Tent Width Oct 25, 2006
Observations on Controversy Oct 24, 2007
First Impressions Dec 5, 2006
Note: There are several statements in this post that assert what Wade Burleson believes. I have emailed these statements to Wade, and he has offered clarification. In all but one instance, I have changed them to reflect his wording. The one I did not change, I have italicized and marked with an asterisk, and Wade’s statement is included verbatim at the end of this post.
“We believe the Bible!â€
These words came, thoroughly unprovoked, from a woman who appeared to be in her seventies, and she spoke them to me with all the forcefulness she could muster from her 4’10â€, 90-pound frame.
“We baptize in the name of Jesus! There’s only one God, not three!â€
Now I began to see where this was headed, and since I was in her family’s home following the accidental death of her teenaged granddaughter, I thought it best not to engage in a theological debate with an adherent of oneness Pentecostalism. I nodded politely, being in full agreement with her last statement, and moved to another part of the room.
Her opening salvo – “We believe the Bible!†– was brought to mind by the two recent posts on Wade Burleson’s blog, which are two parts (links: Part One; Part Two) under the same title: The Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Bible Is Sufficient for Me. It was apparently sufficient for the grieving grandmother whom I met under such unfortunate circumstances, but the conclusions she reached are problematic to say the least. I don’t mean to suggest that the disagreements Wade has with so many are anywhere near the level of a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, but they are significant, and I want in this post to explore some of these disagreements. To borrow a phrase from radio talk show host Glenn Beck, I’m not a scholar or a theologian, but I am a thinker, and this post is a result of having absorbed a great deal of information from Wade’s blog and others, and having given it a great deal of thought.
The disagreement that has brought Wade to his current prominence in the convention and in the blog world is, I believe, quite fundamental indeed. It has to do, in part, with the guideline on baptism adopted by the IMB trustees nearly a year ago, and the basis of this disagreement holds the key to understanding all that has transpired since.
As you will remember, the part of the guideline that is the source of contention is that section requiring that a candidate must have been baptized in a church that holds to eternal security. Wade does not have an issue with the doctrine of eternal security (he believes in it strongly), but rather with the notion that the church is primarily considered as “an institution†rather than the people of Christ from every nation. Because of this view of the church, he would take issue wit the role of the church in baptism, and more fundamentally with the definition of the church.
Wade has a view of the church that is primarily universal in scope, with the local church being simply a collection of members who are part of, but not the entire, universal church. This view is at odds with what Southern Baptists have historically believed to be the biblical view of the church, which is only knowable as a local congregation organized in accordance with New Testament guidelines. It is here that the disagreements begin.
The Great Commission, which the IMB is tasked with executing to the ends of the earth, was given to the church, and not to individual Christians. I realize the implications of that statement might cause a knee-jerk disagreement, but let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up.
The New Testament contains complimentary accounts of the Great Commission, and for my purposes here, I will focus on Matthew and Acts. In very general terms, Matthew gives us the “what†and Acts gives us the “how.†The “what†is essentially that we are commanded to make disciples, baptize, and teach, and the “how†is the strategy for carrying out the “what†(in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, to the end of the earth). But Jesus did not give the order to immediately get started, because before giving the commission, he had ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem until they had received “the promise of the Father.†They were to wait for the day of Pentecost, when the church would be born, and empowered to carry out the Great Commission by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
This is a thumbnail sketch of the basis for my belief that the Great Commission is the responsibility of Christians to obey and carry out within the context of the local church, and Southern Baptists (and not just Landmark Southern Baptists) have long believed that the church is central to God’s plan for the carrying out of the Great Commission.
Does this mean that individual Christians cannot be witnesses, make disciples, teach, or baptize? Of course not! We must do these things. But we must do them in a relationship of accountability to a local church. If I begin to teach error, the church must correct the error, and if I am teaching without recognizing the authority of the local church, from whence shall the correction come? The same applies to each element of the Great Commission.
Wade has said that when a Christian leads someone to Christ, it is the privilege of that person to baptize the new convert, for he says the same command by Christ to evangelize the world contains within it the command to baptize converts, and both are given by Christ to all his disciples. Wade says if only ‘ordained’ pastors can baptize, then to be consistent with the Great Commission, only ‘ordained’ pastors can evangelize.
I could not disagree more, because of the previously-stated belief that baptism is a command (ordinance) of Christ that He gave to the local church, and not to individual Christians. Would I require that the new convert must be baptized by an ordained minister? Absolutely not! The local church is absolutely free to authorize the one who has led someone to Christ to baptize that person, but for a Christian to baptize someone without recognizing the authority of the local church is just as dangerous as teaching outside that authority, and it cannot be recognized as a scriptural baptism. This is an invitation to chaos, as it becomes impossible for sister churches to know whether transferring members were baptized under the authority of a church, or in a swimming pool with no one present but the “baptizer†and “baptized.†And no, I’m not saying that scriptural baptism cannot take place in a swimming pool; I’m saying that without the authority of the church, there is no scriptural baptism. This is why the beliefs of the church that authorized the baptism of missionary candidates is absolutely fair game for policy-making decisions by trustees, and why Wade is “outside the tent†on this issue.
