Tent Width Oct 25, 2006
Observations on Controversy Oct 24, 2007
First Impressions Dec 5, 2006
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.
Wes Kenney
Tent Width Oct 25, 2006
Observations on Controversy Oct 24, 2007
First Impressions Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
Wade Burleson Dec 10 2007 - 1:43 pm
Wesley,
Are these new converts in India members of Bellevue Baptist Church? If not, ‘into which local church’ were they baptized?
I think you will find that Bellevue did EXACTLY what Scripture calls them to do. They witnessed the baptism of converts to faith in Jesus Christ, but BAPTISM IS NOT THE INTITIATION RITE INTO THE LOCAL CHURCH as you insist. Rather, baptism is the identification of the believer with Jesus Christ.
Blessings,
Wade
Reply
Wes Kenney Dec 10 2007 - 1:56 pm
Wade,
Mr. Marcum was very clear that Bellevue’s commitment is to the local churches which they have helped to plant in India, and that the specific baptisms referenced in the article were conducted under the authority of those local churches.
You and I agree that baptism is not the initiation rite into a local church. Where we disagree (and where you disagree with the Baptist Faith and Message) is in your view that baptism can properly take place outside the authority of any local church. These baptisms, as is the case with all proper baptisms, were conducted under the authority of local churches in India.
This is what the IMB guideline requires, and I am grateful for that. Your assertion that “no local church was involved” with these baptisms was directly refuted by Mr. Marcum as incorrect.
Reply
Wade Burleson Dec 10 2007 - 1:56 pm
As you consider my questions above, please answer me this question:
If an IMB missionary is the evangelist, and a house church of believers in Beijing are in Shanghai with this IMB missionary for a conference of evangelicals where the IMB missionary teaching on evangelism, and a Shanghai woman is converted at that conference, and the only witnesses to the baptism of that convert are those church members who live hundreds of miles away, and that new convert has no intention of being a member of the ‘local’ church in Beijing, is that baptism valid?
By the way, this is exact same circumstance Bellevue found themselves to be in while in India. IMB policy says ‘no.’
Scripture says yes.
Nuff said for me.
IN His Grace,
Wade
Reply
Wade Burleson Dec 10 2007 - 2:18 pm
Last question, and I do appreciate the email you sent me to make me aware of your interest in this matter, else I would not have known.
Can you give me the name of the ‘local’ church who was present at the conference? Are those ‘converts’ now members of that ‘local’ church? The only ‘church’ mentioned in the article is Bellevue – a church hundreds of miles away.
Alleging a ‘local’ church is present present and the baptisms in India occured under their so-called authority seems to me to be shutting the barn door after the cows have already gotten out of the barn.
I promise. No more comments from me.
Reply
Wes Kenney Dec 10 2007 - 2:59 pm
Wade,
No, I can’t give you the name of any local church. When I talked with Steve Marcum, Bellevue’s Minister of Missions, I asked if he could confirm my assumption that the missionary representing Bellevue had baptized converts under the authority of Bellevue. He told me that they are committed to those local churches in India, and any work their representatives do there (including baptism) is done under the authority of those local churches.
He didn’t “allege” anything. He told me directly that those specific baptisms mentioned in the article you cited were conducted under the authority of a local church. It didn’t occur to me to ask for the names of those churches; to do so would have seemed rather accusatory, don’t you think?
Reply
volfan007 Dec 10 2007 - 3:11 pm
wes,
i’ll tell you something else i’m getting tired of….wade trying his best to make a godly, good man like dr. floyd look bad. dr. floyd is a sound, solid man of God who has worked tirelessly to reach the world for Christ, and to see wade and others of his mold “attack” dr. floyd has been very upsetting to me. you know, on his blog, wade asserts that he doesnt attack people. and yet, over and over again on his blogs he subtly tries to portray people who disagree with him in a bad light. they are either short sighted, or mean spirited, or narrow minded legalist, or something else “bad” and “terrible.” this passive/aggressive approach has been used on many who dont agree with wade. and then, we’re supposed to believe that no one is “attacked” by wade on his blog. something smells. somethng smells really bad, and it aint my feet.
also, i thought that no posts would be written by wade that might hurt the lottie moon offering. yet, since the censure, post after post has been written that seems to be making some people say that they will not lead thier church to give to it. if someone really doesnt want to hurt the lottie moon offering, then why do you keep posting on issues about the imb that make some people upset and not want to give to the lottie moon offering?
wes, help me here. does any of this make sense to you?
david
Reply
Baptist Theologue Dec 10 2007 - 4:57 pm
(This is what I posted on Wade’s blog site.)
I talked to Steve Marcum this afternoon, and he confirmed that the women baptized in India had local church connections. Don’t miss the next-to-last sentence in the article: “A pastor dipped her body into a pool of water.â€
I think a lot of folks misunderstand the following statement about baptism from the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message: “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.†The fact that it is a church ordinance does not mean that baptism must be performed in the baptismal tank of a local church. Each church decides who may perform the baptism. Where the baptism is performed is not that important to most churches. If a new convert wants to be baptized in a river or pond rather than the baptistery inside the church, most congregations have no problem with that. There is usually an understanding that the ministers will perform the baptisms, but the local church may also allow others to perform the baptisms. In small churches, the person who performs the baptism often is also the one who examines the candidate, so for convenience the minister often handles both responsibilities. The fact that it is a church ordinance does not restrict the baptismal ceremony to one church only. Several churches may permit their baptisms to occur together. I heard about Baptist churches cooperating in such a mass baptismal ceremony in the Han River in Seoul when I was an IMB missionary in South Korea. There was still a local church connection with those mass baptisms. Most Southern Baptist churches have a congregational form of church government, so there should be no problem in understanding how a congregation has the ultimate authority to make decisions in the matter of baptism. The local church is the administrator, not its minister(s).
The case of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch has been discussed a lot already in this regard. There was no local church in the desert (Acts 8:26), but there was water (Acts 8:36). There was also a candidate who believed in Jesus with all his heart (Acts 8:37). Philip was an officer of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 6:5). The church at Jerusalem had been scattered because of persecution throughout Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). Philip had already been involved in a baptismal service in Samaria (Acts 8:13) before he baptized the eunoch. John Gill commented on the baptism of the magician Simon by Philip: “Philip could not discover his hypocrisy: but taking him to be a sincere believer, admitted him to baptism.†The apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria (Acts 8:14), so there was continued involvement of the Jerusalem church with the new converts in Samaria. The baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch did indeed have a local church connection.
Best wishes to all for a Merry Christmas and a good Lottie Moon Offering,
Mike Morris (aka BT)
Reply
Tim G Dec 10 2007 - 6:18 pm
Wes,
Your effort and defense on this post and the comments is A OK! Keep it up.
I am one who is also tired of loose jumps from articles and conversations just to make a point.
Reply
peter lumpkins Dec 10 2007 - 7:51 pm
Wes,
I’m sure by now most of us are very much aware of Wade’s preferred method of critique. Inevitably, Wade attempt to catch his adversary in a practical inconsistency. No matter the times it’s pointed out to him that practical inconsistencies, while quaint and sometimes humorous, nevertheless do not judge theology right or wrong; it only shows a person, at worst, may not be consistently applying an otherwise valid principle.
What is telling in Wade’s post is his concern not to violate extrabiblical documents. After quoting the 1644 Confession and good old Mt. Gill, Wade writes:
Unless I missed it, Wade offers no Scripture on which to be ‘clear’ and ‘unflinching’. Only a confessional quote and JG.
Grace, Wes. With that, I am…
Peter
Reply
m l spencer Dec 10 2007 - 7:54 pm
Brother Kinney, after reading the comments from your Brother Wade where is the false and misleading information?
mls
Reply
Wes Kenney Dec 10 2007 - 7:57 pm
m,
The false information is the repeated assertion that there was “no local church” involved in these baptisms.
The misleading information was that presented in an attempt to connect these baptisms with Dr. John Floyd, when in reality no connection exists.
Reply
Wade Burleson Dec 10 2007 - 9:43 pm
Wesley,
You state above in answering Mel, “The false information (from Wade) is the repeated assertion that there was “no local church†involved in these baptisms.”
Forgive me for returning, but as Peter Lumpkin knows, you best not make a statement unless you are willing to back it up with fact.
(1). Please identify for me, Wes, the local church in India that gave their ‘authority’ (as you might call it) for the ‘baptisms’ of these women? Did they vote? Did they hear the testimony of the women? Did they receive these women into their communion?
(2). Please identify for me, Wes, the name of the pastor or pastor(s) of the local church in India that ‘authorized’ evangelist Sathuluri to perform the baptisms for those who were becoming members of their church?
(3). Please identify for me, Wes, the name of the local church in India where all these women are now members, having joined that local church which authorized their baptism?
Of course, I realize you, and others who believe like you, are not talking about the actual baptism being ‘in the church’ (a tank, a baptisty, etc . . . ), but that the ‘local church’ who authorized the baptism received into membership the people they ‘authorized’ be baptized.
Please identify this ‘local church.’
You may have trouble doing so since the women came from ALL OVER THE STATE. Could it be that what happened at the baptismal service in India is exactly what Scripture says should happen? An evangelist shared Christ with people, and many women were converted to faith in Christ, and the evangelist baptized the women – women who were from all over the state – upon their profession of faith in Christ?
I’m very interested in your answers.
Blessings,
Wade
Reply
Baptist Theologue Dec 10 2007 - 10:13 pm
Wade, when I talked to Steve Marcum today, I suggested that he not tell me the names of the local Indian churches that were connected to the women baptized. My reason was that identifying those churches might lead to persecution. As I stated in an earlier comment, it is quite possible for several local churches to participate in a single baptismal ceremony. Such an event occurred in South Korea. Such an event does not detract from the local church being the administrator of baptism. The local churches simply delegate the performance of baptism. Remember that the next to last sentence of the Commercial Appeal article identifies the performer as “a pastor.”
Reply
Wade Burleson Dec 10 2007 - 10:19 pm
Mike,
Respectfully, I understand why a church may not wish to be identified publicly. EMAIL ME WITH THE NAME OF THE CHURCH. I wish to contact them to see if the local church ‘authorized’ the baptism. I can, with assurance say that it did NOT happen, and integrity demands that this fact be acknowledged. Why? Because IT IS NOT A LOCAL CHURCH DECISION TO BAPTIZE. According to Scripture it is a decision of the convert and the person who leads the convert to Christ.
Bellevue and everybody else in India did it right.
Reply
Baptist Theologue Dec 10 2007 - 10:39 pm
Wade, as I said in my earlier comment, “I suggested that he not tell me the names of the local Indian churches that were connected to the women baptized.” Thus, I do not have the names of those Indian churches. If you want the names, then I suggest that you contact Steve Marcum.
Reply
Wes Kenney Dec 10 2007 - 11:34 pm
Wade,
The last paragraph of my original post describes the ease with which I managed to have a telephone conversation with Bellevue’s Minister of Missions. It seems a simple thing for you to have contacted him yourself rather than repeatedly asserting that there was no local church involvement. As I said, he told me directly that the specific baptisms about which you posted were conducted under the authority of local churches in India.
I’m not sure from whence you derive the “assurance” with which you assert that this man has misled me, but it seems to me that you at least owe him a phone call.
Reply
Scott Gordon Dec 10 2007 - 11:36 pm
Wes,
Thank you for making us aware of this ‘error’ of Wade’s. I, like DW, am tired of Mr. Burleson’s strident reaches into ‘inadvertant’ allegations of guilt by association. I just wish for once that Wade would man up and admit he is wrong when called on the carpet.
But, alas, the star child is never wrong. His rules are his own. As long as he takes down Dr. Floyd, Dr. Patterson, or Dr. Mohler…it’s all good.
Well, back to my ‘powerless’ ice-induced hibernation.
SOLA GRATIA!
Reply
Joe Stewart Dec 11 2007 - 12:31 am
Thanks for “wading” into these baptismal waters. Watch out for the nipping minnows that attempt to divert us from our task.
Reply
peter lumpkins Dec 11 2007 - 6:47 am
Dear Wade,
I appreciate the comment about my experiential knowledge: “as Peter Lumpkin knows, you best not make a statement unless you are willing to back it up with fact.” I would appreciate it much more if you would inform the readers–especially me–toward what you may be referring. Unless I’ve mistakenly thought it to be other, I have not tasted a crow-cake in a while, not to mention one you have served.
Now toward the issue at hand, Wade: a) Answers to your questions about the identity of either the Churches in India or the local Pastors involved in the Baptism may very well reveal for us your absolute ignorance of the facts surrounding the situation there.
A staffer at BBC is on record as stating local Churches were involved. Is it your position, Wade, to dispute his statement? If so, could you please state your case why indeed the BBC staffer is either mistaken, ignorant or worse still, deceitful? If you cannot, it seems to me we’re left with judging your own statement as mistaken, ignorant or, worse still, deceitful.
Judging from your fabrication of the circumstances surrounding Dr Grudem’s changing his mind about Baptism–’hazard a guess’–perhaps the best choice is ignorance. One wonders, however, how it is not also deceitful to make such accusations knowing full well he/she possesses no facts. Thus, the question, Wade: Do you possess the facts surrounding the Baptisms in India contra what BBC has affirmed?
B): You have made more than once the statement that your own position on Baptism as both the Biblical and historic Baptist position:
Not only, Wade, are you hard-pressed to even come up with a Scripture passage remotely suggesting such, to dub such not only as “the Biblical position” but go further and make your position “the historic Baptist position” is fantastic and comes as close to historical nonsense as ever I’ve encountered.
With that, I am…
Peter
Reply
Wade Burleson Dec 11 2007 - 8:10 am
“Go ye into all the world teaching all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19.
Seems to me Peter the same people with the command to go are the same people with the command to baptize.
Reply
Wes Kenney Dec 11 2007 - 10:13 am
Easy: Quote one of several relevant passages and say, “I rest my case.”
Hard: Deal with all of the parallel passages in their context, allow scripture to interpret scripture, and formulate a systematic understanding of revealed truth.
Wade,
There are legitimate reasons for understanding that all elements of the Great Commission, and not just baptism, are to be carried out by believers within the context of a relationship of accountability to a local church.
Your refusal to recognize these do not negate their existence, and your declarations to the contrary do not change the fact that this is, in fact, the “historic Baptist position.”
Reply
Bob Cleveland Dec 11 2007 - 10:18 am
It just seems to me that it’s a real stretch to disassemble the commands and say that the responsibility to go be a witness applies to ME, while the responsibility for the rest of it applies to US, and thereby not to ME.
But, as always, what do I know?
Reply
Wes Kenney Dec 11 2007 - 10:27 am
Bob,
There is much that you know, but sadly, it is apparently insufficient to prevent you from keeping company with C.B. I’ll pray for you…
I may have been unclear, but I didn’t intend for it to sound as if I was suggesting that any of it be “disassembled.”
I believe that all of it applies to all of us. That is, not only must I be accountable to my local church for any baptism I conduct, but also any witnessing, discipling, or teaching. Doing any of these things outside that accountability leads to error creeping in, and without the local church, the pillar and ground of the truth, there is no mechanism for correcting that error.
For example, if I begin to teach that Jesus was not born the Son of God, but became the Son of God at His baptism, it is the responsibility of my local church to correct that error, call on me to repent, and remove me if I refuse. It is the same with other elements of the Great Commission.
We need the accountability that the local church provides, and that is why this idea that you can separate the Great Commission of Christ from the body of Christ is, in my view, dangerous.
Thanks for your comment. I hope I’ve been more clear. I don’t want to disassemble anything.
Reply
Bart Barber Dec 11 2007 - 11:37 am
I think some great wisdom has been presented in the suggestion that Wade contact Bro. Marcum at Bellevue himself.
Reply
cb scott Dec 11 2007 - 11:43 am
Wes,
I have comment on this subject on your SBC TODAY blog. I read all of your post, Wade’s and the comments up until I ceased to stay up last night. I read Tim’s post on TODAY and commented there because of the length of this comment thread as I saw it today.
I did as I promised, as did you.
Therefore, Long live the SBC, the USA, good Bulldogs, fine guns and sharp knives and the SABANATION.
Now go out and get thousands of people to vote for Mike Huckabee for President of these United States.
cb
Reply
Robin Foster Dec 11 2007 - 12:58 pm
Wes
A person once called me and challenged me to call another person to verify information I possessed. I said the proof of burden was not on me, but on him. He said that I wouldn’t because I didn’t want to know the truth. So, I did contact that person and I found out that I was right and he was wrong.
I wonder if Wade will contact Bro. Marcum?
It seems that one little phone call could clear this whole mess up for Wade.
Reply
peter Dec 11 2007 - 1:28 pm
Wade,
The quotes I offered above from you I will offer again:
Toward which part of either quote does our Lord refer in MT. 28.19?
In addition, Wade, you failed to address your claim that your position constitutes “the historic baptist position” for which I chided as virtually historic nonsense. Would you please entertain me by giving a little historic data to demonstrate such ‘historic position’?
Know I’m not interested in one allusion made in the 1644 Confession. Nor in the most certainly tiny minority position of Bunyan. Rather, I’d like something that could definitively thrust your claim into the notable priviledge of being “the historic baptist position”.
Finally, Wade, you failed to mention that about which I allegedly failed to check my facts. Unless you’re willing to speak plainly about those specific claims you make about another, it would be best, from my view, to keep the innuendo to yourself.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Reply
Tim G Dec 11 2007 - 3:03 pm
It seems that good ol’ Andy had it right when he told Aunt Bee to “call the MAN!”
Reply
Chris Johnson Dec 11 2007 - 3:26 pm
On thing that has been woefully short in all this banter is the discipleship due the individual being baptized. I think we can all agree that those being baptized should fellowship and bring unity to those that gather locally or to whom they choose to gather. I would hope and pray, and appears from the article to be clear, this was the intent of the baptizer. It appears that the essence of this baptism has been long removed by the distant onlookers.
Blessings,
Chris
Reply
Tim Rogers Dec 11 2007 - 4:33 pm
Brother Chris,
You make an excellent point. The discipleship does not end with Baptism–it begins. If we are out witnessing outside the context of a local church and baptizing outside of the context of a local church then we will fail in discipleship. How can we encourage those we lead to Christ, baptize into the body of Christ and then encourage not to forsake the assembling of oneself with other believers? We cannot. That is the purpose of the local church.
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
Chris Johnson Dec 11 2007 - 4:48 pm
Tim,
Amen, no doubt….
This was one of Paul’s main concerns as he chastised the bizarre group of actors in Corinth….
“For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.â€
(1Corinthians 1:11-15)
Paul was trying to move to discipleship with this group of self-indulged individuals, never losing sight of his responsibility.
Blessings,
Chris
Reply
Quinn Hooks Dec 11 2007 - 10:13 pm
Thank you for the “heads up” on this error made by Brother Burleson in his assumptions. I thank you for your careful research in this matter.
Reply
Ben Stratton Dec 12 2007 - 1:29 am
Wes,
Thanks for your well-written reply to Wade Burleson on the baptisms in Indian. I laughed when I first read Wade’s post a few days ago. I publicly identify myself as a Landmark Southern Baptist pastor and I would have no problem accepting the baptism of these ladies. Why? Two reasons:
1. A missionary was involved. It is pretty obviously that Bro. Sathuluri was sent out by a local church and had authority from that local church. It is the same as with Phillip and the Eunuch.
2. I suspected (and you all proved me right) that local churches in India were involved.
Additionally Wade’s comment that his position is the historical Baptist position is just plain wrong. He knows and admits it is not the historical American Baptist position. However the English Baptists did not believe that women and children could baptize. Wade pulls a quote out of the 1644 London Confession of Faith. What he doesn’t tell you is that English Baptists like Benjamin Cox and Hansard Knolleys later came back and explained that they believed that only a preaching disciple sent out by a local church could baptize.
Reply
Strider Dec 12 2007 - 2:14 am
Ok, Ben I hear you… the missionary is authorized to baptize so all is well except that it isn’t. Wade began this whole issue when one of his own church members was rejected by the IMB for being baptized in an identical situation. I have been witness to baptisms here in my “Middle Earth” and I am quite confident in reading our policy- oops, it’s a guideline now- that the folks baptized in our ministry would likewise not qualify. Wade’s point is that this policy is faulty and it is even if his last point fails to make the case well.
Reply
jasonk Dec 12 2007 - 8:25 am
I just thank the Lord that Wes has the time and energy to devote this blog to keeping a sharp eye on the evil-doings of Wade Burleson. Perhaps the name of this blog should be “Add a Caption” and “I’m keeping an eye out for that anti-Christian anti-Southern Baptist Liberal Wade Burleson for you.” That’s about all I read on here anymore.
Thank goodness.
Reply
Trish Dec 12 2007 - 11:07 am
Jason,
If all you read here is Wes attacking Wade then you don’t come here often. I just checked the list of recent posts. There are 10 posts listed, the last 9 have nothing to do with Wade. Your statement is not accurate nor is it fair to make. You accuse Wes of attacking Wade and then you go and attack Wes, that’s not right.
Another thing, Wes has not attacked Wade. He has called into question an action of Wade’s that he disagrees with and demonstrates in his post why he disagrees with it. Over on Wade’s blog he is constantly telling everyone that his fight with the IMB is about his right to disagree or dissent. So, if it’s ok for Wade, why is it wrong for Wes?
____________
Sorry Wes – I know you don’t need a wimpy female sticking up for you, just couldn’t help myself because I am getting frustrated with this double standard that keeps rearing its ugly head. I’ll back down now….
Trish
Reply
volfan007 Dec 12 2007 - 11:09 am
I just thank the Lord that jasonk has the time and energy to devote this time and comments to keeping a sharp eye on the evil-doings of Wes Kenney. Perhaps the name of this comment should be “Add a Caption†and “I’m keeping an eye out for that anti-Christian anti-nice guy, Wes Kenney.†That’s about all I read on here anymore.
Thank goodness.
david
Reply
volfan007 Dec 12 2007 - 11:11 am
strider,
you need to read what wade is saying more carefully.
david
Reply
Bob Cleveland Dec 12 2007 - 12:47 pm
Wes,
I agree you cannot separate the command from the Body. I think we’re thinking of different definitions of that term, though.
Reply
peter Dec 12 2007 - 1:05 pm
Jason,
Oops. You commented on the wrong blog. You have Wes confused with me. Hence, as Doc Holliday would say: ‘I’m your huckleberry’
With that, I am…
Peter
Reply
Debbie Kaufman Dec 12 2007 - 2:31 pm
david(volfan): I believe you had better read Wade again, from what I can understand of Strider’s comment he is correct.
The problem here seems to be that Wes, david, etc. do not realize what the IMB policy actually entails.
Reply