Tent Width Oct 25, 2006
Observations on Controversy Oct 24, 2007
First Impressions Dec 5, 2006
For some time now, I have chosen not to comment on Grace and Truth to You. While I am standing by that decision, today’s post there demands a response. It is time that someone pointed out the absolute ridiculousness that is being promoted, and the personal animosity that makes the very name of the blog ring quite hollow.
The offense begins at the title. Apparently the distastefulness of “Baptist Identity and Conversational Terrorism†has been recognized as gratuitous, as it has been softened since its original posting (not the first time hateful words have been changed at that blog). But the damage of the title is done; most who follow these things will have seen the original.
The irony of an accusation of “conversational terrorism†coming from this blogger is stunning in its richness. And the fact that it was directed at a respected theologian who happens to be a personal friend has obligated me to respond. I have not been asked by the one offended to respond on his behalf, and knowing what I know of his nature, he would likely prefer that it be left alone. But I cannot, in good conscience, allow this attack on my friend to stand unanswered.
There are not really words available to describe adequately the level of hubris inherent in this silly indictment. Just one example will suffice to support this claim, though the fact is as obvious as a rising and full moon to those who have been closely following this mess.
I have been among many bloggers sharply criticized during the resignation-shortened tenure of the writer of Grace and Truth to You as a trustee of the International Mission Board for their support of men such as Tom Hatley, John Floyd, and even Jerry Corbaley. Due to a disagreement with a pair of policies, this blogger launched an all-out public offensive in the blogosphere, belittling and ridiculing these men, accusing them of being mindless puppets and blood-thirsty warriors, and questioning their honesty and theological integrity. Because of his habitual lack of specificity when making these attacks, they were rightly seen as an affront to the entire board of trustees, a concept he never seemed to grasp.
And yet, there were other trustees on the board who disagreed with these policies, some of them quite strongly. At least one, Dr. Allen McWhite of South Carolina, wrote letters to every trustee and even to all of the presidents of our seminaries in an attempt to gain support for his opposition. Yet he continually showed respect for the board as a whole, and as a result he continues to serve as an effective member of that body.
But because of his outrageous manner in opposing the policies, the writer of Grace and Truth to You faced removal from the board, forced a change in standards of trustee conduct, was censured by the full board, and was ultimately forced to resign. And anyone asserting that it was because of his disagreement with the policies is either mistaken or is intentionally misleading. No, the reason for the utter failure of his tenure on the International Mission Board can be summed up in two words, ironically coupled by his own hand this day: “conversational terrorism.”
Presumably I, along with many of my friends, would be lumped together within the group that this outrageous post calls the “Baptist Identity initiative,†which is labeled as a “fringe movement.†This claim is laughable in its absurdity. An objective look at the leftward cant of the theology that has been put forward at Grace and Truth to You just in recent days, as well as the viciousness of many of the regular commenters in attacking any who would disagree with their views, can leave little doubt as to who is on the fringe of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The writer of Grace and Truth to You is not a theological liberal. A theological liberal is one who denies the central tenets of the Christian faith, including the inerrancy and integrity of the Bible (including, obviously, the first eleven chapters of Genesis). That is not applicable to this blog owner. But the time is long past when anyone can claim with any credibility that he is a theological conservative.
Among the many benefits to the Southern Baptist Convention of the legacy of the late Dr. Adrian Rogers are his precise definitions of the theological identifiers “conservative,†“liberal,†and “moderate.†A moderate, according to Dr. Rogers, is one who “maintains the position of accommodating the liberal view.†Pointing out how this applies to the blogger in question would be tantamount to directing attention to the sun at noon on a cloudless day.
I’m quite content to be labeled as one who stands unashamedly for “Baptist identity,†for I am persuaded that “Baptist identity†is, or at least ought to be, nothing more or less than biblical identity. Were I to find another model closer to the polity and practice I see in the New Testament, I would quickly abandon my “Baptist identity†in favor of it. Apparently, there is intended in that label some level of shame, judging by the pejorative way in which it is often employed at Grace and Truth to You. This in itself is telling. Nonetheless, I am happy to own it, and even happier that the owner of Grace and Truth to You has chosen so publicly to oppose it.
