lead our church to be on mission with God," Dykes said of Green Acres Baptist Church, which leads the Southern Baptist Convention in Cooperative Program mission giving.

"We can give all the money in the world, but budget percentages don't plant churches. Missionaries plant churches, and if it weren't for the field missionaries, we wouldn't have a convention to start with," Dykes said.

"David Rogers represents everything that the Conservative Resurgence was about. He believes the Bible, he believes lost people need Jesus, and he believes that hell is waiting for those who never trust Christ as their Savior."

Rogers and his wife Kelly have two sons from their marriage of 19 years: Jonathan, 17, and Stephen, 10.

The International Mission Board recommends that field missionaries maintain church membership in their countries of service. Rogers and his family are field members of Iglesia Bautista Buen Pastor in Madrid, Spain. Their home membership remains with the Bellevue Baptist Church of Memphis, TN, where Rogers' father served as pastor for almost 33 years.

"I will not ask Southern Baptists to elect David Rogers to honor his father, though we can all agree that his father is worthy of great honor. I will not ask them to elect David Rogers to honor our missionaries, even though we believe these faithful ambassadors of Christ deserve our honor. Quite simply, I'm going to ask my fellow Southern Baptists to elect David Rogers to honor the Lord Jesus Christ," Dykes said.

"God willing, this convention will keep our focus where it ought to be: going to the ends of the earth to tell people about Jesus. I believe that electing David Rogers will help us renew that focus."

I can't tell you how excited I am about David being nominated for First Vice-President.

(1). David is well liked and well respected by every Southern Baptist I know.
(2). David is balanced in his theological positions and peace-loving in his disposition.
(3). Of all the people who have cautioned me about the NBC, David's words of caution alone reached my heart because of his gracious, personal, carefully selected words of wisdom -- an example that if people need to be convinced of a truth, you do it through love and dialogue, not vitriolic attack.
(4). David does what all of us as Southern Baptists allege you cooperate to do -- missions.
(5). David will give us exactly what we need at this hour - an irenic leader to support Dr. Frank Page in his last year of office.

David Rogers should have everyone's unqualified support for First Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Next Year Will Set the Future Course of the SBC for the Next Half Century

On December 10, 2005, a year and a half ago, I attempted to articulate some general concerns for our beloved Southern Baptist Convention. I have learned a great deal over the past eighteen months, including that not everyone is able to separate philospophy and ideology from the people who hold them. Just as I have learned that I can be friends with people who hold to traditional theological liberalism while believing their views dangerous to the gospel and our convention, I can also be friends with people who hold to Fundamentalism while believing their views to be just as dangerous as liberal views to the advancement of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, I remind everyone that what I wrote a year and a half ago about my feelings toward liberalism and Fundamentalism applied to the philosophies and ideologies behind both systems of thought, and not to the people who hold to them . . .

Our convention hated liberalism twenty years ago . . . , but at this hour we better hate 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.

Much has happened in the past year and a half in the SBC, but I am of the opinion that the clock begins ticking next week for the countdown of the most critical year in the Southern Baptist Convention in nearly three decades. There are no more classic liberals in the SBC, and under no circumstances would I ever be in favor of removing classic Fundamentalists from the SBC -- but classic Fundamentalism better not be the ideology that serves as the foundation for our missions cooperation or the SBC ship will sink. Liberalism takes away from the sacred, sufficient Scriptures while Fundamentalism adds to the sacred, sufficient Scriptures. Both should be anathema in the SBC.

The next year will determine the success of the conscientious and concerted attempt to wrest control of the convention from classic Fundamentalist ideology. Here are a few reasons why . . .

(1). The Resolutions at the 2007 SBC . . . can be divided into resolutions that speak toward unity, cooperation and love and those that speak toward division, separation and schisms. For instance, the resolution on glossolalia and private prayer language is divisive, particularly in light of the released Lifeway study that fifty percent of Southern Baptist pastors believes the gift of tongues, including praying in tongues in private, is a legitimate gift of the Spirit of God. The resolution is both schismatic and illogical . . .

RESOLVED, That we encourage our six Southern Baptist seminaries not knowingly to hire professors or administrators who endorse or engage in the modern practice of glossolalia or private prayer language, and be it further

RESOLVED, That we also encourage our Southern Baptist agencies not knowingly hire anyone who endorses or engages in the modern practice of glossolalia or private prayer language, and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to be patient, kind, and loving toward one another (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) regarding this ancillary theological issue, which ought not to constitute a test of fellowship.

How can you resolve to not hire people who endorse or engage in the modern practice of private prayer language and yet call it an 'ancillary theological issue'? That makes no sense. If this were in place before the hiring of Jerry Rankin, Bertha Smith, and many wonderful professors of our theological insitutions (like SWBTS Seminary's Siegfried Schatzman) , none of them would ever have been employees of the SBC. This resolution must be rejected, but I seriously doubt it will even get out of committee.

A second resolution on The Role of the Baptist Faith and Message, though it sounds good at first reading, is just as problematic. One paragraph in the resolution states:

That we consider public disagreement with The Baptist Faith and Message to constitute suitable grounds for the removal of trustees from service upon those boards which have made affirmation of The Baptist Faith & Message a minimum requirement for service;

I would encourage anyone who would even give one second of consideration to this resolution by SWBTS adjunct professor Dr. Bart Barber to consider the following.

David Rogers, IMB missionary to Spain and son of Dr. Adrian Rogers would be expelled as a missionary for the IMB if this resolution would be applied. David has publicly stated he disagrees with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message regarding 'closed communion' (as do I). Though some might attempt to say the 2000 BFM should be a 'doctrinal' tool of accountability, in the hands of Fundamentalists it becomes a club of conformity. I find it absolutely stunning that this convention would even consider such a resolution, and am hopeful the committee will see the shortcomings of such a shortsighted attempt to demand conformity. By the way, Judge Pressler and Paige Patterson themselves would have been disqualified during their tenures of trustee service under the 1963 BFM for violating 'the Lord's Day' provisions which were ultimately changed in the 2000 BFM.

It's interesting to note that Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, the person to whom David Rogers writes his email, has seemingly established himself at Southwestern Seminary as the person responsible to remind Southern Baptist leaders of their 'Baptist' identity (as Dr. Yarnell interprets it). SWBTS, under the leadership of Paige Patterson, sees herself as the Mecca of Southern Baptist orthodoxy. I am all for confessions, and I affirm the 2000 BFM on all major points of doctrine, but I believe we are in trouble when our major confessions are placed on the level of Scripture or we depend upon any human to tell us what we can or cannot believe as Baptists.

Confessions change. The Word of God does not.

Of course, some might wonder why I am not mentioning the The Gluttony Resolution and how divisive it will be. Obviously, this resolution will not see the light of day and I would vote against it if it did. However, I am actually looking forward to it being read before the entire convention hall. Why? Messengers need to see the irony of passing the alcohol resolution last year, written with the same arguments and principles found in the gluttony resolution, while this year crying foul on the gluttony resolution. It's much easier to point at the sins of others rather than our own. At least I'm consistent. Both resolutions should not be a part of our kingdom business.

(2). The Election of First Vice-President at the 2007 Convention . . . will be more important than elections of First Vice-President in previous conventions. Dr. Jim Richard, the Executive Director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, is the only announced candidate. However, I predict that a nationally known and respected Southern Baptist leader will run against Dr. Richards, a man that I will be able to endorse wholeheartedly. Though it is impossible to predict the outcome, the election of First Vice-President is essential in that he needs to support the direction and vision of Frank Page for our convention.

(3). The appointments of trustees in 2008 . . . will be the first trustees appointed as the result of Frank Page's election as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Most people do not realize that the Nominating Committee report this year is the result of Dr. Bobby Welch's appointments. Frank Page's appointments will begin to be voted on by the convention in Indianapolis in 2008 and Louisville in 2009.

The convention only changes in terms of more conservative cooperation when the trustees of the SBC agencies adopt a more cooperative approach. When taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to a world in need of a Savior takes priortity over a demand for doctrinal conformity on tertiary doctrines of Scripture, we will be fulfilling our role as a convention to be a 'gospel' convention.

(4). The election of President of the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis in 2008 . . . will be the most important election in the SBC in the last three decades. If we truly wish to be a conservative, irenic, cooperating convention of churches who band together for the spreading of the gospel, then we must elect a conservative, irenic President who has set the example in giving, serving and leading our convention in missions cooperation.

There are many good candidates and in God's providence, the President of the SBC, elected in 2008, will continue a transition for our convention toward a more peaceful future where we focus on missions. Those who have broken away from the SBC and formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship should be encouraged to continue their mission efforts, and we Southern Baptists should be part of that encouragement. However, nobody is advocating for the reunion of the CBF and SBC -- it shouldn't happen. There are too many wounds, too many differences, too much water under the bridge. However, it is time for all Baptists, regardless of the denomination, to stop believing each other to be the enemy and realize that the real enemy is spiritual and unseen.

Finally, let me say as clearly as I can that I welcome all Fundamentalists in the SBC -- but I will do everything I can to insure that Fundamentalism as a philosophy does not drive the train. Cessationists are welcome to lead. Continuationists are welcome to lead. Calvinists can be trustees. Arminians can be trustees. One's eschatalogy should not disqualify from SBC service. Open communionists and closed communionists might not be a part of the same church, but they sure can be part of the same gospel convention of churches united for the purpose of the Great Commission.

Cooperating conservatives desire all of us, Fundamentists and non-Fundamentalists, to work together for the Kingdom's sake. But any Fundamentalist who wishes to exclude Southern Baptists from leadership because of their view on the gifts, soteriology (Calvinism vs. Arminiansim), various views on ecclessioloigical authority and eschatological beliefs, or other tertiary differences needs to be aware that he will be opposed to the nth degree.

The issue for me is NOT getting back those who have left the Southern Baptist Convention . . .

The issue for me is KEEPING those that remain . . .

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson