A Reflection on How I've Changed in the Last Few Years

It's been my practice to visit some homebound members of our church on those holidays our family stays in Enid. Last Thursday, my 22 year old daughter Charis (pictured here with our family on Thanksgiving Day) joined me in visiting several church members as we sought to bring them some personal encouragement. Without fail, every person whom we desired to uplift wound up encouraging us. From the family that lost a husband/father/son the week prior, to the 93 year old widow spending her first Thanksgiving alone since the death of her 98 year old husband, to the people in the nursing homes and hospitals who were ill and spending Thanksgiving alone, each of our visits brought tears of joy to my daughter's eyes. These folks were a blessing to us. They reminded me of the axiom my dad taught me years ago: "As people get older, they either get better or bitter." Each of them had definitely gotten better!

I've taken some time over the weekend to try to evaluate some areas in my own life where there has been change for the better these past few years. I never want to get "stuck." I know the growth enumerated in the areas below is not yet complete, and there are many other areas in my life that need work, but in my own mind (and my wife's mind), these areas of my life have changed for the better.

(1). There is within me a deeper appreciation and respect for the work and ministry of people that are evangelical but not necessarily Baptist.

(2). When I am considering a particular course of action, I no longer ask myself "How will this 'look' to others?" Now, I simply ask, "Will what I do honor Christ and, in the long run, will it help others?"

(3). Though I love doctrine as much, if not more, than I ever have loved it, I have absolutely zero interest in convincing people that I am "right" in my beliefs. I am always ready to give an answer for what I believe, but I'd rather people know that I love them and I have zero need to let them know I disagree with them.

(4). I have little patience left for Christians who exert "power," "authority," and "control" over other Christians. It seems to me that exerting power, authority and control over others is the exact opposite of the kind of character Christ calls each of us to exhibit. If it is asked, "But should not these Christians who dominate and control feel your love as well?" I answer: "They do. The most loving thing I can do for those who lord over others under the guise of "spiritual authority" is to continue to point out the kings are actually wearing no clothes."

(5). There has come a genuine freedom in ministry at Emmanuel. Eighteen years of being with, and among, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ allows for the development of the kind of trust that is necessary to gently encourage and lead them to stake no claim in institutional advancement or fame (the church), but to only do those things in ministry that will encourage individuals in their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Well, those are some areas where I think I've changed in the last few years. There may be more, but those quickly come to my and my wife's mind this past weekend.

In His Grace,

Wade

How God Merges Culture and Truth in His Word

There are some conservatives who are concerned that "truth" is often compromised by the embrace of "culture." Evangelicals that adopt certain aspects of culture in order to promote "the truth" of God's word are sometimes condemned as "liberals" or "compromisers."

Interestingly, the biblical word "truth" is formed using the Greek culture of mythology. "Truth" translates the biblical Greek word "alethia." Alethia is a compound word composed of "a" (which means "not" in Greek) and "lethe" (which means "forgotten, hidden, or concealed" in Greek). Truth, then, literally means "that which is not hidden" or "that which is not forgotten."

Lethe was the Greek goddess of oblivion and forgetfulness. When people died, according to the ancient Greeks, they went to Hades where they had to drink from Lethe's water--a river in Hades named after the goddess Lethe. Those who would cup their hands, draw water from the river and drink, would forget their previous existence on earth. This would allow for the dead to be "reincarnated" and not remember their past lives.

The Apostle Paul says that we Christians are to delight in NOT hiding, concealing and forgetting (i.e. "lethe"). We are to "rejoice with the truth" (Gr. "alethia") I Corinthians 13:6. Comprehending the meaning of this word truth does not negate the rightful understanding that we Christians are to be people who love right doctrine, but the understanding of the etymology of the Greek word "truth" should lead us to believe other things as well:

(1). We Christians ought to rejoice in all matters of Christian ministry being placed out in the open for all to see and not hidden from view (i.e. "We are children of light, not darkness"). This should give every SBC convention committee (think GCR), institution (IMB, seminaries, etc...), church and person pause before we do ANYTHING in secret.

(2). We Christians ought to live lives that are authentic and transparent, avoiding hidden agendas and secrets.

(3). We Christians ought to delight in relationships that are built on genuine openness and real community--not the superficial, religious relationships often formed by institutional Christianity.

But the interesting tidbit about biblical "truth," at least from my perspective, is that the word itself comes from ancient Greek mythology. Not many western Christians realize this. It seems God is not as upset about using certain aspects of pagan culture to promote the "truth" as some would have us think.

God bless those evangelicals who understand this principle.

In His Grace,

Wade

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d dy of October, A.D. 1789.

(signed) G. Washington

Happy Thanksgiving one and all,

Wade Burleson

I Finally Figured Out Why I Don't Like Thanksgiving Pumpkin Pie

For decades I have been lovingly chided by my wife for not enjoying a good ole homemade pumpkin pie. The first time I ever met my wife's grandparents, salt of the earth Kansas farmers, they fed me a heaping piece of pumpkin pie. Wishing not to sully what I hoped to be a stellar affirmation of me by those grandparents, I surreptitiously stuck the pie in my pocket and buried it later in the backyard. I have never been fully able to explain to others my disdain for pumpkin pie, but one of my church members sent me a photograph this week (see below) that instantly opened my eyes, and helped me make sense of, my aversion to it.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

---


---


---



---



---



---



---




---

The origins of pumpkin pie.

Should Evangelical Leaders Be Held Accountable for What They Falsely Teach About the Second Coming?

Time is up on another self prophecy of the end by an evangelical Christian leader. Jerry Falwell predicted in January of 1999 that the “Second coming of Christ probably will be within 10 years.” Falwell was wrong. He also made another prophecy about the Anti-Christ being Jewish and alive at the time. On that count, too, Falwell is most likely wrong. However, the most disturbing statement by the late Dr. Falwell in 1999, at least to me, is not his misled proclamations of the coming of Christ, or his unwise attempts at identifying the ethnicity of the anti-Christ, but rather the following highlighted quote from a January 20, 1999 press release:

"When I delivered my sermon on the second coming of Jesus Christ last week to a pastors conference in Kingsport, Tennessee, I conveyed biblically-based truths that I have believed and preached nationally for more than 40 years. In addition to asserting that I personally believe that Christ could return soon (though no one knows the date of His second coming), I stated that the Antichrist may possibly be alive on the earth today. Most evangelicals, including Billy Graham and millions of others, believe in the imminent, premillennial, pretribulational second coming of Jesus Christ for all of His Church."

"Since Jesus came to the earth the first time 2,000 years ago as a Jewish male, most evangelicals believe the Antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male also, since his mission will be to pretend to be the true Christ. This belief is 2,000 years old and has no anti-Semitic roots. This is simply historic and prophetic orthodox Christian doctrine that many (not all) theologians, Christian and non-Christian, have understood for two millennia."

Like the previous errant prophecies by Dr. Falwell, his prediction that most evangelicals are "premillenial, pretribulational" believers in the second coming of Christ is also wrong. Maybe that's true in Lynchburg, Virginia and in the southern U.S., but most evangelicals throughout the world and throughout history have NOT been premillenial, pretribulational believers in the second coming.

Dr. Falwell batted 0 for 3 in 99!

The Dismissal of FBC Decatur: When Does a Convention Become a Cult?

During the November 11, 2009 business session of the Georgia Baptist Convention, messengers to the Southern Baptist state convention dismissed FBC Decatur, Georgia from fellowship for the church's calling of Julie Russell-Pennington as Senior Pastor in 2007. The SBC will not establish a data base to track ministerial child abusers out of fear of "violating local church autonomy," but when it comes to a church calling a woman to preach the gospel, church autonomy is slain at the feet of conventional conformity.

The notion that a woman cannot preach the gospel, or teach a man, or perform "pastoral" duties, is not biblical -- not even close. As time passes, more and more Bible-believing, conservative, Christ-honoring evangelicals are beginning to see that any prohibition against a woman ministering in the same manner as a man is a man-made restriction. God, in the New Covenant, signed and sealed by His Son's blood, has set His women free to function in the kingdom in the same manner He has His men.

As far back as the 1980's, conservative, Bible-believing men and women began voicing their beliefs that the inerrant, inspired Word of God declared full equality of men and women in creation and redemption. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, filled with Southern Baptist leadership, was formed to combat what they called "evangelical feminism." As I pointed out last week, Southern Baptists who wish to suppress women will even alter the sacred text to accomplish this goal. SBC Professor Dr. David Jones' article, posted by CBMW, alleges "scribal error" when Paul named a "female" apostle in Romans 16:7. I wrote that it is sad when inerrantist resort to pointing out error in the text to sustain a theological position. Dr. Bart Barber, an adjunct SBC professor himself and now a trustee at Southwestern Theological Seminary--a seminary at the heart of Southern Baptist attempts to anchor spirtual leadership within the male gender--was not happy with my post critiquing Dr. Jones' article. He commented:

Indeed, is there any published critical edition of the Greek New Testament that sides with Burleson and P46 in adopting "Julia" as the original text?

Suzanne McCarthey answers Dr. Barber's comment quite nicely in a comment of her own..

Let's examine (Dr. Jone's) statement (about Greek texts):

"... Greek minuscule manuscripts, which began having accents in the 9th century, all accent the name as though it were masculine -- without exception. It is interesting that Cervin catalogs so many modern editions of the Greek text, including the modern Greek translation, and shows how most support the feminine reading, and yet fails to mention the accentuation found in the older Greek minuscules dating from the ninth and tenth centuries, which support unanimously the masculine reading.55 The latter are certainly closer to the source and thus constitute more weighty evidence than modern editions. The fact that all of the manuscripts accented it the same no matter what part of the world they were found in suggests that the gender issue had been settled some time before. Thus, Tucker's tongue-in-cheek statement about the gender of Iounian being held unanimously as feminine up until her "sex change" around the 14th century is thus made at the expense of this evidence, which suggests otherwise."

It appears from this statement that David Jones article predates the UBS 1998 text of the Greek New Testament. In this text it is finally made clear that there is NO Greek minuscule which accents the name as masculine. Not even one, ever!

I don't fault Jones for not knowing this, depending on the date of his article. I am severely disgusted at his mockery of Brooten, Tucker, Grenz, Cervin, etc. when it now turns out that they are 100% accurate and he is 100 % wrong, due to the fact that UBS had previously published that there were manuscripts which accented the word as masculine, when there were not.

I think that the CBMW would do David Jones a kindness by removing such an outdated article from the internet.

The issue of women in ministry should NOT divide conservative evangelicals from cooperating in world-wide mission efforts, particularly when one side of the debate is having to alter the sacred text in order to sustain its position. When Dr. Barber, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Mohler, and other Southern Baptists, including messengers from the Georgia Baptist Convention, "disfellowship" and "severe relationship" with autonomous local churches who are following what they believe the Bible to teach, then they have placed others of us who wish to identify with the Southern Baptist Convention in a very, very precarious position.

As I wrote two years ago:

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!

The Georgia Baptist Convention last week sent money back to First Baptist Church, Decatur--money that FBC Decatur had given them through the Cooperative Program mission efforts the preceding year. The GBC said to FBC, Decatur-- "Keep your money. We don't want it, nor do we wish you to be identified with us."

Well, I've got news for the SBC. If we have come to the time when a conservative, Bible-believing Southern Baptist church cannot follow what she believes the Bible teaches, and is forced to either conform to Convention mandates or else be removed from fellowship, then the SBC has stopped being a legitimate, historical Baptist convention of cooperating believers and churches and we have become a cult.

I, and the church to which I belong, want no part of a cult. 100 years from now, if the Lord tarries, and another generation of Southern Baptists are allowed to arise, it is my prayer that they will see there were some Southern Baptists in 2009 who refused to stick their head in the sand when the Bible stopped being the standard of faith for Southern Baptists.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Irony and Humor of Teaching What the Bible Actually Says About Alcohol

Dr. Randy Jaeggli is Professor of Old Testament at Bob Jones University. Last year Dr. Jaeggli published a paperback book entitled The Christian and Drinking where he examined all of the verses in the Bible dealing with alcohol. Dr. Jaeggli's personal conclusion, as one would expect, was that every Christian should totally abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages. However, his scholarly and academic conclusion was a tad different. He wrote that the Bible itself does not command abstinence. Indeed, Dr. Jaeggli points out several places in the sacred text which seem to imply that alcohol is associated with some positive Christian values or serve as a metaphor for foundational Christian truths. He personally advocates total abstinence but writes the Bible prohibits excessive drinking only. To the horror of some fundamentalists, Dr. Jaeggli writes convincingly that Jesus turned the water into actual alcoholic wine at Canaan. An excellent review of Dr. Jaeggli's book is given by Jonathan Taylor.

Yesterday, a blogger going by the name Ektachrome made me aware of an email sent by the President of Bob Jones University a couple of months ago. The email read:

The sensitivity and complexity of the topic of (Dr. Jaeggli's) book, combined with the brevity and inductive arrangement of it, have caused confusion for some readers. They have concluded from some select portions of the text that Dr. Jaeggli condones a Christian’s moderate use of alcohol, which is the opposite of what the book actually teaches.

I'm not sure about the confusion to which the President refers. Dr. Jaeggli was quite clear he personally advocated abstinence. Could it be that his impartial, scholarly, and conservative approach to the sacred text brought about the confusion? Could it be that some readers realized that the good professor's convictions went beyond the commandments of Scripture? In other words, did people read his book and become clear about what the Bible actually says about the subject, but confused about the grounds for total abstinence for every Christian?

It seems the President's email didn't slow the firestorm over the book. Now, Bob Jones University has pulled the book from its shelves, and has decided to no longer make it available to the public. Hmmmm.

Now, if you wish to purchase the little $10.95 paperback you will have to shell out $999.00 to Amazon for the privilege.

Laughing,

Wade Burleson

A Picture Parable: The Ultimate Fate of Our Temporal Riches

This fire in California, captured by L.A. Daily News photographer Gene Blevins, visually illustrates the truth behind the words of Jesus, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matthew 6:19-21).