“There are a multitude of issues that have to be dealt with within the trustee framework that go way beyond the Baptist Faith and Message. … There are many things that the Baptist Faith and Message just simply doesn’t deal with.â€
.
.
Anyone care to guess?
The phrase “beat around the bush” has an interesting history, according to an online glossary of colloquialisms:
This expression goes all the way back to the 1500s when hunters hired people called beaters to drive small animals out of the bushes so the hunters could get a better shot at them. The problem for the beaters was that they might drive the birds or rabbits of foxes out too soon. They had to be careful not to drive the animals into the open before the hunters arrived. So the beaters might use their long sticks “around the bush” rather than directly on it. Today, the expression “to beat around the bush” means talking about things in a roundabout way without giving clear answers or coming to the point.
For an example of ‘beating directly on the bush,’ drop by Veritas and Ecclesia, where Joe Stewart rants a bit about Dwight McKissic’s TBN appearance.
Wade Burleson has written a post today regarding an article in a Memphis newspaper about Bellevue Baptist Church‘s mission work in India. His post contains the following paragraph (emphasis original):
Though I am not sympathetic with the anti-missionary viewpoint of the article’s author, I was struck by a little detail or two related to baptism and ecclesiology. It appears that women from many villages across the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh came to a training center run by an Indian evangelist named Sathuluri who hosted a training program for village women that was fully – and solely – sponsored by Bellevue Baptist Church. During the course of the training event, at least one village woman, and implicit within the article – many more women – were baptized. There was no local church involved in the baptism. Women from all over the state were baptized by an evangelist, but they did not become members of any ‘local’ church that day. The women identified themselves with Christ – baptized at the hands of the evangelist who led them to Christ. This non-local church based baptismal service raises questions of inconsistency when juxtaposed to Dr. John Floyd’s, Mid-America’s, and the ‘new’ (2005) IMB Baptism Position Paper that all posit an inflexible insistence that proper baptism is to be conducted only as an ordinance of the local church.
In this paragraph, it is stated as fact that “there was no local church involved in the baptism.” My first reaction upon reading this was, “You mean, other than Bellevue?”
I am firmly convinced that, as the Baptist Faith and Message states, baptism is an ordinance of the local church. I do not believe that this means the only valid baptisms are those conducted in a heated pool inside a brick building by a man with a certificate of ordination hanging on his office wall. Rather, it means that there is no scriptural baptism outside the authority given by Christ to the local church. The church may authorize anyone it wishes, from the pastor to the custodian to a missionary member, to baptize converts anywhere, from the baptistry to a swimming pool to the Indus River.
So when I read about these baptisms, my natural conclusion is to assume that one sent by Bellevue Baptist Church to carry out the work of evangelism is baptizing converts under the authority of Bellevue Baptist Church, which is perfectly within their right and perfectly consistent with the IMB baptism guideline which Wade seeks to undermine with his post.
But this was just an assumption. In order to find out whether my assumption was justified, I contacted Steve Marcum, who serves as Minister of Missions at Bellevue. I found out that my assumption was not, in fact, justified.
Rather than baptizing under the authority of Bellevue Baptist Church, Steve told me that the baptisms referred to in the article in question all took place under the authority of local churches in India. So despite the fact that Wade repeatedly tells his readers that no local church was involved in these baptisms, it just isn’t true.
Another thing that is misleading about Wade’s post are the gymnastics he goes through to link Bellevue Baptist Church with Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, where IMB trustee chairman Dr. John Floyd is employed. I can only assume that the reason this connection is necessary is to try to show some inconsistency in Dr. Floyd’s position on baptism, an inconsistency that evaporates when the sunlight of truth shines through.
My conversation with Steve Marcum revealed that there is no official connection between his church and the school. It was not founded by Bellevue, and though they have supported it financially through the years and continue to do so, many other churches, ministries, and individuals do this as well; Bellevue is not unique in this regard.
It took me about three minutes to locate the name and phone number for Steve Marcum, who returned my call within the hour. It took another five minutes on the phone with him to confirm the information I have presented here. But rather than check the facts for himself, Wade published a post that contains false and misleading information in order to make a point.
These photos are of soon-to-be-former Texas A&M head football coach Dennis Franchione and Arbuckle Baptist Association (ABA) Director of Missions Terry Mott. I’ll let you figure out which is which. I first put this picture together several months ago, just for fun, but an opportunity has presented itself for me to make use of it here.
That opportunity stems from a motion recently adopted by the ABA in their annual meeting. This motion was a recommendation from the association’s executive board regarding Calvinism, and here is what it said:
“That the Executive Board of Arbuckle Baptist Association recommend that the messengers to the Arbuckle Baptist Association Annual Meeting in October 2007, vote to request the Executive Director of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and the Executive Committee of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and the Board of Directors of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, take a stand against the presentation of reformed theology – often called “Calvinism” – as a legitimate topic that we need to debate; and instead of recommending that we should debate reformed theology, take a public stand against reformed theology”
There was then a motion at the annual meeting that the letter be sent to Dr. Morris Chapman and all members of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee.
I spent four years on staff at a church in the ABA, and I know Terry Mott pretty well. He is a friend and one of my mentors in ministry. I learned a great deal sitting across the desk from him, and I have a particular appreciation for the difficult situation he is in as a result of these actions by the association. His signature on the letter (click here to see it) indicates nothing more than his compliance with the instructions given to him by the association of churches he serves. With that background, I want to share some observations on this controversy, observations based on what I know about those involved, as well as on conversations I had with Terry Mott over the last couple of days.
The pastor who was the driving force behind this move, Dr. Joe Elam of First Baptist Church in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, had until about eighteen months ago a Calvinist staff member who did much, both before and after he separated from the church, to undermine Dr. Elam’s leadership of that church. As Dr. Akin told us in our SBC Today interview, while there is unquestionably a place in SBC life for Calvinists, hyper-Calvinists and Calvinists who are hyper need to repent or move on. I think this is, at least in part, an overreaction to a person who fits the second category of folks Dr. Akin mentioned.
Also, as Terry Mott told me yesterday, this statement is not worded in a way that reflects the true intent of the motion. The arguments made in support of its adoption centered on a hypothetical pastor who would stand in the pulpit and declare that there are some people sitting before him who cannot be saved. While this is at best a mischaracterization of reformed theology, and while it is almost certainly a straw-man argument (who would actually do this?), I think all would agree that someone who did do it ought to be opposed. When you read that it was adopted without objection, understand that this is what folks thought they were supporting.
While he does not identify himself as a Calvinist, and certainly doesn’t subscribe to all five points, know that Terry Mott understands that, to some extent, all true Baptists are Calvinists. It is my hope that this unfortunate action will not reflect poorly on the character and reputation of this good man and this wonderfully loving and Christ-focused association of churches.
Whereas the International Mission Board (IMB) exists for the purpose of leading Southern Baptists to be on mission with God to bring all peoples of the world to saving faith in Jesus Christ;
Whereas the trustees of the IMB are responsible for establishing overall policy and direction for the organization and conducting oversight of its operations in a manner that furthers the IMB’s purpose;
Whereas Wade Burleson of Oklahoma presently serves as a trustee of the IMB;
Whereas Wade Burleson, like every other trustee of the IMB, serves as a trustee subject to the obligation to abide by the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities set forth in the Trustee and General Policy Manual;
Whereas the Trustee Standards of Conduct require trustees, among other things, to observe the following standards:
Whereas the General Trustee Responsibilities set forth in the Trustee and General Policy Manual require trustees, among other things, to observe the following standards:
Trustees are TO INTERPRET international missions in their sphere of influence in the denomination-home, local church, association, state convention, and SBC, as an informed, enthusiastic advocate of global missions. In this respect, trustees are to speak in positive and supportive terms as they interpret and report on actions by the Board, regardless of whether they personally support the action.
…
Trustees are TO EXEMPLIFY what it means to be Christ-like in decorum and sincerely committed to the Southern Baptist cooperative missions tasks. In this respect, trustees are to speak the truth in love. Trustees are to refrain from speaking in disparaging terms about IMB personnel and fellow trustees.
Whereas the Board of Trustees finds that Wade Burleson has repeatedly failed to abide by the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities enumerated above. Some examples of the ways in which Wade Burleson has violated these standards and responsibilities include the following:
(a) He has repeatedly used his blog to share private communications with fellow trustees with persons who are neither trustees nor senior Board staff, in violation of the Trustee Standards of Conduct. Examples of these include the following: blog post of September 12, 2007 (posting of private conversation with trustee John Floyd);
blog post of September 12, 2007(posting of private conversation with trustee Jerry Corbaley);
blog post of October 23, 2007 (posting of private letter written by trustee Jerry Corbaley to fellow trustees);
blog post of July18, 2007 (posting of private communication with trustee Jerry Corbaley).
He has also shared,by email, private communications with fellow trustees with persons who are neither trustees nor senior Board staff, in violation of the Trustee Standards of Conduct (see, e.g., November 1, 2007 email to trustee John Floyd);
(b) He has spoken in disparaging terms about fellow trustees. Examples of these include the following:
blog post of July 18, 2007 (disparaging comments concerning trustee JerryCorbaley);
blog post of July 20, 2007 (disparaging comments concerning trustee WinstonCurtis);
blog post of September 12, 2007 (disparaging comments concerning trustee Jerry Corbaley and leadership of trustee John Floyd);
blog post of October 23, 2007 (disparaging comments concerning trustee Jerry Corbaley);
(c) He has spoken in terms that are not positive and supportive of the Board when interpreting and reporting on actions by the Board. Examples of these include the following:
blog post and comments of July 10, 2007 (critical of Board policy on requirements forappointment of missionaries);
blog post of July 6, 2007 (same);
blog post of July 3, 2007 (same);
blog post of June 13, 2007 (same);
blog post of June 7, 2007 (same).
Whereas the IMB Executive Committee met with Burleson on the afternoon of November 5, 2007 out of concern for his ongoing violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities and out of a desire to bring about reconciliation between Burleson and the other trustees. Trustee Chairman John Floyd asked Burleson if he would apologize for his violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities and expressed to Burleson his desire to see Burleson appointed to board committees and serve as a fully-functioning trustee, using his strengths and gifts to further the work of the IMB;
Whereas following that meeting of the Executive Committee, two trustee members of the Executive Committee and a senior IMB staff member met with Burleson on the evening of November 5, 2007 for further discussion. Burleson was asked to apologize for the following violations:
(a) Making public private communications with fellow trustees;
(b) Speaking in a way that reflected poorly on fellow trustees; and
(c) Publicly criticizing board approved actions instead of speaking in positive and supportive terms as he interpreted and reported on actions of the Board of Trustees, regardless of whether he personally supported those actions.
Whereas specific instances of each of these violations were cited to Burleson. Burleson acknowledged these violations to the two trustee members of the Executive Committee and the senior IMB staff member. Burleson stated that the violations regarding speaking in a way that reflected poorly on his fellow trustees were unintentional offenses for which he would gladly apologize. However, he stated that he intentionally chose to make public private communications with trustees and that he intentionally chose to publicly criticize board approved actions instead of speaking in positive and supportive terms as he interpreted and reported on board actions. Burleson further stated that he would not apologize for these intentional
violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities. Burleson stated that he had voted against these standards of conduct when they were adopted because he believed in the principle of dissent. Burleson further added that he had refused to abide by these standards of conduct after they were adopted and that he desired to bring the issue to the SBC;
Whereas the Executive Committee subsequently reconvened on the evening of November 5, 2007 to hear from the two trustee members of the Executive Committee and senior IMB staff member report on their conversation with Burleson.
Whereas the Executive Committee determined that it was appropriate to recommend censure by the full Board of Trustees for Burleson’s intentional and unapologetic violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities;
Whereas the IMB Board of Trustees is empowered to enforce the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities and censure individual trustees who do not abide by these standards and responsibilities;
THEREFORE, based on the findings enumerated above, the IMB Board of Trustees hereby orders that the following action be taken with regard to trustee Wade Burleson:
(a) Wade Burleson is hereby officially censured by this Board for his violation of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities;
(b) Wade Burleson is hereby officially suspended from any active involvement with the Board of Trustees for at least the next four IMB trustee meetings. This suspension means, without limitation, that Burleson will not be allowed to participate in any meeting or business of the Trustee Board, serve on any trustee committee, or be reimbursed for expenses of travel to any trustee meeting or business. This suspension will be reviewed after the four trustee meetings have occurred. The Executive Committee will make a determination at that time whether the suspension should be lifted. If prior to that time, Burleson makes an apology to the Board for his violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities, commits to working within the structure and policies of the Board, and agrees to refrain from blogging about the IMB, the Executive Committee will consider lifting the above restrictions.
[Read the story from Baptist Press here, which includes a link to this document and to the entirety of the Trustee Standards of Conduct. Read the story from Associated Baptist Press here.]
The title of this post represents a practice in Southern Baptist life that has always concerned me. Contained within this phrase is the idea that a person’s membership in a local church somehow has its substance in a “letter” that can be moved from place to place. It is not a covenant relationship, but a clerical exercise. But is this practice in any way biblical?
Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
- Acts 18:24-28 (ESV)
This passage seems to be about as close as one can come to a biblical argument for our practice of “letters of recommendation,” although it strikes me as more of a ministerial recommendation that one for membership. And I don’t think I would be at all uncomfortable with a practice by that name if it had any real resemblance to the mental image that the phrase “letter of recommendation” creates in most people. One could reasonably expect that, in the case of a member in good standing, there would be some discussion about a person’s contribution to their local church, their giftedness, and their ability to serve the local church. The person would have discussed their need to join another congregation with the leaders of their present church, and everyone would be aware of the impending move. A letter would be drafted detailing the person’s experience of salvation and baptism, their history of service, and the current church’s good wishes to the sister congregation. But our practice of granting letters really isn’t anything like that.
In my experience, the granting of letters is a footnote in a business meeting wherein the clerk reads the name of a member and the church requesting a letter, someone makes a motion, and the “letter” is granted (sometimes after a discussion in which someone suggests that the person may, in fact, be dead). The clerk then fills out a card (available here), and the person is removed as a member. There is no discussion of whether the person even gives evidence of being a Christian, much less whether they are someone who should be the subject of a “letter of recommendation.”
In the two years I have served as pastor of my current church, I have made a handful of phone calls to pastors, either when receiving a request for a letter or when someone I know to be a member of a nearby church shows interest in joining here. In each and every case, I have been treated quite dismissively, usually after the pastor with whom I am talking gets over their surprise that anyone would even waste a phone call on such a matter. Needless to say, these experiences have been discouraging.
I leave for the comments a couple of questions. First, do the things I have written about here even constitute a problem? And if so, what are some practical solutions? Cyle Clayton has written an excellent piece on this subject over at sbc IMPACT! which spurred the thinking that led to this somewhat rambling post. I encourage you to read and interact with what he has written as well.
There seems to be a growing resurgence in SBC life of a concern for authentic church membership. What part does this practice of “moving letters” play in the degradation of the integrity of membership in a local church?
In doing some research for a report I am to deliver to the Frisco Baptist Association at next week’s annual meeting, I read through some of the minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association from their meetings in the eighteenth century. My last two posts on the subject of church membership and discipline (here and here) generated some healthy discussion on the topic, so I thought I would add the view of some of our Baptist forefathers to the mix, in the form of responses the association gave to queries from member churches.
Their regard for the importance of membership in the local church was so great that they didn’t believe it proper for someone to pass another Baptist church on their way to the one of which they were a member. This is from the annual meeting of 1735:
Upon a motion moved by some members of the Association:
Whether a person that is a well-wisher to us, and desires to be admitted a member into a church far distant from the place of his abode; whereas a church of the same order is nearer to him than the church that he proposed to join with; whether it be orderly for the distant church to receive such an one? Yea or nay?
Resolved in the negative, there being substantial reasons to the contrary. Such practice is contrary to the intendent, in instituting particular churches.
They also didn’t think it proper for a person to change their church membership unless it was required by a move, as they asserted in the annual meeting of 1728:
Query from the church at Montgomery: Whether a church is bound to grant a letter of dismission to any member to go to another church, while his residence is not removed?
Answered in the negative, we having neither precept nor precedent for such a practice in Scripture.
Does it bother the pastors in my readership when faithful members are missing from services, and later they can’t wait to tell you about the nearby preacher they went and heard instead of coming to their own church? It bothered our eighteenth-century brethren, if the following answer to a query from the church at Middletown is any indication (from 1734):
Whether it be justifiable for our members to neglect our own appointed meetings, and at their pleasure go to hear those differing in judgment from us?
Answered in the negative. Heb. x. 25
I don’t think anyone would argue against the reality that church membership today doesn’t mean what it used to mean. The questions I have are these: Are the attitudes toward membership reflected in these answers worth reclaiming, and if so, how do we go about reclaiming them?
What do the following people/entities have in common?
Give up? Each person or entity in the above list has, since 2001, been a recipient of the prestigious Priscilla and Aquila Award. The award, bestowed each year by the group Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), was developed to honor people who, like Priscilla and Aquila “risked their necks” (Romans 16:2) for the sake of the gospel. CBE’s Priscilla and Aquila award honors those who have “risked their necks” for the sake of biblical equality.
One of this year’s two recipients, Wade Burleson, had this to say:
I am honored to receive this CBE Priscilla and Aquila Award for ‘risking my neck’ for the sake of biblical equality. Even though I have been a conservative, evangelical Southern Baptist all my life, I had not been aware until recently that some people in my convention believe that women are not equal to men. My wife, who is smarter than I, has shown me the equality of women. I am a pastor and she is studying to be an anesthesiologist–we both put people to sleep. I made a vow to my wife two years ago that if I ever saw a women being mistreated in the Southern Baptist Convention because of her gender–I would not remain silent, but become a proactive agent for change. Dr. Klouda has been the most well known recipient of the fulfillment of that pledge–but sadly, there have been, and there will be others. I will do my part to be there for them.
If you’re a regular reader of SBC blogs, you know that a prominent group blog recently posted, without any corroboration, a letter supposedly written by an anonymous seminary professor which charged two of our seminary presidents with all manner of sinful behavior. The blog then tried to compare itself to an actual news organization that had used anonymous sources, and quoted another organization’s editor, Don Hinkle of the Missouri Baptist Convention’s Pathway, in a ridiculous attempt to justify itself.
Today, Don Hinkle has responded to this sad episode. Here’s some of what he had to say:
One blogger has made public the preposterous suggestion that I look into the allegations made by an anonymous letter writer whose unsubstantiated charge that Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a temper. I will do no such thing. These frivolous allegations circulating on the Internet are unfair to Mohler because he has not been given the opportunity to respond to the source privately face to face. They also undermine our invaluable trustee system by circumventing it, and because readers have no way of knowing whether the charges are true, they come off as mere gossip or lies. To date, no evidence has been made public, making this sordid episode a worthless act of irresponsibility.
Let me just point out some things that should be obvious to everyone: The sky is blue, the Chicago Cubs are cursed by God, and bloggers are not journalists, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Read the rest of Don Hinkle’s response by clicking here.
Tent Width Oct 25, 2006
Observations on Controversy Oct 24, 2007
First Impressions Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
Recent Comments