You Are Never Too Old, Nor Is It Ever Too Late, To Change

The old saying "you can't teach old dogs new tricks"--though possibly challenged as to its veracity by The Dog Whisperer--is a common assumption by most. Many feel that the older a person becomes, the less likely he will ever change. Cynicism only deepens when an older person faces imminent death and "comes to Christ." Many Christians feel that "jailhouse" or "fox-hole" conversions can't be real. Professed changes of character late in life, or minutes from death, seem to create cynicism.

But we who believe that the grace of God is often given in different seasons of life point to "the thief on the cross." Just hours before his death, he was converted to faith in Christ. However, even we who believe it's never too late to change don't fully understand the dramatic change that occurred in the thief within the last few hours of his death. We often point out that of the two thieves crucified beside Christ, one mocked Him and was condemned, and the other one believed on Him and was taken to paradise upon death. But we don't see how bad off both were in the last hours of their lives.

When both thieves were initially hung on the crosses beside Christ, BOTH mocked him. Mark 15:32 --

"And they that were crucified with him reviled him"

Something happened to one of the thieves. He who had mocked Christ at the 9:00 a.m. hour (Mark 15:32) came to the place by the afternoon where he rebuked the other thief for his mocking of Christ, saying:

Do you not fear God, seeing that you are experiencing the same condemnation? And we deserve our sentence of condemnation, a just punishment for our actions. But this man has done nothing wrong. Then he turned to Jesus and said, "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

The story of the TWO thieves on the cross, who both mocked Christ at the beginning of the crucifixion, is testimony to us all that one is never too old, nor is it ever too late, to change.

In His Grace,

Wade

To Question Our Leaders Is Not Only Morally Right, It Is the Essence of Christian Integrity

Nearly four years ago I wrote a post entitled The Cult of Personality in the SBC where I questioned how a large Southern Baptist Church in Florida could call a man who had repeatedly lied about his past to be their pastor.

Steven Flockhart, pastor of FBC West Palm Beach, resigned his post after a secular newspaper revealed the lies he had told the pastor search committee. The resume of "Dr." Flockhart claimed he had several theological degrees, but the newspaper revealed he had fabricated all his educational credentials.

Interestingly, in the very last line of Steven Flockhart's resume, there was this statement:

"(I) have been accepted at Liberty University to obtain a second doctorate."

When I initially read about his fabricated resume, I wondered if Pastor Flockhart was also lying about his enrollment at Liberty University.

It seems The Palm Beach Post may have had similar questions. A reporter called to question Liberty's registrar's office about Flockhart's enrollment for a "second" doctorate.

In an article published on August 26, 2006 The Palm Beach Post reported that the registrar's office initially said that they had never heard of Mr. Flockhart, but then they called the newspaper back later and said they had discovered that Flockhart was enrolled and had paid the registration fees directly to seminary President Ergun Caner. The paper then quoted a Liberty official:

"The pastor (Flockhart) is enrolled and has paid in advance," said Ron Godwin, executive vice president and CEO of Liberty University. He added, "I love those kind of students."

Granted, the Palm Beach Post could have misreported the initial response of Liberty, as well as the words of Ron Godwin, but the newspaper's published report caused many of us to ask several questions about what seemed to be a peculiar financial arrangement. While several of the financial questions were ultimately answered by Dr. Caner himself, there were two main questions that went unanswered at the time:

(1). Was Steven Flockhart enrolled in an actual doctorate program at Liberty University?
(2). If so, what safeguards were in place to prevent Liberty from accepting a doctoral student who had fabricated degrees?

Though questions to our Christian leaders may bring some discomfort, asking them is not a bad thing. It is not attacking someone's character. It is not assuming someone is evil or wicked. It is a legimitate process through which we Christians can hold each other accountable.

For example, Darrell Gilyard was a rising star among Southern Baptists. He preached at Pastors' Conferences, including the Southern Baptist Pastors' Conference in Las Vegas, and his eloquence in the pulpit was unmatched. However, it was discovered that his story of growing up homeless, sleeping underneath bridges, and being converted to Christ out of the rough streets of Jacksonville was all a lie. Baptist Press reported that the Dallas Morning News, in an exclusive July 28, 1991 story, reported that:

Gilyard actually was brought up in a comfortable north Florida home by a woman who reared him as if he were her son. The article included an interview with Barbara Davis, the 65-year-old Palatka woman who said she helped to rear Gilyard from age 8 months until he left home at age 19. The paper also reported Gilyard misrepresented his academic background; accepted a $10,000 "love offering" from Falwell's ministry under false pretenses; and lied about repeated traffic offenses and a suspended drivers license in Florida.

Gilyard is now in prison, not for lying, but for multiple sexual crimes. One wonders why Southern Baptists never asked the tough questions of Darrell Gilyard while he was a Southern Baptist and before he became involved in criminal behavior? Why does the secular press have to do what we ourselves seemed unwilling to do?

It's not hard for anyone to find story after story about Baptist pastors who have lied about their past. Baptist youth pastor Randy Lee Morrow lied about being in a biker gang. He lied about serving prison time. He lied about having terminal cancer. "I lied a lot more than I should have," he says. Why was there nobody asking the tough questions of Randy Lee Morrow?