Let me provide another example of where Wade’s beliefs fall outside what Southern Baptists, as expressed in the Baptist Faith & Message, believe to be biblical practice. In a recent post, and in the comments, Wade described the practice of communion in his church whereby any professing Christian, who has been baptized by any mode, is invited to partake.* While I fully support his church’s right, and indeed their responsibility, to carry out the ordinances in accordance with their convictions, this practice is clearly at odds with the Baptist Faith & Message’s Article VII, which defines baptism, and then calls it a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. The practice of Wade’s church, which is the practice in many (if not the majority) of our Southern Baptist churches, is incompatible with the clear language of the Baptist Faith & Message, yet Wade contends that it is not.
Wade has consistently said that we must “cease narrowing the parameters of cooperation†or our convention will cease to exist as we know it. For the reasons stated above, and others, I don’t believe that there is any narrowing going on. There has been clarification, but it is clarification of where Southern Baptists have always been, and where the great majority of us are today. I have come to believe that all of the events of this year, from the meeting that produced the Memphis Declaration, to motions made in Greensboro, to the outcry over chapel sermons at Southwestern Seminary, are not an attempt to stand against any “narrowing,†but rather they are an attempt to broaden the definition of “Southern Baptist†to include things for which we have never stood.
Frankly, I believe that the problem is not that the tent is not big enough, but that Wade has discovered that, on these issues of controversy, he is not under the tent at all, and he wishes to be.
I concede that this could be read as an attack on Wade and those who support him. That is not my intent. I am simply trying, as I stated near the beginning of this post, to offer some analysis of disagreements.
The disagreements I have outlined here are disagreements that Christians can have. But there are many who could say with Wade, “The Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Bible Is Sufficient for Me,” who clearly belong outside the tent that is the Southern Baptist Convention. They belong there because of fundamental disagreements about faith and practice. We have staked out our positions and raised our tent over them.
None of these disagreements are equivalent to the heresy of the grieving grandmother I met this spring, but her declaration of “We believe the Bible!”, coupled with her disavowal of the doctrine of the Trinity, illustrates clearly that our tent simply cannot be large enough for everyone.
*Here is Wade’s version of the italicized statement above, which is significantly abridged but not, I believe, contradictory: “In a recent post, and in the comments, Wade described the practice of communion in his church whereby any professing Christian, who has followed the Lord in baptism, can partake in communion. Wade and his church affirm that scriptural baptism is baptism by immersion, and membership in his church requires believer’s baptism by immersion before admittance into membership, but Wade argues that there will be people who love Christ and are at the Lord’s table in heaven, who considered their infant baptism, or baptism by pouring or sprinkling, to be their ‘Scriptural baptism.’ His church will not exclude from communion those whom the Lord does not exclude in heaven. His view on communion is exactly that of Charles Haddon Spurgeon — strict church membership but communion with all the saints.”
Wes Kenney
cb scott Oct 26 2006 - 3:51 pm
Les,
I still see the same Wade. I only called on him to do something with what I see as wrong. Wade is still my friend, a brother and a Baptist.
Paul,
Those things you pose could happen, but that does not negate the fact that Wes did not say Wade was outside the tent. He simply said Wade was outside on some issues. To say he said more is wrong. To say he intended more is wrong. What he said is what he said.
Wade is outside the “tent” ( whatever the tent is) on some issues. So am I. I think, maybe, so are you and many more.
jasonk,
You may be speaking to me about being mean. OK.
I have been called mean by much meaner guys:-)
cb
cb scott Oct 26 2006 - 4:06 pm
Tim Cook,
Why do we need a tent? We have the Bible. We have the gospel. We have the Great Commission. Why do we need a tent?
The very nature of the Bible and the gospel itself would eliminate some that claim to have fellowship with us.
This is something Wade and I have agreed upon recently.
We really do not need a tent. We need the Bible the gospel and the G.C. and obedience to Jesus and we would begin to see Great Commission Churches springing up everywhere again.
cb
Kevin Bussey Oct 26 2006 - 4:29 pm
Let me tell you about the “WADE” I know. Wade is a passionate man who loves God, his family, his church and the SBC. If you haven’t spent time with him then it is your loss. Wade and Marty took time to pray for my family when we were dealing with IMB stuff. If you don’t agree with Wade, that is fine…But you are commanded to love him. Wade is not your enemy – Satan is. Why do these stupid debates always get back to name calling. Shame on all of us!
Actually CB, I was not referring to you when I said some people were being mean. Who’d have thought? lol
I was referring more to the joy that people seem to take when striking down a brother. Specifically, it struck me as really mean spirited when someone said they were proud of another for finally seeing Wade for who he really is. Proud? Man, that’s just not very loving. Rejoicing in what you perceive to be a fault in a brother.
I have no problem with what Wade said about his history as a Baptist. He was merely making a point, the same point the Apostle Paul made when he said that no one was better at being a Jew than he was. He made the same point Martin Luther made when he said that no one was “monkier” than he had been. Wade was just driving the point home. Later, he said he was sorry that he said it, if it caused some to think him to be arrogant. Rather than saying, “I forgive you for leading me to believe you are arrogant,” his brothers say, “See, I told you he was full of himself. I’m PROUD of you for seeing him for who he really is.” Sounds like Noah’s son, the one who pointed out his father’s nakedness. “Come look at daddy! I told you he was no good.” Love covers. Gossip and meanness uncover and point.
So I wasn’t talking about you CB. I apologize for giving you that impression.
cb scott Oct 26 2006 - 6:18 pm
jasonk
In relation to the statement made to me by the brother that, no doubt, had a lax moment I too was bothered by it. I have in no way just recently seen a Wade that others saw all along or what ever he said. I think I am close anyway.
