In a recent post titled “Something I Genuinely Do Not Understand,” Wade Burleson asks the following question, which he says has “continued to plague [his] understanding”:
“Why would any conservative agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, whether it be state or national, reject the mission dollars of a church or individual who desires to contribute to that agency’s work in reaching the world for Christ through the proclamation of the gospel?”
He asks this question in the context of a description of a visit to the First Baptist Church of Independence, Missouri. This church was, until recently, a member of the Missouri Baptist Convention (MBC), which has had a by-law since 1919 that says that member churches who choose to align themselves with other, competing Baptist groups may not participate in the governing of the MBC. This bylaw has been updated in recent years to reflect the new realities brought about by such groups as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Baptist General Convention of Missouri, both of which compete, rather than cooperate, with the work of the MBC and the Southern Baptist Convention. And to be accurate, it is not the case that the MBC is “reject[ing] the mission dollars” of churches such as First Baptist of Independence. Rather, the convention, which is nothing more than the messengers from member churches, has said that such congregations will not have a role in shaping the direction of the convention through voting at convention meetings and participating in leadership, as they have shown a desire to work at cross purposes with the convention. They are still welcome to send funds to the MBC, with the understanding that they must accept the will of the majority concerning the leadership and direction the convention will take. It all sounds very Baptist to me.
Speaking of sounding Baptist, in Wade’s post, he once again found it necessary to reiterate his conservative Baptist credentials. He seems on this point to have become quite defensive of late. He reminds us that, when the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship organized in Oklahoma in 1992, it was he who nailed to the door of their meeting room “95 Theses Against Participation in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma.” Perhaps it has been a while since Wade actually read this document, for it contains, I believe, the relief he seeks for his “plague” of misunderstanding:
8. Dual alignment is nothing but a euphemism for a withdrawal from fellowship.
52. To give to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is to take away from the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.
In these two “theses,” we have, from Wade’s own hand, a very clear understanding of why the Missouri Baptist Convention has shown great prudence for nearly ninety years in excluding from their decision-making any congregation which has demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with entities which are in direct competition, and not cooperation, with their own Kingdom purposes.
I hope this serves to alleviate any misunderstandings.
on May 15th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Wes,
#77 is also interesting: “If it be stated that the sowers of discord were those in 1979 who began the conservative/liberal controversy, it is replied that the controversy began when those in the Southern Baptist Convention leadership began to teach contrary to the Scriptures and historic faith of our Baptist fathers”
That’s a much different analysis of the Conservative Resurgence than we read here.
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Bart,
It certainly does appear that from Wade’s perspective it seems there are far more fundamentalists (spooky and otherwise) today than there were liberals pre-1979.
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Wes,
This is perhaps your best post ever… awesome work, my friend. Bart makes an excellent point as well. It certainly appears that Burleson’s theological course has drifted dramatically to the left over the past decade and a half. Interesting, indeed. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Wes
You have again hit the nail on the head.
Might I add that some organizations find $$$$$$ is not the bottom line issue. There are principles that were set in 1919. These have been there for the protection of the state convention from rogue organizations that desire to fundamentally change the fabric that makes Missouri Baptists, “Baptist.”
Failure to comply removes yourself from being willing to participate in the organization’s pursuits. The MBC is not rejecting money, FBC Independence has voluntarily taken money away.
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Brother Wes,
Maybe you should post the ninety-and-nine theses. From just the three that you posted it appears that Brother Wade has duplicitous meanderings. Duplicitous meanderings reveal something more than double-speak.
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
hey, i like the wade burleson that nailed the 95 theses. he sounds like my kind of guy. where did he go?
david….volfan007
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Youse guy’s reminds me of why I refrained from being SBC for so long. Do you eat your children too? One can disagree without being disagreeable. Remember that!
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
jake,
i’m confused. what has been written that’s mean, or would be confused with eating our children? is it that you just disagree with what we are saying?
david…..volfan007
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
David,
It seems to me….and nearly everyone disagrees with “any” opinion that I give that this blog just loves to jump on Wade. And it also appears to me….opinion again….that SBC’ers love to jump on their own kind. I heard it said a number of years ago that if SBC’ers couldn’t fight with somebody out side the SBC that they would find some of their own to fight with. Untill I stumbled onto the current SBC church we attend my “opinion” was more fact than “opinion”. Wade is plenty conservative….just not a disagreeable conservative.
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Wes, you wrote that, “They are still welcome to send funds to the MBC, with the understanding that they must accept the will of the majority concerning the leadership and direction the convention will take. It all sounds very Baptist to me.”
While you are correct that the will of the majority is how we do things in Baptist life what is happening here is not very Baptist. What is Baptist about not allowing them to vote?
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I’m very puzzled by your final paragraph and would sincerely love to hear an explanation of what you mean when you praise the prudence of the MBC for excluding from their decision-making congregations that are in “direct competition, and not cooperation, with their own Kingdom purposes.” Can you specify exactly how either CBF or the BGCM is being competitive with the Kingdom purposes of the MBC? That is a generalization that simply will not stand up to any rational examination. Both groups cited are involved in missions outreach, discipleship, leadership training, church planting, and being the presence of Christ in the world. Does the MBC have a unique approach to advancing the Kingdom that somehow omits all of these endeavors?
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Now that the IMB has issued a decision, assuming that Armageddon doesn’t descend upon San Antonio, I wonder whether the Wade Burleson of these 95 Theses is not someone with whom the SBC could make peace? Perhaps his warm fuzzies with CBFers et al have been political strategy, but that at his heart he is a conservative who has just gotten angry and let it get the better of him.
Or has he gone so far that he would have trouble seeing his way back? What does everyone think?
Reply
on May 15th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Brian and Gary,
I don’t imagine there is anything I can say here that will cause us to agree, but nevertheless, here is my best attempt at answering what you have said.
The MBC (messengers from the churches) made this adjustment to its long-standing bylaw and there was a year of waiting before it went into effect. These nineteen churches knew full well for more than a year what the will of the messengers was concerning their continued participation, and they each chose, whether by action or inaction, to make themselves ineligible to participate and to vote. That is quite Baptist indeed, in my opinion.
I am not as familiar with the BGCM as I am with the CBF, which was clearly started in order to compete with the SBC. Daniel Vestal’s prediction of the defection of 5,000 churches as a result of the SBC’s adoption of the 2000 BF&M is evidence enough of that. I agree with Wade Burleson (1992 edition) in identifying those who want to cooperate with such a group as having clearly stated their intention not to cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention, which is their perfect right. They should not then, in my opinion, complain when that intention is ratified by official action of the messengers to their former convention.
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Wes,
I would suspect that none of the 19 churches that were officially disfellowshipped by the MBC because of their dual-alignment with either CBF or the BGCM regrets the stance that they have taken. The principle of local church autonomy and the freedom to direct one’s giving where desired is certainly something to be prized over and against those who would say that doing so somehow makes such a church unworthy of partnership and representation in the convention.
There is of course a sense in which both CBF and SBC compete for members in local churches, but that wasn’t the focus of my questions to you. You couched the argument and defense of the MBC in terms of opposition to those who were competing against the Kingdom purposes of the MBC. My question at that point is exactly which Kingdom purposes of the MBC do CBF and the BGCM oppose? If we’re talking about missions and evangelism, church planting, discipleship, leadership training, social ministry, or any of a number of other Kingdom purposes, I can’t see how you can make the statement that CBF and the BGCM are opposed to these. Now if the MBC’s purpose is to establish a small “k” kingdom of only like-minded Baptists who exclude those with differing interpretations on issues that are not at the heart of the gospel and the extension of the Kingdom of God, then perhaps you have a point.
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Wes, a few questions, if I may ask… and feel free to email me your response.
1. Why did you post this?
2. What are/were you trying to achieve in posting this?
3. Why does a pastor in the BGCO concern himself with the Baptist convention in another state (in this case, the MBC)?
I’m not sure I understand what good comes from discrediting another pastor, even if the two of you are on opposing ends of beliefs. Granted, it doesn’t seem overt, but the wording and the tone I read into this post definitely appear hostile at best. You know I’m no fanboy of “those guys” (you know what I’m talking about), but I do wonder why you’re so adamant about this, after saying you were laying off the SBC posts a while back.
In no way am I telling you what you should blog about. Perhaps I’m just wondering why you’ve shifted back to SBC politics.
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Gary,
Perhaps my references to “competition” and “cross-purposes” were somewhat imprecise. I’m not suggesting that the SBC and the CBF are not working for some of the same Kingdom purposes. It is just that the CBF has sprung up to compete for the dollars of Baptists in order to do that Kingdom work without what they considered to be stifling doctrinal guidelines. It is that competition, and not necessarily in the work of the Kingdom, in which they are at cross-purposes with the MBC, and I am still convinced that the messengers to that convention were prudent to require “all-or-nothing” cooperation.
I hope that this more clearly expresses what I was trying to say.
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Joe Kennedy,
I have the same questions on my mind. I don’t see how this and what the others say show any GLORY TO GOD in CHRIST NAME. These same people have come across this way since I started Blogging and reading their comments. Would Jesus do as they do?
IN HIS NAME
Wayne Smith
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Joe,
My purpose was not to engage in the details of Missouri Baptist politics, but rather to point out what I see as an inconsistency between the position Wade so ably articulated in 1992 and what he now seems to be advocating. In the earlier case, dual alignment was a “withdrawal from fellowship,” and now, it seems, we should be working with those who choose to dually align.
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Great post, Wes! Thanks for contributing to the discussion Wade Burleson began. I wonder if those that think you’re out of line post similar contents on his blog.
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 11:02 am
joe,
how true.
david…volfan007
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Wes, thanks for the explanation.
Joe Stewart, I would say a lot don’t. I posted what I did because Wes and I have discussed some of this kind of stuff before. I don’t post on others’ blogs about it because I don’t read them. It saves me time and stress.
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Wes
You have obviously struck a nerve. All I can tell is that you are trying to help Wade alleviate his confusion by explaining his question.
And this is what you get for helping a brother.
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
If I am not mistaken, the BGCT is one of, if not the largest donor to the SBC. Should the SBC decline to accept donations from the BGCT since they also send funds along to the CBF?
Reply
on May 16th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Joe Kennedy asked: “Why does a pastor in the BGCO concern himself with the Baptist convention in another state (in this case, the MBC)?”
Sounds to me like a great question for the author of the post to which you are responding, Wes.
Reply
on May 18th, 2007 at 9:56 am
wes,
have you seen the latest about wade and ben and others meeting with jimmy carter and bill clinton? and, that we should join with them to do some good things?
jimmy doesnt even believe that gospel. in light of your post here, what do you say to this new light?
david….volfan007
Reply
on May 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
It is so typical of David to start off with misstatements. Bill Clinton was not at this meeting and I have specifically uninvited David Worley to participate at all and no one at the meeting is trying to get him involved so he cannot rightly say “us.”
Reply
on May 18th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
marty,
i’m sorry. i’ve heard bill’s name mentioned so much with this group that i thought he was there. he should have been.
also, you’re right. i wasnt invited. i’m glad i wasnt, but i wonder why you and wade and ben and cb were?
wes, were you invited?
david….volfan007
Reply
on May 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am
who was invited to meet with x pres. carter and to be at this “baptist” conference? bart, were you invited?
les, were you invited?
colin, were you invited?
matt brady, were you invited?
robin hill, were you invited?
jeremy green, were you invited?
out of 16 million sb’s(maybe) and all the sb bloggers that are on the net….why were marty and ben and wade and cb invited? nothing against you fellas…you all seem to be fine fellas. but, why were yall singled out?
david….volfan007
Reply
on May 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
David, you’ve made your point. Give it a rest, man. You need to let it go.
Reply
on May 20th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Those guys were invited because there is a liberal conspiracy to overtake the SBC and elect Jimmy Carter SBC President with Bill Clinton Vice President. Wiley Drake will continue as 2nd VP in perpetuity. Hillary will speak at the Convention and Al Gore will chair the board of the IMB. James Carville will replace Richard Land. Ben will become the next President of SWBTS and Wade will run the Executive Committee. Marty will be thrown a bone to be specified at a later date – likely the head of BP.
It’s all a left-wing conspiracy.
Reply