Now some Christians are asking tough questions to Ergun Caner about the representations he has made to others about his past. These questions are not accusations--they are legitimate queries of a Christian brother to ensure accountability and integrity of Christian ministry. To ask them is not to accuse. To not ask them, however, is inexcusable--particularly when the words spoken publicly are those of Dr. Caner himself. There are some bloggers, like Peter Lumpkins, Tim Guthrie, and others who personally blister anyone who asks tough questions of Dr. Caner. One of these days they will learn that attacking the character of those who ask legitimate, tough questions of our leaders will only ultimately backfire on their intended purpose.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Website Is Now Down, But Will It Be Back?

Over the course of the past three years I have written a few times about The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). Southern Baptists, including Dorothy Patterson, Al Mohler, Danny Akin and others, serve on the Board of Directors of the Council. Randy Stinson, Dean of Church Ministries at Southern Seminary, has served at times as either the Executive Director or President of the CBMW. I have written about CBMW teaching various forms of patriarchy, calling Irving Bible Church elders' decision to allow a woman to teach the Bible "a grave moral concern" (comparable to homosexuality), advocating the eternal subordination of women to men, encouraging abused women to merely "pray for their husbands," and stating that opposing "male authority" is the same as opposing Christ's authority.

The CBMW website is now down. For the past ten years donations to CBMW have averaged between $315,000 to $340,000. In 2004, the payroll for CBMW was $57,000, with the President of CBMW (Dr. Bruce Ware) receiving no salary and Executive Director Stinson receiving $57,000. By 2008 the payroll for CBMW was $245,000 with then President Randy Stinson receiving $30,000 yearly and Executive Director David Kotter earning $70,000. In 2008, CBMW was in the financial red by $36,000. In years past, CBMW provided some wonderful expositions of Scripture from scholars who hold to a complementarian viewpoint. In recent years, CBMW moved more toward a uniform advocacy of eternal male authority and eternal female subordination. CBMW began "Gender Blogs"--men writing to men/women and women writing to women--lest men actually, and immorally, learn something of Scriptural truth from a woman. One wonders if the financial decline is directly related to the changes at CBMW over the past few years. John Starke, a former staff CBMW blogger, has left CBMW and is now writing for the Gospel Coalition as a book reviewer. There have been questions on his Twitter account, from friends and acquaintances, asking John about leaving Southern/CBMW. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood also has a Facebook site. It, too, has not been updated for several weeks. Staffers usually manned the Facebook account. If now understaffed, updates on Facebook would be one of the first things to end. The CBMW official website was down for a couple of weeks this month before an "under construction" logo appeared. The Internet service provider for CBMW has also been changed, with CBMW moving to a cheaper provider, but the website continues to remain down. Again, one can't help but wonder if finances have necessitated a downsizing of staff and a change of service providers.

Regardless, CBMW's website more than likely will come back in some form or another. Hopefully, it will be an improved site. That will happen if there is a reversion to the old practice of providing scholarly exegesis on the site and a greater restraint in placing papers on the site that open the Southern Baptist Convention to patriarchal charicaturization by the conservative evangelical world at large.

When Child Training Leads to Abuse and Murder: Pearls of Wisdom for Concerned Parents

Butte County (California) District Attorney Mike Ramsey confirmed last Thursday that he is exploring a possible connection to a Web site that endorses "biblical discipline" to the murder of a seven year old girl. Kevin Schatz, 46, and his wife, Elizabeth Schatz, 42, were arraigned in Butte County Superior Court and could face two life terms in prison if convicted. The Schatzes were arrested Saturday morning, February 6, 2010 after their adopted daughter, Lydia, age 7, stopped breathing. She was subsequently pronounced dead. Her 11-year-old sister, Zariah Schatz, remains in critical condition at a Sacramento children's hospital, though she is showing some signs of recovery. The two were adopted at the same time with an infant girl, now 3, from the same African orphanage about three years ago.

Salon is reporting that the Schatzes followed closely the popular, child "training" practices of Michael and Debi Pearl. The teachings of the Pearls and their Tennessee-based No Greater Joy ministry, which brought in $1.8 million last year in sales of books, DVDs and the like, are widely known across many conservative Christian churches and home-schooling communities. The Pearls advocate a specific program of even-tempered "chastisement" designed to bring about total obedience -- even by infants -- to their sovereign parents. Their website proclaims "A length of quarter-inch plumbing supply line is a real attention-getter."

It is with such an instrument that sisters Lydia and Zariah were punished. The Pearls cannot be ultimately blamed for the death of Lydia, but there is a growing concern among Christian groups that the mindless following of Old Covenant discipline principles taught by the Pearls, based upon a Jewish covenantal system that ultimately called for the death of continuously rebellious children, is misleading many Christian parents.