I simply called Wade on something I thought was wrong. That is all, nothing more nothing less. Wade’s character is, as far as any I have dealt with in Blog Town, above reproach. I do not challenge it and I feel that it is wrong for others to do so unless he proves to have poor character on his own accord.
I do think my brother owes Wade an apology for what he said and if it was my chastisement of Wade that brought it on I am sorry for that.
It seems that to genuinely challenge a brother without pretense is not considered proper in our Baptist society anymore. No wonder people think church didipline is for punishment rather than redemption.
We have certainly fallen from where we once were. I have know criminals with more compassion for each other and I really mean that with all my heart.
Tired, very tired indeed,
cb
Tom Bryant Oct 26 2006 - 6:27 pm
I know the tiredness, CB. I would come down with Wes about these issues, but all of our debtaing seems to dissipate into something less than Christian. And people who really want to understand the debate begin to lose interest.
I appreciate Wes’s spirit in the original post. It advances the biblical debate about important issues facing our denomination. After awhile, we seem to forget what we were arguing about but just keep talking. Jesus was right. Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’… anything more than this is sin.
Jerry Corbaley Oct 26 2006 - 7:31 pm
Great post Wes. The following concerns the nature of the “tentâ€.
The Southern Baptist Convention is not the “one true churchâ€. Perhaps those in heaven have access to the Lamb’s Book of Life, but I have not scanned the names written in it. It certainly is not the same as the SBC membership rolls.
The Southern Baptist Convention is an organized movement of like-minded churches that have been (apparently) extraordinarily successful for several generations. While both faith and obedience are by grace, the Bible closely correlates spiritual prosperity with faith AND obedience.
God judges people individually. Yet, a casual survey of the Bible reveals that God also judges organized movements, and blesses or opposes them, based on his conclusions. Some examples are families, kings and their kingdoms, cities, countries and churches.
It would appear that our options, as the SBC, are sink, swim or tread water. One man sees a more detailed description of how we will work together as an improvement in faithfulness and another sees the same action as a narrowing of parameters.
Might I suggest that we figure out what we each believe and work with an organized movement that most closely resembles our preference? If you can nudge the SBC in the direction of your preference; then great. If you cannot do so, then great; find another movement. I would.
For my part, I will thank God for the spiritual prosperity of the past and seek to improve our faithfulness in the future. While treading water is better than sinking, swimming is better than treading water.
What should our first improvement be?
cb,
Thank you for your spirit here. I completely agree with your assessment regarding your friend’s comment, and I do not at all think that you brought it on. I must have read a dozen times your affirmation of Wade, that you believe him to be wrong on this particular issue, and that he is indeed a good Southern Baptist. My opinion isn’t worth too much, but I think you handled yourself like a Christian gentleman, and I appreciate it.
That said, I honestly do not see how any of this really matters. What purpose does it serve for Wes to say that Wade is outside the tent on this, or any other matter? Disagree with him, fine, but don’t say he is anything but a loyal brother in Christ, and a fine member of the SBC.
I was raised up in ministry by the same people with whom Wes serves. My first staff position was in Frisco Association. In that group, Southern Baptists were demonized because they were moderate. The first time I met Lavonn Brown I was scared to death, because I thought he must be a terrible person. But I played golf with him. I sat with a group of pastors as he poured out his heart in concern and prayer for his grandson. I grew to respect him deeply for his love for Christ. I guess I don’t agree with him on every issue, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t consider him a brother and fellow member of the denomination. Now it seems people want to do this to people like Wade.
I don’t know Wade all that well. I have met him before, but I doubt he would remember. But calling Wade prideful is a little like the pot calling the kettle black. I have met only a small handful of pastors who did not struggle daily with pride. It seems to go with the territory.
Big Daddy Weave Oct 26 2006 - 8:37 pm
CB,
So, Wade is Wrong like Peter James Flamming is a Liberal????
Sir, an argument by assertion is NO ARGUMENT AT ALL.
Simply stating OVER AND OVER that something is true does not make it so…
Thanks to Travis Hilton for pointing me (and many others) to this lively exchange.
Denise Oct 26 2006 - 8:47 pm
It’s really hard to see pastors of churches fuss like this and then go and sit under them.
And I doubt Jesus is very pleased with it either.
Denise,
Thank you.
Les Puryear Oct 26 2006 - 9:47 pm
jasonk,
Young man, you may address me directly if you wish. Your judgmentalism truly does not become you.
Ah…young and idealistic…I remember the days…
Regards,
Les
You are a funny guy Les. Young and idealistic? If only.
Actually I am old and cynical. Ministry will do that to you.
I am only fifteen years younger than you, and by the time you surrendered to the ministry, I was a ten year veteran.
Young and idealistic? Hardly.
You and I have done things opposite. I went into ministry as a young man, then left to enter secular work. You were in secular work, then went into ministry.
I am not judging you. Heck, you’re a tarheel. That gives you at least some creedence in my book. I was almost arrested in Asheville once, so NC will always be a special place to me. I merely reacted to your apparent rejoicing over what you perceive as a brother who is in the wrong. That may be becoming of you, I don’t know. But it certainly does not become a minister of the gospel.
Les Puryear Oct 26 2006 - 10:09 pm
jasonk,
Wow, dude. You sure are a young looking 40. Glad you appreciate my humor. ;>
To use Wade’s word I “chuckle” when my little comment becomes the flashpoint on a blog where my good friend Wes blasts Wade and Wade answers back by parading his arrogance before the blogosphere and no one but CB says anything about it.
