"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

The Talking Head

For the next several months I may sound like a broken record. Since the issues within our convention are for me matters of principle, and not people, the following three bullet points summarize the message that will be heard repeatedly prior to Greensboro.

(1). We must stop narrowing the parameters of cooperation in the areas of missions and evangelism.

Doctrine is important. However, the doctrinal battles are over for the Southern Baptist Convention. We are all conservative and evangelical. We hold to the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000. We must stop making policies that are based upon doctrinal interpretations that go beyond BFM. We must stop demanding that everyone conform to specific interpretations of minor, non-essential doctrines in order for them to participate in our effort to win the world for Christ.

(2). We must demand trustees and committees of our convention operate in a spirit of cooperation, humility, and transparancy.

The honor of serving one of our agencies is not a prize awarded for political loyalty or familial favoritism, but rather, Southern Baptists should be chosen to serve as trustees from a broad spectrum of churches after the Nominating Committee prayefully seeks the wisdom and direction of the Holy Spirit.

The manipulation of the trustee appointment process by outside forces in order to establish agendas contrary to agency leadership may have been the chosen method for stemming the tide of liberalism, but continual power politics for the purpose of establishing agendas contrary to agency heads quenches the empowering of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the God given mission of all Southern Baptist agencies.

(3). We must establish as a priority the involvement of a young generation of conservative, evangelical Southern Baptists in our mission and evangelism endeavors.

The theology of Southern Baptists has been crystalized for decades to come through the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, but we as Southern Baptists must recognized that the methodology for fulfilling our mission must always remain fluid. It's not that we demand others do it our way, but that we give freedom to others to do it their way.

It can no longer be business as usual. There is a lost world in need of a Savior.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a big tent.

A big, conservative tent.

Let's keep the flap wide open and resist the temptation to zip it shut.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

37 comments:

Jason Sampler said...

Wade,
Does this mean you are going to have someone mass-produce the "Wade Burleson Bobblehead Doll"? If so, sign me up to buy 5!

Seriously, excellent summary.

Blessings,
Jason

Anonymous said...

Hi. I ran across your blog by random chance, via the blogger 'next blog' button and started to continue onward to another blog the moment I saw the words "Southern Baptist." For some reason I hesitated, and started reading.

Everything you say makes sense, and I believe that you mean it when you say "Either way, my conscience is bound by principle, not the opinion of man." Most people might say that, but very few could truly mean it, in their hearts.

It sounds like you are involved in a game of politics, just a mini-Washington. That sort of thing is one of the biggest reasons why even though I was born a Southern Baptist, I now avoid that, and all "organized" religion like it was the plague.

I hope things turn out the way you want them to, but I get the feeling that you could actually be doing more good for more people,and for yourself, by simply following your own path, and showing others how to do the same.

Trying to talk logic and sense to a bunch of Southern Baptists is a losing battle. Those of us that are safely out of it know it, but I guess it's harder to see from the inside.

Luck to you.

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks Jason!

Mr. Anonymous, sorry you feel the way you do. I can give an opposite experience though. Some of the nicest, grandest, wonderful Christians I have ever met are Southern Baptists!

I would love to introduce you to them.

Anonymous said...

It's Mrs. Anonymous, actually, but that's of no importance here.

Please don't misunderstand me, it's not the Southern Baptist people I avoid. I couldn't even if I wanted to. I live in the middle of North Carolina. You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a Southern Baptist. And yes, they are nearly all wonderful people.

kevin said...

Amen, Wade! I deeply appreciate the stance you are taking.

kevin said...

Amen, Wade! You don't know how much I appreciate the stance you are taking.

Anonymous said...

I am an IMB worker in a restricted acccess country. One of my greatest joy in working within the IMB is the freedom we have to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations. We are not building a Baptist Kingdom, but the Kingdom of God. Fellow workers with other organizations trust me because they know I don't have a hidden Baptist agenda. In the U.S., we are very aware of the differences we have with other denominations. Living in a country where Beliving Chritians don't make up 1% of the population we are much more aware of our similarities. I am afraid that the current trend will hamper our ability to work. First we don't appoint people who have a "private pray language". Next, we won't be able to cooperate with those who do. When 99% of the people around you are going to hell, these discussions are, at best, a distraction. I want to continue to work at building God's Kingdom.

P.S. Stick to the term "non-essential" rather than "minor". Your oppenents don't think they are minor and I suspect the term only "fans the flame".

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks Mrs. Anonymous for the clarification.

And thanks Mr. SBC Anonymous Missionary. Good wisdom for me. I agree wholeheartedly.

To me the doctrine of cessationism and the doctrine of the authority of the baptizer are both minor, but to others who are my friends they are major.

You are correct sir. they are non-essential.

I always listen to wise counsel.

Florence Young said...

Wade,

Was it necessary to be manipulative and unkind in order for the resurgence to take place? I think not. It disturbs me that the BF&M has almost been put on a par with Scripture. It is a man- made instrument and should be viewed as such. I believe there are some controversial and non-essential parts of it. For instance, both sides concerning the role of women can be supported by Scripture. At one time my husband was very much against the ordination of women. Over a period of months, probably years, he mused on it, prayed about it, and studied about it using both Scripture and other sources and came to the conclusion that God is "no respectors of persons." To me, this is just another issue that turns off non-Christians and hindering the spread of the Gospel. We served for 15 years under the old FMB and respected the Board and administrators, as they did us. May God bless you as you follow His leadership in the days to come. He is able, and I believe you may have "come to the kingdom for such a time as this." This is lengthy. Thank you for giving an old lady the opportunity to express herself. Feel free to not publish this if you think it will harm the "cause." I plan to come to Greensboro and I pray that I will not come with an unkind attitude toward anyone.
Florence in KY

Wayne Powers said...

Wade, I appreciate your points. There is one thing about the SBC that I can't figure out. The convention claims to be a convention of the Bible. It claims, as you have, "We hold to the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000." You stated under point number 3, "the theology of Southern Baptists has been crystalized for decades to come through the Baptist Faith and Message 2000". If that is the case, why does the IMB continually develop policies that go against the Baptist Faith and Message 2000? In the BFM 2000 under letter C. The Holy Spirit..., the BFM states about the Holy Spirit "...and bestows the Spiritual Gifts by which they serve God through His church". A scripture reference in the BFM is 1 Cor 12:3-11, 13. In those verses is included the gift of tongues. How can the IMB or the SBC be saying that they hold to the BFM, when the IMB and the SBC endorse the firing of missionaries who speak in tongues? After all, tongues is one of the gifts given by the Holy Spirit "by which they serve God through His church". Tongues is one of the gifts mentioned by way of scripture in the BFM. So,why does the SBC and the IMB go against its own doctrinal statement?

Wade Burleson said...

Wayne,

Uummm . . . Good question.

Forence,

Thanks for your sweet, sweet spirit. I agree wholeheartedly, but not wise right now to post your comment.

In His Grace,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Florence, again! I won't need to stay in your time share since I have a sis who lives near Greensboro!! 8-)

Kevin Bussey said...

Amen! Unfortunately our big tent is a circus right now!

I love the caricature. Can we make those into buttons for Greensboro? :)

Kevin

Wade Burleson said...

Florence,

In the current climate of things it is probably best to let everyone know that are an 82 year old grandmother who does not usually attend the Southern Baptist Convention, but you are making a special attempt to get there. Florence is also not short on wisdom --- she gave me the shortest winning advice from two days ago.

Look forward to meeting you!

Wade

Anonymous said...

to KDWAG,

Maybe we could use the caricuture pin to include "Burley for Prez."

Granny Florence

steve w said...

Mrs. Anonymous,
I grew up in MS. I've lived in CA for the last 19 years. I'm really curious, swinging dead cats, is that some form of recreation in NC? Will it be part of the convention activities in June? And do you have any suggestions for what I should tell the TSA baggage checkers when they find one or more dead cats in my luggage? (Or will they be provided once I arrive?)

Sorry if my poor attempt at humor offends anyone, but I've got to find something to laugh at in all this so I don't go insane.

- Steve Walker

Clif Cummings said...

Wade,
I join Jason in thinking a Wade Burleson Bobble "blog head" would be a big seller! Put me down as head of marketing!
Seriously, stay on the three points. If necessary become the Bill O'Reilly of the SBC! All three are all equally important and connected. So if you are asked to back up on one, DON'T. Involving the younger generation (point # 3) and keeping some of us older ones involved (I turn 50 this year)is dependent upon numbers 1 and 2. And if the truth be known, I would suspect that it is # 2 that is creating the biggest concern among the establishment.
Having done all to stand - KEEP STANDING!
In HIS Grace,
Clif

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Brother the Big Tent thing has been done already. It has gotten the SBC just about where it is today. I hope you can succeed where so many others have failed.

The problem with tents, especially big tents, is the stakes in the ground and lines that tie them down. It is easy to trip, stub your toe or get tangled up and land on your bottom.

Be careful and blessings to you.

ben douglass said...

Wade,

Thank you for holding honest convictions. I am considering joining the SBC and your views are refreshing. I hope IMB is able to listen.

-Ben

Anonymous said...

Pastor -

I read about you in the Baptist Messenger" that came in the mail yesterday. It's about time this issue came up. I feel for you, because you are paying the price for saying what thousands of SBs believe.

Our church is small - but probably 40% used to attend charismatic or pentecostal churches. Many of those still practice a private prayer language. When we have a Missions Emphasis Week, am I to proclaim as pastor, "God is calling many of you to missions, except of course those of you who talk in tongues, were not baptized in a SBC church, and who believe that there is a possibility that a Christian can lose their salvation."?

My point is this - the face of the "real" Southern Baptist church is changing. People are leaving some of the more traditional Pentecostal and independant charismatic churches to embrace the stabilty and expository teaching and preaching found in our SBC churches. This influx will be stymied if we continue to create second-class citizens by virtue of where they were baptized and whether or not they believe in and privately practice glossolalia.

The wonderful Revival of Grace has been a godsend to many of us whose roots reach back into the Charismatic movement - and thousands of us are happily serving God in a SBC affiliated church now. (Some of us as pastors!)

The stand some are taking now will essentially put out an "YOU ARE UNWELCOME" sign for what may posssibly be the greatest opportunity of this decade for the SBC to grow by reaching all of the unchurched pentecostals and charismatics who are in dire need of a stable, Bible-based local fellowship that lives grace.

Your fight is so much more important than what you can possibly know. Thank you for being a man of principle and demonstrating humility alongside that show of strength.


Pastor George
Tulsa

art rogers said...

I agree with KDawg. I am going to Ringling bros. tomorrow with my wife and kids. I'll take comparitive notes and let you see where we can improve to get this thing up to a full blown three ringer.

Or, should we be trying to get it down? Oh, yeah. The circus is what we are trying to get away from, right?

And Mrs. Anonymous is exactly who we are not reaching right now. In a study Barna did for KY, it was revealed that 81% of the unchurched in our state are actually dechurched. 43% of the state's population left church in the last five years, compared with 38% leaving 5+ years ago. Of the dechurched, that is those who have left, 42% were formerly Baptist, while 16% were Catholic.

Moreover, the younger they get, the more we lose 'em, but Baptists are losing them faster than anyone else.

The reason they no longer attend church? Because they used to attend church.

For those who didn't quite pick up on that, they are saying that church was so distateful, they left and won't come back.

Mrs. Anonymous is a reflection of that attitude.

If we don't stop the foolishness, we will lose the ability to communicate the Gospel to the coming generations. This really is life or death.

Anonymous said...

Wade:
Just some anonymous advice. You are right on when it comes to the issues! I totally agree to you. I think sometimes we are trying to create a baptist ghetto, where everyone that doesn't agree with us on every point will be beat in the head with a baseball bat by our gang of baptist thugs! I would just say, be very careful in the coming days and weeks. You are right on with what you are saying, but be very cautious in how you say it. Sometimes these controversies are won and lost, not based on principles, but based on how we word those principles. You have been doing great this far! Be wise! People are reading this blog and just hunting for something that they might be able to take out of context and use to rip you apart! Continue to be above reproach brother! Debate in a spirit of humility with a desire to see the truth exalted! You are in my prayers! Peace!

James said...

Re: Wayne's comments on the BF&M.

The inconsistency is not only in regards to tongues. The stance on baptism is inherently contradictory. It quotes the BF&M statement on baptism (that baptism is a picture of a believers death and res. in Christ), then says some should be baptized as a testimony to their SBC beliefs.

The new policy on baptism is unbiblical (1 Cor 1:12-17), contradictory, impractical (as others have pointed out), and seemingly ignorant of the Donatist controversy of the early church.

Anonymous said...

Just another reminder--because NO ONE at any blog currently discussing the IMB matter is examining it in detail or even commenting on the statement, but I challenge all bloggers to do so!--ANY YEAR'S VERSION OF THE BAPTIST FAITH & MESSAGE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE THEOLOGICAL PERSUASIONS OF ALMOST EVERY KIND OF BAPTIST EVER WALKING ON THE PLANET EARTH, AND MOST OTHER EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AS WELL (read this line out loud with the volume turned up--you'll get the feeling behind it, OK?). ANYONE who says otherwise either doesn't know the BF&M statements or doesn't know Baptists, or both!

I don't strictly hold to the BF&M 2000, primarily out of rebellion because I think I know the spirit from which it originated (a fundamentalist one)--but it is REPRESENTATIVE of my theological persuasion and I can cooperate with Wade, who seems to hold to it, if Wade will cooperate with me (if he won't, the Lord and I will do evangelism and missions without him--but Wade and I will miss the close interaction/fellowship we could have had though he is 2000 and I'm 1963; I'm a neat guy, too--someone Wade ought to get to know and to work with in ministry [head bowed humbly, here]).

I think that a lot of the people who are reading these blogs--Wade's and others--hold to the previous version of the BF&M, and feel as I do and described above, but aren't leaving a posting to say so. Those folks--life-long, biblically-conservative-as-the-day-is-long SBC people--have been excluded from Southern Baptist life and leadership now for a few years by what truly only can be termed "fundamentalist/fundamentalism" (somebody prove me wrong at this point, OK?), which has weakened the denomination. I really have a HARD TIME believing that the highly-intelligent bloggers posting at this and other sites honestly want to do this.

I'm all for grace, mostly for graciousness--and entirely for the truth. Someone, please lead all the rest of us to the place where the cooperation that Jesus Christ died and rose again to pay for actually is experienced between us, and exceptional results (our world going to heaven, not hell) are achieved by our team--OK?

(I'm remaining anonymous, again, because my senior pastor and I wouldn't agree about my statements--but I believe they deserve attention.)

Former M said...

"the theology of Southern Baptists has been crystalized for decades to come through the Baptist Faith and Message 2000".
That does not hold nearly as true as SBC leadership would like to claim. Perhaps it will be the future, but it is not the present reality. I noticed on your own church's website that you hold to the 1963 version of the statement. The local association in which I participate holds to the 1963, with only a minor portion of the churches choosing to adopt the 2000 version in any way.
It was adopted at the SBC in 2000. That does not mean the churches or their membership have even read the document. Most could not care less about the wording of the text, nor that it was passed at the convention.
Sadder is that we speak as though the BF&M 2000 had more authority than the Bible, and yet we do not accept the implications of its doctrinal content. I have yet to hear any SBC agency official decry the atrocities of unjust war in Iraq, even though the BF&M essentially opposes war. The BF&M2000 established the Bible as "The revelation" of God. From that limited perspective, God no longer speaks or reveals anything to anyone. Revelation ended some 2000 years ago. Jesus’ words in Mark 9 are so much more inclusive and accepting of the ministry of others than we could hope to be. His warning tone is also rather strong:
“38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part. 41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. 42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (KJV)
Good thing we can hide behind the BF&M 2000 and don’t have to worry about measuring up to Jesus’ uncomfortable demands... From my perspective, a true conservative would grant more validity to Jesus’ words than to political ideology and the restrictive reformulations of a man-made document. I am too conservative to be of any use to the SBC, too conservative to bow to the authority of the BF&M 2000 over the authority of Jesus Christ, my only sufficient Lord.
I would love to see you succeed in turning the SBC ship around. I am afraid the BF&M 2000 is not going to be much of an ally.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous between the post of James and former M would do well to get a tape of a panel from Jan 24 at Samford U in bham. One of the leading self described fundamentalists in the state, chair of the Bama State Board of Missions made remarks about women in ministry--said he would encourage a young woman in his church to pursue it if she felt the call--that would place him outside BFM 2000. So sooner or later words do have meaning, and theological parameters and the discussion of creedalism may not be settled after all.
Whether or not this post passes the moderator of this blog will tell in some way just how much freedom indeed is possible among the cooperating conservatives.
On panel with the leading conservative in the state was a Jewish rabbi, the sister of a leading progressive Baptist ethicist and a Baptist who has proclaimed the Word in the National Cathedral in DC.
If this kind of ecumenical engagement had stayed with Baptists through the last 30 years, I have to believe Wade would not find himself in the intrigue he is currently vortexxed at the IMB.
God Bless you All

Michael Stover said...

Kudos Wade for sound advice and for waging the good fight of faith. I agree with you and would like to see a list of specific allegations. This issue is becoming too big to settle in a private meeting. Too many are demanding a hearing and a reconing. I have re-postd your 3 bullets of advice on m blog as well as my own comments on the situation at: http://michaelstover.blog.com

Anonymous said...

Someone quoted Mark 9:38-42 KJV above.

Actually, KJV reads, (v 38) "And Iohn answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out deuils in thy Name, and he followeth not vs, and we forbade him, because he followeth not vs.
(v 39) But Iesus said, Forbid him not, for there is no man, which shall doe a miracle in my Name, that can lightly speake euill of me. (v 40) For he that is not against vs, is on our part.
(v 41) For whosoeuer shall giue you a cup of water to drinke in my Name, because yee belong to Christ: Uerily I say vnto you, he shall not lose his reward. (v 42) And whosoeuer shall offend one of these litle ones that beleeue in me, it is better for him, that a milstone were hanged about his necke, and he were cast into the Sea."

If we're going to say it's KJV, then probably it should be the actual KJV--everyone should be able to agree with this, right? I mean, it matters in order to be most specific about what we mean as Christians and Baptists--and so that we can cooperate with each other more. Probably, others who don't think so aren't so serious about the Faith, and we might want to overlook them intentionally the next time nominations are being taken for leadership positions among us.

The SBC needs to stay pure "people of the Book," after all; only the KJV 1611 can give us this (others--pastors and deacons and WMU leaders--using modern versions of the Bible should be considered with suspicion; be really careful everybody--ask me if you're not sure).

Thanks for your friendship, everybody! Let's all have a terrific ministry day among the heathens walking in the darkness all around us! (Thank goodness, we're in the light!!)

Love, and Grace, and Truth

Anonymous said...

Kevin wrote: "I love the caricature. Can we make those into buttons for Greensboro?" :)

Kevin are you aware that the caricature Wade is using was drawn by Brown Hudson? Who is Brown Hudson? He's a Mainstream Oklahoma Baptist. I wonder if Wade is softening his stance against the, so-called, "liberals?"

Wes Kenney said...

"The BF&M2000 established the Bible as 'The revelation' of God. From that limited perspective, God no longer speaks or reveals anything to anyone." - former m

I'm pretty sure I speak for many when I say that, while God still speaks, He does so through His Word. New revelation is not consistent with a God of order.

Wade Burleson said...

Mr. Anonymous, (two above)

My heart is always soft toward Liberals and Fundamentalists as people. I do not disparage persons.

However, my doctrinal convictions are solidly conservative and have not changed.

It may be interesting for you to know that the caricature in this post is from a spoof of what Brown Hudson called "Leading Fundamentalists." He also spoofs Paige Patterson, Morris Chapman, Anthony Jordan, Adrian Rogers, Paul Pressler, Jerry Vines, etc . . .

In other words, I don't think Brown Hudson made this likeness to flatter me, I think he did it to lapoon me.

However, I kind of like the caricature and figured I might as well use it.

As people know, I like to laugh at myself with the best of them.

No softening in doctrine, always softness toward people. That's the way it's supposed to be.

I think people will attempt to paint me as a "moderate" or a "liberal" because of what I am saying, but along with C. H. Spurgeon I can honestly say my theology is the same from my youth, conservative, evangelical, and most importantly, Biblical.


Wade

Anonymous said...

Wade:

With all due respect, I doubt seriously that you know many theological liberals--though you may know, outside of Oklahoma anyway, many biblically-conservative Baptists who now are called "liberal" because they are moderate politically ("moderate" politically doesn't equate to "liberal" theologically). Again, almost every single SBC'er today stands in the huge UNDECLARED Baptist mainstream; all (relatively speaking) of us are conservative theologically--while some of us are DECLARED mainstream (the Mainstream folks), some are DECLARED "conservative" (the SBC folks in leadership roles, like yourself--"fundamentalist," the "moderates" would say--but definitely not every SBC'er), some are DECLARED moderate (like CBF folks--"liberal," the "conservatives" would say). Very, very few Baptists are theological liberals--and were prior to 1979--but we remain very, very afraid of them and will upset the entire apple cart to keep one from getting on-board!

The state convention with which I affiliate was coming apart at its seams over these very issues 10 years ago. There were only 2 men among us with guts at that time, trying to keep all of us on common ground for the sake missions and evangelism in the state. I wasn't one of those men, but I want to be one now. Last year, I took a fundamentalist-leaning pastor to an all-day meeting with "moderate" convention staff to discuss missions and discipleship; last summer, I arranged for leadership of one of the SBC's "fundamentalist" agencies to sit down with "moderate" ministers to discuss greater ministry effectiveness; the times together were terrific, and we found out that no one had a wart of his nose after all!

Honestly, there are some really great theologians in the SBC, but there is not a single truly great leader anywhere among us; like it or not, our current situation as a denomination is evidence of this.

Wade, I hope you'll be one.

Anonymous said...

Mr. "Between" Anonymous here, to Mr. "Theological Parameters" Anonymous:

I think you prove my point--though you sort of lost me with the "words do have meaning, and theological parameters and the discussion of creedalism" part.

God makes people people. People have things in common. All of us ought to be able to have lengthy conversations with all the rest of us--we have lots and lots in common. Folks with religious beliefs ought to be able to tell what they believe--in a public university forum or otherwise--and the rest of us say, "Really? What else do you believe?" And, the Baptist folks you mentioned, if they're mature followers of Christ despite their apparent disagreement on some issues, really ought to be able to work together to lead a Jewish rabbi to faith in Jesus as Savior. That's all I'm saying--and maybe you agreed (again, sort of lost me with the "parameters" and "creedalism" things); again, every born-again, Jesus-following Baptist, pick one BF&M statement to represent your theological persuasion (do it for the rest of us, who want to know for sure where you're coming from biblically because we're suspicious folks these days, I guess) and start cooperating for the sake of that Jewish rabbi! Does anyone NOT get that?!

Thanks, brother.

Former M said...

Wes Kenney,

"The BF&M2000 established the Bible as 'The revelation' of God. From that limited perspective, God no longer speaks or reveals anything to anyone." - former m

I'm pretty sure I speak for many when I say that, while God still speaks, He does so through His Word. New revelation is not consistent with a God of order.

I couldn't agree with you more. My point was that the BF&M 2000 is out of line with God continuing to speak. This is one of the reasons that I could not sign the document or agree to teach within its parameters.

Wes Kenney said...

former m,

So, just to be clear. Is your position that God only speaks today through His Word, or that there is new revelation to be had? I'm confused.

Nothing new for me, though, really.

Anonymous said...

As a very young, "traditional" conservative staff member at a very conservative SBC church in northern Missouri, I feel it most appropriate to remain anonymous for now, except to say that your comments are what I have been simply yearning to hear from SBC leadership for several years now. I'm tired of the politics; I'm tired of the battle lines. I just want a convention that tells people about Jesus and His love in a way that adheres to the historic, basic truths of inerrant Scripture. Your blog, I think, represents the voice of the great and ignored "unaligned" movement of Southern Baptists, too conservative for CBF but uncomfortable with SBC leadership's direction.

God richly bless you. Have you considered running for SBC President?

Yours in Christ, B.

Anonymous said...

As a very young, "traditional" conservative staff member at a very conservative SBC church in northern Missouri, I feel it most appropriate to remain anonymous for now, except to say that your comments are what I have been simply yearning to hear from SBC leadership for several years now. I'm tired of the politics; I'm tired of the battle lines. I just want a convention that tells people about Jesus and His love in a way that adheres to the historic, basic truths of inerrant Scripture. Your blog, I think, represents the voice of the great and ignored "unaligned" movement of Southern Baptists, too conservative for CBF but uncomfortable with SBC leadership's direction.

God richly bless you. Have you considered running for SBC President?

Yours in Christ, B.