For more information on this tragic murder one may read the following sites:

Tragedy in a Homeschooling Family
The Course of Our Lives
I Speak of the Unspeakable
A Terrible Event
When Parenting Kills
Does the End Justify the Means?
When Parenting Kills: An Update
Hold Them Down, Defeat Them Totally
Sharper Iron

History is the Prologue to the Future: The 1843 International Indian Council

This photograph of me was taken on Goat's Ridge on the eastern side of the Illinois River about 10 miles north of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. I've been speaking at FBC Tahlequah this week and Pastor Buddy Hunt and a few friends went touring with me through the historic area on Monday. Tahlequah is the capital of the Cherokee Nation, and beginning with the Trail of Tears in 1839, the city has played an important role in Oklahoma and United States history. When the Cherokees and four other "civilized" Indian tribes (Choctow, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole) were removed by the U.S. federal government from Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and other eastern states, they were forcibly marched to Oklahoma to live in the land given them by the United States "as long as the waters run." The U.S. would eventually break their promise after the five civilized tribes sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, but for two decades prior to 1861, the Indians had other problems of their own in Indian Territory.

When the largest number of Cherokees arrived in northeastern Oklahoma in 1839 at the end of their Trail of Tears, they discovered they weren't welcome by other Indians. The Osage Indians had fished and hunted the rivers and woods of northeastern Oklahoma for centuries, and other wild "Plainsmen" Indian tribes had hunted the land for migrant buffalo and other wild game and considered it their land. By 1844 the wars between the various Indian tribes were numerous and fierce. The United States government built and staffed a few forts in Indian Territory (Oklahoma) to try to protect the "civilized" Indians from the native Indians, but the troops were largely unsuccessful. If something wasn't done, and soon, the Indians would fight and kill themselves out of any meaningful existence. It was the Cherokee Indians who proposed what ultimately became the solution.

In September of 1843, the International Indian Conference was held in the capital square of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. It was, and is to this day, the largest official pow wow and peace conference among Indians held on this continent. The agreements that came out of this conference formed the basis for a lasting peace among the Indian various tribes. It just so happens, that an American artist named John Mix Stanley, had accompanied a couple of tribes to the 1843 conference. His painting of the event, entitled "International Indian Council," is displayed at Smithsonian American Art Museum.

One of these days, hopefully soon, there should be a similar conference among Southern Baptists. The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force has issued their report. It is a difficult challenge to find common agreement among Southern Baptists in 2010, and I commend them for trying. But as long as some groups see other groups as the enemy (and want them gone from the SBC), it will be difficult to focus on the Great Commission. No group is able to expand her mission while the focus and energy is on fighting tribes of the same heritage. Someone has said that history is the prologue to the future. I would be thrilled for Southern Baptists to model the Indian nations of 160 years ago and actually sit down together and come to some kind of mutual understanding for a peaceful co-existence.

Then, the Great Commission can come into focus.

In His Grace,

Wade

Walking Worthy: Graced People Live Gracious Lives

The Royal Law of Christ is to love one another as He loves us (John 13:34). The apostles wrote to followers of Christ to help us understand what a life characterized by agape love looks like. The Apostle Paul writes the first half of a letter (such as Romans, Ephesians, Galations, etc...) to help us comprehend God's incredible love for us, and then he uses the last half of the same letter to give specific steps on how we can love others like Christ has loved us. Through Paul's writings we better understand the vertical love we receive, as well as the horizontal love we give--fulfilling both elements of the Royal Law of Christ (Christ's love for us and our love for others). For preachers who do not see the significance of the Royal Law of love, there is the potentential to misinterpret certain New Testament passages, and as a result, burden hearers with unnecessary laws and expectations. For example, read the following verse from Paul's pen, translated in the King James Version:

Ephesians 4:1 -- I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called ...

Most Southern Baptists will hear preachers wax eloquent about what it means to "walk worthy." Usually it is interpreted to mean that Christians are to have quiet times, read the Bible diligently, attend church regularly, tithe, share your faith, live "godly" lives, and do all things for Christ really well. In other words, to "walk worthy" is interpreted to mean DOING well the things a Christian is supposed to DO in terms of religious activities. But is that what "walking worthy" as a Christian really means?

No, it is not. Paul uses the Greek axios, which is translated "worthy" in this passage, but translated "consistent" or "as becometh" in other New Testament passages. For example, in Philippians 1:27 Paul writes "Only let your conversation be as it becometh (axios) the gospel of Christ." Axios is the Greek word from which we get the English word "axiom" or "axiomatic." An axiom is something "that is widely accepted on its own merits." What Paul is saying is clear: I beg you--live the kind of life and be the kind of person that when someone observes you there is no doubt that the calling of God is on your life.

Take a look again at Ephesians 4:1 ---

I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called ...

Anytime you see the word "therefore" in Scripture you should ask "what is it there for?" Therefore is a connecting word, and you will never understand what follows the word until you know what was written before it. In the first three chapters of Ephesians Paul has been describing God's effectual call of us. What is true about a our salvation? Well, if one reads Paul's words in the first three chapters, one learns that God's calling of sinners is all of grace! God loved us when we were unlovely, died for us while we were His enemies, and effectually calls and regenerates us when we had no desire for Him. His call is pure, unmerited grace. After describing this gracious call of God, making his customary transition to articulate how we are to live in relation to others by writing :

"Let your life be as gracious as the gracious call which you have received" (Ephesians 4:1).

A Christian without graciousness may very well be a person without grace. One may declare he is a Christian, or one may profess before the world that Christ is His Lord, and not know Him as Lord and Savior. The axiom that Christ has saved us is lifestyle that is consistent with His calling of grace. We, too, are gracious people. We are different from the world. To put it simply: Graced people live gracious lives. If you cannot be gracious to people, then more than likely God has not been gracious to you.

Paul describes gracious living in the next few verses of Ephesians 4. Graced people "endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit" "Endeavor" could be translated "working hard," Notice, Christians are not called to create this unity, but to maintain it. Paul goes on to reveal five characteristics of a gracious Christian who endeavors to keep the unity of the Spirit:

(1). There is humility --- translated "lowliness" in the King James Version. Humility is the ability to be honest with oneself and about oneself. A humble person does not try to keep people from revealing his weaknesses, but is at the forefront of acknowledging his own faults and frailties.
(2). There is meekness --- could be translated "controlled strength." A meek person is one who has power under control. There is never any "exerting power" or "grasping authority," but rather, a spirit of servanthood toward people. Show me a pastor who is kind to the custodians, I will show you a pastor who isn't exerting authority.
(3). There is longsuffering --- could be translated "patient." This literally means a Christian should be willing to suffer long and be patient with others, in a manner similar to Christ's longsuffering for us.
(4). There is forbearance --- which means the willingness to "bear up" one another. When another Christian struggles we shoulder a burden for him .
(5). There is love --- the willingness to meet the needs of those around us with the kind of spirit that Paul describes in I Corinthians 13.

This is what it means to "walk worthy of your calling." God called you by His grace, and now you live consistent with your calling of grace. You live a gracious life. To be gracious does not mean you refuse to confront. You confront like Christ's confronts. You love like Christ loves. You care like Christ cares. You live unselfishly like Christ lives unselfishly. Your life, when observed, is an axiom of the truth of God's grace through Christ.

People see Christ in your life as much as your words.

In His Grace,

Wade

Jesus Fulfilled the Old Testament and Became a New Lawgiver Better than Moses

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" Matthew 5:17-18.

These two verses are sometimes used to prove that everything in the Old Testament (the Law and the Prophets) is as binding on Christians as it was binding on the Jews in the Old Covenant. From the Sabbath law written on the tablets of stone, to the “storehouse tithing” laws, to the discipline and punishment of rebellious children, to the dietary and civil laws in Leviticus--some say all of these biblical laws of the Old Covenant are as binding upon Christians as they were the Jews. Jesus, however, is clearly teaching just the opposite. Jesus reveals to His disciples how He came to fulfill (plerosai) the Old Testament (the Law and the Prophets). He then proceeds to boldly declare that "the Law" will pass away when "heaven and earth" pass away because the Law will have been completely fulfilled ("accomplished" NAS).

Western Christians think of "heaven and earth" as the sky and the terrestial ball we call earth. But when Jews would refer to the establishment and/or fall of governments or covenants, their prophets would employ the language of creation and/or destruction of "heaven and earth." For example, God describes His agreement with the Jews in the Old Covenant in this manner: "I have put my word in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of my hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are my people'" (Isaiah 51:16). The Old Testament prophets said God promised to destroy "the heavens and the earth" because Israel "broke my covenant" (Isaiah 24:5). "Heaven and earth" in the context of Isaiah's writing is not the literal heaven or the literal earth, but the Jewish economy and the Jewish age. Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians were all Jews, and they would be familiar with the "heaven and earth" language employed by prophets to describe the judgment of God on nations or ages.

The great theologian John Owen writes about Peter's prediction (pre-70 AD) in II Peter 3 regarding the end of the "heavens and earth:"

"I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state".

The early Christians clearly understood that God was coming in judgment to end "the Jewish age" (Matthew 24:3). Jesus plainly told His disciples that "not one stone" would be left upon the other at the Temple in Jerusalem. He said that "the Jewish age" would be destroyed, and He used language of the destruction of the "heavens and earth" (Matthew 24:29) as the nomenclature for the end of this Jewish age. Within a generation of Jesus speaking these words (Matthew 24:34), Jerusalem, the Temple, the age of the Jews, and the destruction of the "heavens and earth" occurred (in 70 AD), fulfilling the prophecies of Matthew 24 and Isaiah 24 regarding the end of the Jewish age. Thus, the LAW OF THE OLD COVENANT WAS ABOLISHED--precisely the way Jesus said it would be in Matthew 5:17-18, because "heaven and earth" (the Old Covenant) passed away. All the Old Testament laws (613) associated with Israel's covenant with God were now gone. Why? Because Christ had fulfilled them. He was the Anti-type, fulfilling the types. He was the Substance, predicted by the shadows. He fulfilled completely what the Law and the Prophets declared. Nobody disagrees that the idea of "the Law" passing away or being abolished, even for Christian Jews, would be a drastic change for the age in which they lived. For "the Law" to pass away means there would be no more Temple, no more feasts, no more sacrifices--the world as the Jews knew it would be forever different. But it had to pass away--because Jesus fulfilled it.