This is really unbelieveable.
Regards,
Les
cb scott Oct 26 2006 - 10:14 pm
Les,
I do wish you would reconsider what you said relating to Wade and me to myhaving a new vision of him. I have no new vision of him. I spoke to one issue and that is all.
If one event, one moment, one mistake in judgement, one lax statement determines who we are then I must say I am already in Hell and this remaining existence on this earth is a terrible joke.
But I know that is not true. We are not defined by one moment or one event. We are defined by our relationship to Christ for that one relationship makes me the righteousness of God. I must say of all men I am thankful, for without that relationship I would in my most nobel moment have no more hope than in my most dispicable moment.
And for that relationship I am most thankful as I am sure you are also and so I am sure is Wade and all that are in a salvic relationship with Christ.
So, Les, please give it some thought.
cb
Les Puryear Oct 26 2006 - 10:27 pm
CB,
I respect you as a brother in Christ. If you want to retract your statement about Wade’s arrogance, then that’s between you and Wade.
I have a major problem with his arrogance. You said it well, “Pride goes before a fall.” You may recant your words if you wish, but I see Wade as a shameless self-promoter. I know his groupies will scream bloody murder and decry me as a heretic, but honest and plain dialogue is a high core value for me. I’m sorry it’s not for most of you.
Many regards,
Les
Bob Cleveland Oct 26 2006 - 10:31 pm
Les:
Your statement that “honest and plain dialogue” is not a “high core value” for “most of you” is very revealing.
Kevin Bussey Oct 26 2006 - 10:36 pm
How does trashing Wade bring any glory to God? I don’t get it. The arrogance is coming from the other way in my opinion. Why don’t those of you who hate Wade so much actually get to know him.
Kevin,
True that.
CB,
Thank you for not being drawn in to someone else’s misery.
Les,
You’ve got your nerve calling Wade arrogant. I spent quite a bit of time on your blog tonight, and brother, you have a corner on that market. You have cleared off a spot and decided that on that spot you will make your stand, and what is worse, you have decided that the Good Lord will stand with you on that spot. Calling any brother a false teacher because he does not agree with you on extremely minor issues is not only arrogant, it is irresponsible, and the opposite of what a witness should be.
Les Puryear Oct 26 2006 - 11:09 pm
Wes,
I am sorry for taking up so much of your blog tonight. I should know better than to hold out any hope for honesty where a discussion of Wade is concerned.
Regards,
Les
Kevin Bussey Oct 26 2006 - 11:17 pm
Les,
Honesty? Are you implying that we who actually know Wade are lying about him? I don’t understand why you have so much hate for a fellow believer? I really don’t. I pray you receive as much Grace as Wade has displayed to me.
cb scott Oct 26 2006 - 11:56 pm
OK Les,
I do not need to recant. I spoke to one issue with Wade just as many have done with me. Your statement that I am now seeing Wade as you always have is not a fair assessment of the situation.
Wade is the same to me as he was in…. let’s say… July. The circumstance is that I believed something he said to be incorrect. I called him on it. That is it as far as I am concerned. I am not in any way accountable to how he recieved it be it positive or negitive. I am responsible to be true to my earnest conviction about the one issue before me.
You, on the other hand, made an assumption that is just plain incorrect. I see no new Wade.
It truly bothers me that we have become so anemic that when one brother takes up steel with another brother and proceeds to carry out the concept of iron sharpening iron (Proverbs 27:17) every one around determines one or the other has taken up sides and hates the other. We have so been engulfed with the ways of secular politics that we have forgotten that honest conflict between brothers maks us stronger. I am glad that a few men loved me enough to strike iron with me to make me examine myself before and in the Refiners fire. Had they not I would have been so weak that falling away would have been my end.
The funny thing here is that if Wes had said cb is outside the tent (He did not say Wade was outside the tent) he would have been correct. Wade is not outside the tent, I am outside the tent.
I was put out of the tent and was basically told to stay out and not come back. I have no tent. The reality is that I really do not care. I am the one saying we do not need a tent in the first place. We have the Bible, the gospel and the G.C. If I claim fellowship with other believers and yet do not obey the Bible , the gospel and the G.C. I have eliminated myself and rightfully so.
Les, the best thing that ever happened to me was being kicked out of the tent. Now I know I do not need it. Jesus did not say I was a disciple because I was in a “tent” or The “tent”. Jesus said I am a disciple if I keep His commandments. I have learned tents mean little, keeping the commandments of Jesus means much.
Southern Baptist don’t need a tent. We need the Bible, the gospel and obedience to the Great Commission.
So Les, I recant nothing, but if you want to talk about someone outside the tent I am your boy. You were wrong to gloat about my issues with Wade.
You know, Brad Reynolds and Tim Rogers are not gloating. They know me and they know I will take issue with that which I believe to be wrong no matter who it may be. Just think of the times Brad, Tim and I have struck iron together and battled over issues.
You have never read or heard one of us even hint that one or the other of us is not a brother or a Baptist. We have always loved and respected each other and if I was in trouble I would not hesitate to call on either of them nor they me.