Nidal Hasan: Are Moderate Muslims the Most Dangerous Muslims of All?

I confess to thinking twice before posting today. I know that what is written here will inflame some and enrage others. I remind the reader that the title of the post simply asks a question. I, for one, am not giving an answer. Some Christians, people whom I respect, have written that the answer to the question in the title of my post is an emphatic "No!" They have suggested that to disagree with them on this issue is to "demonize" Islam. Others however, like the Mossab Hassan, answer the question "Are moderate Muslims the most dangerous kind of Muslims?" with an emphatic "Yes." Since there is disagreement, it is at least a question worth asking and thoughtfully considering an appropriate answer.

The shootings at Ft Hood that killed 13 United States soldiers is a horrific example of Islamic jihad. What most Americans are hearing on television is that "we just don't know why this moderate Muslim, a United States military officer himself, would do such a terrible thing!" Mossab Hassan says he understands the Islamic ideology that drove Hasan to do what he did. Mossab, the son of of the only surviving founding council member of Hamas, the largest terrorist organization in the world, spoke at our church last October. He said something during his talk that got people to thinking. Mossab Hassan said, (quote) "Moderate Muslims are most dangerous Muslims of all." This former Islamic radical fundamentalist, who himself is now urging all Muslims world-wide to love (not kill) their enemies, explained his rationale as follows (direct from the transcript).

Islamic fanatics are not the most dangerous Muslims.

• Professors, teachers at U.S. universities are dangerous because they support terrorism undercover (raise money here to send to terrorists)

• Most suicide bombers are not fanatics, but moderate, traditional Muslims

• Islam is a religion of steps, like climbing a ladder, with jihad the highest rung on the ladder.

• You cannot measure the speed of a person climbing this ladder. A “moderate Muslim” could reach the top rung in a few months, or in ten years. There is no way to predict it.

• There is no difference between a moderate Muslim and a fundamental Muslim. They believe in the same god.

Islam's god teaches followers to kill the infidels who will not convert. This act of jihad is the highest rung of the ladder in one's effort to please Allah.

Again, you may not agree with Mossab Hassan, but I find it interesting that people in the culture of the United States are urging caution in bringing judgment upon moderate Islam over the shootings at Ft. Hood--implying that moderate Islam is different than fundamental Islamic radicals. Yet,a former radical Muslim leader in the terrorist organization Hamas, a man trained for years to kill his enemies, is unequivocally telling us that moderate Muslims are the most dangerous kind of Muslims because nobody knows how fast they will jump to the top rung of jihad.

Interesting. Maybe US army officer Nidal Hasan was truly a moderate Muslim. I guess it depends on whose perspective one chooses to believe.

When Inerrantists Espouse the Bible Has Error: A Question for Southern Baptists About Junia in Romans 16:7

Dr. David Jones is a conservative Southern Baptist scholar who serves as a professor of ethics on the faculty at Southeastern Theological Seminary. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has posted an article written by Dr. Jones entitled "A Female Apostle?" (Edit: It seems the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood misidentified the man who wrote the article they posted on their own website. I have no idea how CBMW can post an article and misidentify the author, but it seems, as has been pointed out by a couple of commentors in the comment section the CBMW has now corrected their mistake. The author of the article is David Jones, Professor at Moffat College of Bible).

Dr. Jones examines Romans 16:7 where the Apostle Paul names a female, Junia, as one "prominent among the apostles." Dr. Jones rightly frames the issue that arises from this verse when he writes, "A woman is called an apostle, and a prominent apostle no less, who may have planted churches throughout the Roman world and exercised governing authority over them. It challenges the traditional belief in an all-male apostolate, as well as the implication that complementarians have drawn from it."

For this reason, Dr. Jones sets out to prove that the woman named in Romans 16:7 is NOT actually a woman. The basic conclusion that Dr. Jones reaches follows:

(T)he important papyrus P46, along with several other less important manuscripts and versions, reads Ioulian. Ioulian is a feminine name, equivalent to our Julia. If this reading is to be preferred, then Paul is definitely referring here to a sister in Christ and not a brother. It is unlikely that this reading is original, however ... It is most likely that the scribe who copied P46 inadvertently transposed "Julia" from verse fifteen. (emphasis mine).

In essence, the oldest, and highly important Greek manuscript (according to Dr. Jones), Papyri 46 has a mistake. It contains a scribal "error."

Dr. Jones' article is worthy for you to read in its entirety. I understand his conclusion, and though I disagree it, I respect it. I write not to refute Dr. Jones scholarly conclusions, but to ask a sincere question of all my fellow conservative Southern Baptist.

What do we call it when a Southern Baptist inerrantist points out 'error' in the most ancient Greek text?


In His Grace,


Wade