Summary: When God established His covenant with the Jews, He described it as the establishment of "heaven and earth" (Isaiah 51:16). When Israel broke their covenant with God through unfaithfulness to His Law, God described the impending judgment as the destruction of "heaven and earth" (Isaiah 24, Matthew 24, II Peter 3). The destruction of "heaven and earth" occurred in 70 AD when the Temple and the Jewish age were destroyed by the Roman army, and the "Law" was abolished, just as Jesus predicted it would be in Matthew 5:17-18.

The question then becomes, post 70 AD, what "Law" is established and in effect for Christians to follow?

Matthew presents Jesus as the New Lawgiver

(1). The early Christians saw Matthew's writings to be five books, similar to the Pentateuch of Moses.
The first book (Matthew 1-4), tells the narrative of Jesus' birth and early years and has remarkable parallels to the narratives of Israel's forefathers and Moses the Lawgiver as God led His people out of the bondage of Egypt. The second book (Matthew 5-7) parallels with the teaching of Moses on Mt. Sinai etc… as found in the book of Exodus. The third, fourth and fifth books in Matthew point us to the instructions of Jesus to His followers and parallel the teaching of Moses to Israel in the books of the law called Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
(2). The Sermon on the Mount is preceded by baptism in water and forty days in the wilderness. Again, the whole narrative of Jesus (childhood, exodus, baptism, wilderness, mountain, law) is precisely the narrative of Moses and Israel (childhood, exodus, Red Sea, wilderness …). The parallel between Jesus' life and that of the old lawgiver Moses is clearly seen in the book of Matthew.
(3). Matthew calls Jesus greater than Moses (i.e. "hear HIM" not Moses 17:5), “greater than Solomon” (12:42), “greater than the Temple” (12:6), “greater than Jonah” (12:41), and the “Lord of the Sabbath” (12:8).
(4). It is disobedience to the Words of Christ that defines “lawlessness” (anomia) in Matthew (see 7:23-24).
(5). In the Great Commission, Jesus instructs to teach all that “I have commanded” (28:18-20).

The idea that we do not have "Law" as believers in Jesus Christ is ludicrous. Our Law is His Law. Our desire is to do His will, to hear His commands, to be His bondslaves, and to do as He bids. The Royal Law (James 2:8) of Christ is "to love one another as He has loved us" (John 13:34). Jesus, gospels writers and others of the apostles all write to help us understand how this agape love works itself out in our lives.

But now, when we read the Old Testament, we see Jesus. Our concentration is not obedience to Old Covenant "commands" or laws--we see Christ. We see Him in the narratives of creation and exodus, in the laws of sacrifice and festivals, in the prophets and the psalms--all the Old Covenant Scriptures point to Him. We, however, are not "bound" to any Old Covenant laws--including any alleged "Sabbath" day, because we are inlawed to Christ (I Corinthians 9:21). Every day is a day of rest. For those who cringe at the thought of no "Ten Commandments" for believers, we remind them that it is hard to commit adultery when you aren't lusting in your heart (Jesus' command in Matthew 5:28), or to commit murder when you don't hate (Jesus' command in Matthew 5:17), or to steal when you see a need and give to meet it (Jesus' command in Matthew 6:4), etc... It's also hard to keep any special day as a Sabbath day because every day is a day of rest in Christ (Colossians 2:16).

The Law that we follow is Christ's Law--and we willingly, cheerfully, and fully pledge ourselves to keep it as His bondslaves. But we reject any notion that our Lord's law is Moses' law. "Heaven and earth" has passed away, and a "new heaven and earth" (the New Covenant) with a new Lawgiver, a new age, a new people, and a new agreement with better promises has dawned (Hebrews 8).

In His Grace,

Wade

The Teat of the Doctrinal Conformity Cow at SWBTS Will Not Be Milked Today

For five years I have encouraged Southern Baptists to resist the narrowing of the doctrinal parameter of Southern Baptist fellowship and cooperation. My mantra has been that some Southern Baptist leaders have been pressing for doctrinal conformity on all tertiary doctrines of the Christian faith. Many may remember that SWBTS trustee and SBC pastor Dwight McKissic was unjustly censured at Southwestern Theological Seminary for admitting, while preaching in the SWBTS chapel service no less, that he had a "private prayer language." This past week the President of Liberty Theological Seminary, a graduate of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, called the evangelism strategy of the International Mission board "heresy". Of course, it has been SWBTS professor Dr. Keith Eitel and President Dr. Paige Patterson who have sought to prove to all who will listen that the IMB administration has been full of theological error, writing letters years ago to IMB trustees to prove it. It's been stated publicly in the past by SWBTS President Paige Patterson that five-point Calvinist professors would not be welcome at SWBTS, by saying, "Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." We already know that Dr. Karen Bullock and Dr. Sheri Klouda were removed from faculty at SWBTS because trustees and administration hold to the belief that women should not teach a man anything in a seminary classroom. I could go on with illustrations of attempts to bring doctrinal conformity on all tertiary issues at SWBTS, but you get the picture.