I have the same respect for Wade as the first time I ever talked to him. I just took up an issue with him. Now, Les I have one with you. You owe the man better than to state what you did and I think you know it. Who has the pride problem now, my brother?
cb
Tim Rogers Oct 27 2006 - 5:31 am
Brother CB,
I was in bed at a decent hour and wake up this morning to find my name being thrown around. :>)
Brother Les,
When I disagree with Brother CB it is with fear and trembling. I do not know the stream of comment on which you two disagree because I just finished my quiet time and need to get my little girl up to begin her day. ( I am involved in Dr. Robertson McQuilkin’s “Life in the Spirit” study, Shh, don’t tell Brad, you have to be careful with his theology, but he brings out some great insight). I just want to say that if CB calls your hand on something I would encourage you to pray and seek God’s face in what he tells you.
Brother JasonK,
You have some very low standards if being a Tarheel is commendable in your book. We are Demon Deacons over here.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Forgive my low standards, brother. When I say “tarheel,” I mean it in the sense of NC being the Tarheel State. Although I have only visited there a couple of times, it is the state of Andy Griffith, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Asheville, Raleigh, and many others. And it is the state where the fine policemen serve who mistook me and my daugther for the OKC bomber back in 1995. So I can say with all my heart that you Demon Deacons are inside my tarheel tent ;>)
CB,
I got kicked out of the tent too. Much of it was my own fault, I guess, although I always thought that when a man is down, that’s when he needs to be in the tent most of all. I guess I was wrong about that. Anyway, it still hurts to see my brothers act in such a way toward one another, in the tent or out.
Marty Duren Oct 27 2006 - 9:07 am
Les-
I’ve seen you write here and at least one other place about “Wade’s groupies.” Who are they? I’d appreciate you naming them if they exist since you are so certain of them.
One by one.
Right here.
Right now.
Wes-
While I understand your assertion that Wade is outside the tent “on these issues,” it is incumbent upon you to explain why your tent historically excludes those with a biblical, but minority, view. Would those holding to a pre-mill position have been out of the tent on that prior to the late 1800′s? Are those who hold a post-mill position now out from under the tent? You tread a thinly iced crevasse if you desire to make baptist history the primary interperative boundary that defines us.
Why do you believe that Wade is outside the “tent” simply because he might be at odds with Southern Baptist history. I might be just under the flap on a very windy day, but I’m still there.
CB-
I agree and disagree with you generally, but want to note that no one speaks for Memphis and we all know that. You speak for you, me for me, Art for Art, Ben for Ben, etc. This is a vast differential from the resurgence and the Convergence. Memphis spoke for itself.
A client emailed this joke to me this morning. How timely:
A man was standing off the edge of the Sydney Harbour Bridge –about to jump.
A passer-by tried to talk him down; he asked: “well, are you a Christian?” to which the man answered “yes.”
He exclaimed: “great, me too; what kind of Christian are you? Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant?”
The answer was: “Protestant.”
“Me too; what kind of Protestant? Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal?” Pentecostal.
The man got excited: “me too; are you an initial evidence or a third wave Pentecostal?”
“Initial evidence.” “Me too; what kind of initial evidence? Are you a AOG, CRC, COC, CCC?”
“AOG.” Now, he got really excited:
“Me too; are you Premillenial, Post Millenial or Amillenial?” The guy on the bridge said:
“Amillenial” and with that the passer-by, becoming very angry, screamed: “Die, heretic!” and pushed him off the bridge.
Wes Kenney Oct 27 2006 - 9:50 am
Marty,
The “tent” in this now very tired analogy is simply the Baptist Faith & Message. It is what we have agreed as a convention represents certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.
My purpose for writing was mainly to point out that a practice Wade had described as being consistent with our statement of faith – open communion – is not, in fact, compatible with the statement. He has now acknowledged as much.
I don’t anywhere suggest that this makes him less a brother or less a Baptist. I readily acknowledge that this is probably the majority practice among our churches, and churches ought to carry out the ordinances in the way they beleive to be biblical. I only suggest that this practice should not be said to be what is described in the BF&M, when it clearly is not.
My larger issue, which I have communicated to Wade, is a concern with those in positions that require them to affirm the BF&M and who do so with caveats. While disagreeing with Wade on several points, I trust his conservative convictions, and have told him so. But if we allow him to determine what parts of the BF&M he will affirm, on what grounds do we eliminate someone who can affirm every word except that part about Jesus being born of a virgin?
Unless we are able to come to a mutually agreed method, doctrinal accountability has gone out the window. I’m able to call on my people to faithfully support the CP and Lottie Moon because I know that those receiving the funds are doctrinally sound. But if we allow any caveats whatever, what assurance can I give my folks?
It would be most helpful if we could focus on these difficult issues, rather than focusing on personalities.
Marty Duren Oct 27 2006 - 9:58 am
Thanks, Wes.
You now affirm that all profs, presidents, trustees and employees should readily sign the BFM and, if applicable, the Abstract of Principles without caveats or personal defining of terms. Is that correct?
Wes Kenney Oct 27 2006 - 10:03 am
Marty,
Far from affirming anything, I’m trying to ask the question about how we can have doctrinal accountability in an environment where each signer defines his own terms.
I know you’re pointing out the perceived inconsistencies in those two documents, but I know that others have said that there aren’t any. This further illustrates the problem.
I don’t know what the answer is. Someone on Wade’s blog has suggested writing an altogether new “Statement of Cooperation,” and having people sign that. Maybe that’s what we need. If I’ve learned anything from studying these issues, maybe it is that the BF&M is just too inflexible to function effectively as an “instrument of doctrinal accountability.”
Wayne Smith In His Name Oct 27 2006 - 10:20 am
All Brothers and Sisters,
Trust
These are the qualities of a True Brother of Sister in Christ. This is the reason I count CB Scott as a True Blue Brother in Christ.
If I step over the line or under the line CB will correct me. That is what we should all do if we Truly Love Someone.
That is what the Holy Spirit does, if we Truly Love God.
We need more Brothers and Sister like CB Scott.
I have never met CB, but I know I have a Big Hug for Him when I get that Privilege.
1. reliance: confidence in and reliance on good qualities, especially fairness, truth, honor, or ability
2. care: responsibility for taking good care of somebody or something. We put our children in the trust of a good daycare center.
3. position of obligation: the position of somebody who is expected by others to behave responsibly or honorably breached the public trust
4. something in which confidence is placed: somebody who or something that people place confidence or faith in (archaic or literary)
5. hope for the future: hopeful reliance on what will happen in the future
6. responsibility that somebody has: something entrusted to somebody to be responsible for accepted his responsibilities as a sacred trust
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Wes,
I appreciate your desire for theological accountability among the people you employ. It should be so. But the BFM is not the Bible, and it should not be required that every person working for the denomination agree with every jot and tittle of a document that is not scripture.
You pose the problem, what if someone agrees with everything in the BFM except for the virgin birth? Then don’t employ them. The virgin birth, as so many have pointed out, is a first tier issue. But whether they have ever spoken in tongues in their personal devotions is not. Method of celebrating communion is not. Who baptized them is not.
So by saying what you said, you have spoken truth. Let people establish their personal beliefs outside of the BFM. Look at those beliefs that are outside that realm, and determine if those people can serve the SBC under those circumstances. If they can, hire them. If they cannot, don’t. But don’t exclude people just because they do not agree with everything as you see it. That is simply not reasonable.
Jerry Corbaley Oct 27 2006 - 10:39 am
The messengers of the churches are the “instrument of accountabilityâ€. They have authority only as long as they are in session. Since the messengers cannot be in session more than a few days a year, they delegate authority to trustees and/or executive committee members. Between the sessions where the messengers have authority, the trustees and/or executive committee members are the “instrument of accountabilityâ€. If the messengers from the churches do not affirm the actions of the trustees or executive committee members, then they can issue a rebuke or correction at the next meeting where they have authority.
I would like to see this comment string get back to issues instead of personalities also.
Regarding my previous comment (above), I think we all agree that we don’t want the SBC to “sinkâ€. I think good stewardship should prevent shepherds from choosing “tread waterâ€. I think it is possible to improve our faithfulness in the future (“swimâ€).
Are we so cynical that we don’t think it is possible to do any better than we have done in the past?
Les Puryear Oct 27 2006 - 11:47 am
Wes and all,
One more comment for me and I’m done. You have all done me a great service. I invite you to read today’s post on my blog.
Thank you and may God bless you.
Les
Paul Burleson Oct 27 2006 - 3:15 pm
Wes,
I’ve waited to respond until I saw your comments to Marty because I couldn’t quite make other things I’ve seen you write jive with this post at all. Your comments in response to Marty are the basis of what I’m now saying.
If the “tent” you refered to is now defined as, [or even originally intended this way and I missed it] a simple effort to point out to Wade that the BF@M assumed a closed as opposed to open, communion position, which, you say, he now acknowledges, I don’t understand your statement, “Frankly, I believe that the problem is not that the tent [BF@m] is not big enough, but that Wade has discovered that on these contoversial issues, he is not under the tent at all, AND HE WISHES TO BE.” What does that mean? Wade wishes to be for closed communion but somehow can’t quite be? I understand if your “tent” refers to the convention, but it doesn’t make sense to my mind otherwise. I’m sure it’s my faulty thinking and I will certainly defer to your statement of intention, but it is a stretch for me. With regards…
Paul B.
I was going to pretty much say what jasonok said in his last comment, so I’ll just say “yeah, what he said.”
Am I late to the party? Ah, the blessings of seminary…
LEt me just throw this out there:
We needn’t toss aside the space that exists between the essentials and the unimportant, as Dr. Dever would say. Let us not cast off that which lies between, because without it, meaningful fellowship, and the act of DOINGthe work of the church would not be possible, or if so, fruitful. FAithfulness and Scripture cannot survive if all below essential is tossed aside for meaning well.
Another helpful analogy Dr. Dever used was this, especially in regards to open communion: does Scripture implore us to mean well, or act well? For in meaning well, many can and do ignore the imperatives of Scripture. We can mean well by letting our paedobaptist brethren participate in communion with us, but does that constitute acting well?
For me, it comes to this regarding open communion and openness to all doctrines less than essential (first tier)- do we believe the flipside is sin? That is, you believe in believer’s baptism, and consequently that infant baptism is sin BECAUSE Scripture teaches believer’s baptism. If your friend, being baptized as an infant, believeing in that baptism, wants to take communion, and you believe him to be in sin, is it not imperative that you refuse him communion on the basis of discipline? Though he be in clear conscience, a dead man without Christ surely can be in clear conscience before entering hell. The Lord’s Supper cannot be divorced from neither accountability nor discipline. As a matter of prudence as well, what does it say to those watching about sin when you are Baptist by conviction (of the Scriptures, no less!) yet hold believer’s baptism in such low esteem as to FORGET this Scriptural teaching when partaking of the Lord’s Supper?
Wes Kenney Oct 27 2006 - 5:28 pm
Jason (& Paul),
If I’m given the responsibility for an employment decision, that’s precisely how I would handle it. But how does that work when were talking about thousands of people? Someone has to decide which of those issues are on which tier, and there has to be some kind of agreement. If the BF&M is so large that caveats are required, who gets to decide which caveats are acceptable?
Individually, accountability can still work the way you’ve described. I just don’t think it can on so large a scale as our convention.
Wes Kenney Oct 27 2006 - 5:33 pm
Paul B.,
I’m confident that your brain is working at least as well as mine, and probably better. “AND HE WISHES TO BE” was a step too far.
[shameless excuse making] I started out intending to write a paragraph or two, and did way more typing and emailing the day I wrote this than I ever intended. I simply got carried away there. [/shameless excuse making]
Perhaps this has developed with the ongoing conversation, but I really am concerned about how doctrinal accountability can be done with integrity in an environment that allows each person who is to be accountable to write their own caveats. As I’ve communicated to Wade, I trust that his conservative convictions, while they might not line up on every point, are generally in line with the BF&M. But if we allow his caveats, what caveats will we not allow, and who determines that.
Forgive my lapses in communication, which no doubt continue into this very comment. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Debbie Kaufman Oct 27 2006 - 6:50 pm
Colin said: For me, it comes to this regarding open communion and openness to all doctrines less than essential (first tier)- do we believe the flipside is sin? That is, you believe in believer’s baptism, and consequently that infant baptism is sin BECAUSE Scripture teaches believer’s baptism.
I ask sincerely: I too believe the Bible teaches immersion. Is there a passage in scripture or passages that would indicate that the different interpretation of infant baptism is a sin?
Paul Burleson Oct 27 2006 - 8:31 pm
Wes,
Thanks for your response. “A step too far” is quite ordinary for me so perfectly understood by me. As regards your concern over caveats and accountability, I concur that debate and conclusions must be faced and I would ask you to graciously remember my post was written before these comments, and I shall give an update about our conversation. Again, thanks.
Wes,
The nature of our system of governance vests a lot of responsibility in the office of president. Just ask those who led in the resurgence. If the convention messengers are gullible/naive/uninformed enough to elect a president who would appoint people who would allow someone to serve who denies the virgin birth then the convention will pay for its gullibility/naivety/failure to inform itself. I think the possibility of that happening are as great as my becoming the dictator of Elbonia, by the way. It seems to me that, at least for some, Frank Page was elected based upon his stance on what is essential and what is not as reflected in his “I’m conservative, I’m just not mad about it” comment.
From there it really trickles down to the state nominators. If they approach their duty responsibly they, too, should be able to tell the difference between, for example, someone who disagrees with the BFM statement on the church because they believe in multiple elders rather than only “pastors and deacons,” and someone who objects because they deny the trinity; or someone who is in conflict with the BFM because they believe in a just war theory despite the BFM statement that they “should do all in their power to put an end to war.”
Debbie, you know well thee Bible teaches intentional as well as unintentional sins. If I understand your question correctly, given that dissenters and separatists spawned from the reformation, and their anabaptist children, derived from the Scriptures that baptism is for believers only, and this from where we as American Southern Baptists derive our heritage, it would be fitting for you to trace through the confessions the scriptural support for believer’s baptism. I recommend Lumpkin’s “Baptist Confessions of Faith.
Remember a few things, that the Lord Himself commanded bby imperative to baptize believers in His Great Commission, and that our forefathers died for their renunciation of infant baptism. In our subjective culture, it is popular to state one’s belief is good for them- i.e. and equally valid interpretation. However, if you hold believer’s baptism to be the clear NT pattern and imperative, and you view the proper administration of the sacraments as required to be a true NT church, then not only do you have to admit your well-meaning presbyterian brother is in sin, but that he does not belong to a true NT church either.
Is this hard to swallow? It certainly wasn’t before this post-modern subjective generation.
Debbie Kaufman Oct 28 2006 - 6:49 am
Colin: Yes I do know that intentional and unintentional sin is spoken of in scripture. The Bible also tells us plainly what those sins are. This is what I am looking for as the Bible is the final authority. Does the Bible plainly tell us that believing in infant baptism is a sin?
Colin,
You wrote: “and you view the proper administration of the sacraments as required to be a true NT church.” I believe the proper administration of the sacraments is important, but I wonder on what basis we say it is required in order to be a “true NT church?” Corinth was obviously improperly administering the Lord’s Supper, but the apostle Paul did not consider them anything less than a true church as is evidenced in his salutation to them in 1 Cor. 1:2. And what would make the administration of the sacraments more important than holy living, for instance? Paul seldom mentioned baptism or the Lord’s Supper but rather extensively dealt with issues of holiness in every letter he wrote, as did John, Peter and James.
David Rogers Oct 29 2006 - 12:58 pm
I got here REALLY late to this party. They may have even already turned out the lights, as far as I know. For some reason, I can’t get Wes’s posts to show up on my Bloglines updater. 
In any case, I readily admit that if “the tent” is the BFM, then I am just outside it regarding “closed communion.” However, I prefer to be directly underneath “the tent” of what I understand Scripture to teach than any other “tent” out there. I am happy that, up till now, “the tent” of IMB employment and CP funding has continued to extend out to where I am. Although, I admit there are some apparent inconsistencies with the current situation, I think we would be in whole lot bigger of a quandary if we were to demand that “the tent” of SBC employment and CP funding were of exactly the same breadth as that of “the tent” of the BFM. Would we lose a majority of our churches over the closed communion issue? Perhaps a majority of our missionaries? Who else out there, whose job is dependent upon it, is even honest and courageous enough to say what they really believe? How many others base their beliefs on what the BFM says rather than an honest, open-minded study of Scripture? Is that healthy?
If the day comes when the SBC employment/ CP funding “tent” is drawn in to conform exactly to the BFM “tent,” I, and I imagine, many others, will be left “out in the rain.” I am ready to deal with that, and even look for another tent, if necessary. But, in the meantime, I think it would be a major loss (not because of me, but because of everyone else, and because of principle) for the advance of the Kingdom. In my opinion, the advance of the Kingdom (which is what should concern us most of all) is benefitted by an SBC tent big enough to accomodate differences on 3rd tier issues (even though they may be included in the BFM). It is not benefitted by including true liberalism, or those who are heretical on 1st tier issues, or even deviant on truly 2nd tier issues.
Bryan Riley Oct 29 2006 - 5:56 pm
I too came late to this party.
Wes, your post is well written and well done. I don’t agree and have a different interpretation of scripture. Does that make me less a Christian? Less filled with the Spirit? Less what?
You wrote to Kevin, who didn’t understand how you were coming to your interpretation of baptism as a church ordinance:
Kevin,
I appreciate that we are not likely to agree here. I don’t believe it is stretching, but valid interpretation. Thus, I don’t agree that I am adding to what the Bible says, but rather I am being faithful to what I believe it teaches.
Notice how many I’s you have in your answer. Now, what this means is that we, as humans, all have a view of God and His scripture. The only way we can truly understand Him is through His Spirit working in and through us. Isn’t your argument, in and of itself, a basis for discussing the priesthood of the believer and not of the church or the believers?
Aren’t those who agree with Wade simply advocating a unity around the gospel of Christ and a laying down of things that we (those who have been saved by the glorious grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ) can all reasonably come to different interpretations about and, in fact, we could all be off base?
What is it you are trying to do with this post? What is your goal?
Wes Kenney Oct 29 2006 - 6:42 pm
David & Bryan,
Thanks for stopping by – better late than never.
Bryan,
I suppose I would address the issue you raise by simply saying that I haven’t come to these convictions in a vacuum, but rather in a community (many, actually) of faith, where God’s people gathered in a local church come to a common understanding, under the Spirit’s leadership, of what God’s Word teaches regarding faith and practice. When I say “I,” I’m talking about what I have come to believe to be correct interpretation regarding, in this instance, the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. It happens that I agree with the Baptist Faith & Message on this point.
Your disagreement doesn’t make you less anything in my book, except perhaps less in alignment with the SBC’s statement of faith. But the problem I hope to address is that it is impossible to have true “doctrinal accountability” when those who are to be held accountable (trustees, denominational employees) can write their own caveats stating their disagreements with what we as a convention have decided will be our “instrument of doctrinal accountability.”
Unless we can agree on acceptable “caveats,” there will never be true doctrinal accountability.
I believe Wade has made a good start with his proposal for something like a “statement of cooperation.” I’m not comfortable with all of his five points (it would be five, wouldn’t it? 
), but perhaps we need something less detailed about which we can all agree should be affirmed unequivocally by those who hold positions of trust in our convention.
As this conversation has evolved, I would say that this would be a worthy goal for this post and the other conversations taking place along these lines.
If I’ve left a concern of yours (Bryan or David) unaddressed, please let me know. As you both said, it’s kind of late for this party. CB has broken all the dishes, and I was just sweeping up when I noticed you.
Thanks for contributing.
Lost my comment, so this is a brief. I hate the security code!
Debbie: if you believe Scriputre teaches believer’s baptism, then what is infant baptism? What is lack of believer’s baptism? And is you are NOT a covenant theologian, how would you define infant baptism?
Paul: Remember my, “if you believe.” Jesus and Paul give didactic material on the Lord’s Supper. This is much better than following inferential arguments that Paul “did not” do something, like call the Corinthians a false church. It is significant, however, that Paul strongly corrected the wrong administration of the sacrament. What do you think he would say if, upon his next visit, they said, “No thanks, we will conduct it how we like. Thanks!”
I threw my comments out there to get people to think about theological implications of certain views, so that we are readily prepared to understand the logical conclusions of laying aside certain doctrinal distinctives in honor of the tent’s spaciousness.
Colin,
Thanks for the reply. Let me use your own argument, then. Where in scripture do we even find the implication that the proper administration of the sacraments is a sign of a “true” church? I know you wrote, “if you believe,” but you obviously believe. That’s why I asked.
By the way, my argument was anything but inferential. Paul positively calls the Corinthians “the church of God that is in Corinth.” He does so in the context of their not properly administering the sacraments.
Now to your own inference – what would Paul say if they simply chose to go their own way? We don’t know because that didn’t happen and Paul didn’t say.
Paul, you would have to make an inferential argument, for Paul was not writing to a church who practiced wrongly, but ignorantly. In other words, he wrote in part to correct them in this matter. Now following the theme of the 2 Corinthian letters plus those that are spoken about, consequences would have ensued if they would not have repented and changed in certain matters. The inference, if any, should be that they were expected to change their ways in regard to administering the ordinance. Further, I don’t believe I have tipped my hand at all as to my belief in what constitutes a true church. BUT, I am certain you would be surprised as to what Southern Baptists, and Baptists throughout history, have regarded as essential to be a NT church. Thanks.
Tent Width Oct 25, 2006
Observations on Controversy Oct 24, 2007
First Impressions Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