However, it does seem there is now one issue that has been moved off the doctrinal conformity list at SWBTS. Both Bart Barber and Peter Lumpkins write on their blog that Dr. Paige Patterson has written a preface to an article defending his one of his professor's belief in an ancient earth. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Research Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cultural Engagement, Dr. William Dembski, has written a book entitled The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. Bart believes Dr. Patterson's defense of his professor's right to publish a book arguing for an ancient earth construct, while Dr. Patterson himself believes in a young earth. Dr. Barber, a trustee and employee of SWBTS, writes:

You may have read on occasion the allegation—the deliberately dishonest allegation—that Dr. Patterson or other much-maligned Southern Baptists require that people agree with them on every point of theology or else they will not cooperate with them. Here we have a perfect test case to see whether this is or is not true. Dr. Patterson bluntly states that he "[does] not agree" with Dembski, and even that Dembski has authored a book "highly [critical]" of Dr. Patterson's own system of belief. Understand me plainly: A professor at SWBTS, working for Dr. Patterson, has authored and published a book that Dr. Patterson (rightly) perceives as highly critical of Dr. Patterson's own theological viewpoint.

Peter Lumpkins chimes in with this colorful comment over Dr. Patterson's paper:

Bloggers like Wade Burleson have for the last several years milked the absolute conformity cow dry, insisting anybody who does not agree with Paige Patterson in even the smallest detail is marked. However, Dr. Dembski is an old-earth creationist and Dr. Patterson is a young-earth creationist ... Yet, in spite of the diversity, we see some very explicit unity portrayed here.

I agree with both Bart and Peter about Dr. Patterson on this issue. I also commend him. I, too, believe in a young earth--but I am thrilled to see the freedom for SWBTS professors to publish books representing different views than the President of SWBTS. This is a step in the right direction away from ideological and doctrinal conformity demands. It's good for SWBTS and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole.

Now, if SWBTS would give Dr. Klouda and Dr. Bullock their jobs back ... maybe the teat of the doctrinal conformity cow won't need to be milked much more at all. Whether or not this happens, at least SWBTS and Dr. Patterson have taken a step in the right direction, and I don't mind saying so.

In His Grace,

Wade

No Matter the Tar Tossed at Ken Starr, He Is Most Certainly a Coup for Baylor U.

This afternoon I visited with Brooks Douglass, former Oklahoma Senator and Special Assistant in the Oklahoma State Attorney General's office, about the hiring of his friend, Ken Starr, to be President of Baylor University. Brooks and I were across the hall dorm acquaintances at Baylor University in the early 1980's. Brooks spent his early years in Brazil with his International Mission Board missionary parents, Richard and Marilyn (Sue), and his younger sister, Leslie. Brook's father left the IMB to become pastor of the Putnam City Baptist Church, in suburban Oklahoma City. On October 15, 1979, two men, Glen Ake and Steven Hatch, entered the Douglass home, bound Brooks and his parents with rope, robbed the home of valuables, and then raped Brook's twelve year old sister. Finally, in order to leave no witnesses, the two men shot all four family members as they lay bound hogtied on the floor. Southern Baptist pastor Richard Douglass (43) and his wife Marilyn (42) were both killed. Brooks and Leslie were severely injured, but survived. The murders gripped the nation for weeks while law enforcement sought to capture the killers. Both Ake and Hatch were eventually captured. Hatch has been executed, and Ake has been denied parole four times.

Brooks and I visited on the set of Heaven's Rain, a feature movie about the murders and the power of forgiveness, being filmed this month in Oklahoma City. Brooks wound up getting his law degree and working in politics and law enforcement out of a desire to protect the weak and defenseless victims of criminal activity as the perpetrators of those crimes made their way through the criminal court system. While in California pursuing some additional legal training, Brooks become well acquainted with Ken Starr and his wife Alice while Ken served as Dean of the Law School at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. I informed Brooks Douglass that his friend had been named President of Baylor University. There was a look of shock on Brooks face, and then a broad smile.

Brooks was thrilled--for his alma mater Baylor. Why? It seems that the Ken Starr is a down to earth, conservative evangelical Christian with a brilliant mind and some pretty powerful connections throughout the United States. Unlike the media's portray of Ken Starr during the Clinton era, Ken is no conservative ideologue. He has a legal mind second to none. He has demonstrated an ability to raise enormous amounts of money at Pepperdine, and the students and faculty love him. Brooks told me that two current United States Supreme Court justices had clerked for Starr, and if it had not been for the Lewinsky debacle, Ken Starr would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court today. Brooks said Ken Starr's Christian values, established connections, and track record of superb leadership makes Ken Starr a five star hire by Baylor University. I was pleased to hear such a strong recommendation from a man I respect.

Then I begin to read the blogs of Southern Baptist religious ideologues about Ken Starr's hiring at Baylor. Most of them are not happy. Why?

Ken Starr is not Baptist enough. Though Ken and his wife are devoted followers of Jesus Christ, that is not enough. Though he and Alice were longtime members of McLean Bible Church, a conservative evangelical church in Washington, D.C.-- that still isn't enough. The fact that he has been baptized upon his profession of faith in Jesus Christ isn't enough, for he hasn't been "baptized in a Baptist church." The fact that he will be "joining" a Baptist church upon arrival in Waco doesn't quite cut the mustard either. That's just a "farce," according to Bart Barber, a trustee and employee at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Ken Starr is not a true, blue-blood Baptist. He shouldn't be President of Baylor University because being a Baptist is more important than being a Christian. {Edit: Bart Barber says that I have misunderstood the point of his blog. He writes in his post: "If you will no longer require that your presiding officers (at Baylor) actually BE Baptists, please stop coercing them into joining Baptist churches." I freely admit not always comprehending things correctly, and apologize to Bart if I have misunderstood he was inferring Ken Starr wasn't Baptist enough to be an approprate choice for the office of President of Baylor University.}

Listen to this quote from a Southern Baptist pastor named David Worley:

"Sooooooo, I wonder what (Baptist) Church might receive Starr and his wife without requiring them to be baptised first? Or, will they both willingly get baptised (sic) in this Baptist Church? Interesting, huh?"

That kind of thinking reminds me of the trustees at the IMB who said they would rather pay thousands of dollars to fly a Southern Baptist pastor from the United States to China to baptize a convert than to allow a SBC missionary who was not "properly credentialed" to perform it.

I think that we Southern Baptists, unfortunately, are becoming more and more known for being Southern Baptists than devoted followers of Jesus Christ. When we are more concerned about the President of Baylor University being baptized in baptist waters than we are the spiritual condition and maturity of the man who takes the office, then we have sacrificed our "Christian" heritage on the alter of religious ideology. Soon, there will be little difference between the ritualism of us Southern Baptists and that of Mormons who must baptize in special places, wearing special underwear, at the hands of a special under... er, well, you get the idea.

Take it from a person with the same last name as the first President of Baylor University in Waco, Texas--Ken Starr is a great hire.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

A Decision Based on Conviction Enables One To Embrace Any Disgrace

Last week I published on this blog an email written by a fellow Southern Baptist pastor to Southern Baptist seminary administrators. The pastor suggested in the email that it would be "helpful" if two professors were removed from their respective faculty positions because they published a scholarly article on "tithing" that took a view contrary to "the majority of Southern Baptists." That email, interpreted by some friends of the two professors as a call to remove the professors from their faculty positions, caused one of those friends to inform me that there was pressure being placed on seminary administrators to remove the professors. I called the author of the email to ask him if this allegation was true. He denied it. But then a friend of the professors sent me the pastor's email and it was clear the author of the email was being less than forthright with me. It has been the tactic of Southern Baptist ideologues to publicly act as if SBC employees had their support (think Russel Dilday, Ken Hemphill, Al Shackleford, Dan Martin, Sheri Klouda, Karen Bullock, and a host of others), while at the same time privately bringing about pressure behind the scenes to have these people removed from their positions of SBC service for doctrinal differences that have nothing to do with the essentials of the faith. Though in this last's weeks instance, the pastor in question had neither the authority nor the pull to bring about the termination of the two professors, the principle at play remains the same--the private, secret attempt by an ideologue to intimidate and/or bring pressure to remove a Southern Baptist from cooperative ministry because of a disagreement over a tertiery biblical doctrine.

I had a decision to make.

Do I make public the email to expose the tactic used to intimidate Southern Baptists who had dared to publish a paper with a doctrinal viewpoint different than that of the majority? Or, do I remain quiet? It was not an easy decision. Our church's Cooperative Program gifts pay the salaries of seminary professors. They are our employees too. I have a responsibility to be involved if I am aware that someone is being pressured by ideologues to conform to one view (i.e. "the ideologue's view") of a tertiery doctrine over which Christians often disagree. Personal considerations, including a vow I made to never again be silent when I saw employees of the Southern Baptist Convention under attack, were thought through carefully. I knew that if I chose to publish the email that a number of Southern Baptists would consider my action unethical, that many would not be able to comprehend my view that all Southern Baptist cooperative ministry business should be public and transparent (particularly efforts to remove SBC personnel over questions of doctrinal integrity), and that a few Southern Baptists would even question my personal integrity and Christianity. I knew all that before making the decision.

I chose to publish the letter because of a greater good than my reputation. People in the Southern Baptist Convention must be willing to cherish and protect the freedom needed by our SBC professors, pastors, teachers, leaders and/or laymen to believe, teach, preach, write, and publish different interpretations of the sacred text without fearing repercussions or intimidation from ideologues who demand absolute conformity. We are a Convention built on cooperation. By the very definition of the root word cooperate, demands for conformity must be resisted. It's time that we Southern Baptists push back against those who want everyone to look like them and believe like them; and my decision to publish the email was part of that push back. The decision to publish the email was thoughtful, intentional and convictional.

When a Decision Is Based on Conviction, One Is Enabled to Embrace the Disgrace

I do not begrudge any criticism or strong condemnation that comes my way as a result of my decision. I neither fault, nor desire to discourage, any of my fellow Southern Baptists from publicly questioning my integrity, my honor, or even my Christianity.

When Shadrack, Meshack and Abednigo defied the king's law, there is no record of them yelling and screaming at the king for putting them in the fiery furnace. They walked into the fire calmly because they lived on the basis of conviction and made their choices on principle. When Daniel defied the king's order and continued to pray, he quietly went to the lion's den. His decision to defy the law, based on a conviction, led him to not whine about his punishment. When Peter defied civil authorities and preached Christ, there is no record of him complaining about the jail term that came his way. He sang in jail rather than passing notes around about how he shouldn't be there. When John the Baptist was sentenced to capital punishment, you have no testimony that the Baptist bemoaned the fact he spent his life bowing his knee to the Lordship of Christ rather than kissing the ring of the king. When you do what you do because of conviction, then you embrace any disgrace that comes your way because of your decisions. Likewise, you pay little attention to any praise, which is easier, since most convictional choices are countercultural and bring little praise. Convictional people do not make good politicians. There's never any finger up in the air seeking the wind direction of public opinion. Our chosen path comes from within, as we are led by the Holy Spirit. And if the Holy Spirit leads us down an unpopular, unlawful (think Hitler's Germany, modern Iran, the rescue of orphans in Haiti, etc...), or difficult path, then we above all people should never complain when others seek to shame us or disgrace us.

Let me illustrate how this plays out for me in practical ways these last couple of days.

(1). The author of the email I published writes that he is receiving supportive and encouraging emails at the rate of 50 to 1. For his sake, I can wish it were a million to zero in support of him. Nothing in me is affected or changed by any ratio of support.

(2). One man wrote that Wade Burleson was "a pile of human excrament (sic) with the integrity of belly button lint." If I remember right, Paul called everything in his life "dung" (reputation, career, etc...) for a greater cause. To me, that's pretty good company. In other words, no offense taken with this man for his words. He feels them; I receive them.

(3). One SBC lawyer opined "It is a serious ethical breach for lawyers (which I am) to receive mail from other people like this. Ah, if only you preachers would live up to the standards set by the bar associations. I freely acknowledge that my decision does not live up to the ethical standard of attorneys, and were I one, I would welcome any censure or punishment handed out.

(4). One SBC pastor charged I had a self-perceived messianic complex. Others have alleged I desire adulation or want to be a hero. I admit a tad bit of confusion on those charges since it's been indicated support is running 50 to 1 against me. Messiah's and heroes usually have the 50 on their side. Of course, those pastors' charges actually go to the motive, not the results, of my decision to publish the letter. I feel quite comfortable knowing God and I are the only ones who can know my true motives, and even I am sometimes blind to them. For my motives to be considered suspect or sinful because of my decision is something I accept.

(5). Others have weighed in with their opinion that "they would not have done it the way Wade Burleson did it." That's absolutely true. Nor should they have. Were the whole world to choose a different path, that would not change any decision I make based on conviction.

Back when I saw the same pattern of forcing a specific ideology on all Southern Baptists through new doctrinal policies at the International Mission Board, I made the decision to make public my concerns. Trustees at the IMB were backdooring the new doctrinal requirements by bypassing a vote from the Convention, and then trustees were removing from service anybody who disagreed. In addition, trustees in charge changed the trustee guidelines in an attempt to keep me quiet. They passed a policy that stated any trustee of the IMB who publicly criticizes a board approved policy will be censured. I voted against the "no dissent" policy, and at the time stated that "it was the worst policy ever passed by any Southern Baptist board of trustees in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention," violating the no dissent policy within five minutes of its passage. When I chose later to continue my criticism of the new doctrinal policies implemented by IMB trustees, policies that exceeded the BFM 2000 (see The Garner Motion), trustee leaders moved to publicly censure me. When a reporter asked me how I felt about the censure, I responded in this manner:

The board of trustees have every right to censure me, and should--because their new trustee guidelines call for it. I welcome their censure and any future censures. I am choosing to criticize these new doctrinal policies publicly because I believe a greater good will come from my criticism. We must cease narrowing the doctrinal parameter for Southern Baptist cooperative mission efforts by refraining from demanding interpretative conformity on biblical doctrines that are not essential to our salvation. Southern Baptists must be free to disagree."

I've not changed my views on this in the last five years. When I come across secret attempts to intimidate or threaten fellow Southern Baptists for disgreeing over tertiery doctrinal matters, I will contact the person who initiates the intimidation privately, but if there is no remorse or repentance, the intimidation will be publicly exposed and publicly opposed--every time. The attitude "you must agree with all my interpretations of the Bible or get out of the SBC" is neither historically Baptist or essentially Christian. I will at all times, and on all occasions, publish any private emails or written communications from SBC ideologues that seeks to intimidate into silence any Southern Baptist employee who believes, teaches, or publishes a contrary or dissenting doctrinal viewpoint.

Ideologues in the SBC need to know that any and all attempts to intimidate other Southern Baptists who view things differently will continue to be exposed and opposed. Nobody who intimidates, bullies or threatens others in the Southern Baptist Convention--a Convention built on cooperation-- gets a free pass.

Lord willing, Southern Baptists will once again experience the true measure of Baptist identity--the freedom to believe, teach, preach, write and serve others as God leads. Our willingness to work with other Southern Baptists with whom we disagree is the essence of SBC cooperation. Those who can't cooperate, or won't cooperate, shouldn't be allowed to lead the SBC or determine who will be employed by those of us who pay the bills.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson