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

When An Attack Is Different from the Truth

I have prayerfully considered whether or not to post what I am about to write, but events of the last two days have led me to the belief that it is necessary. I have claimed that there were outside influences at work within the International Mission Board these past few years that have hindered the IMB President and staff from implementing their vision to fulfill the mandate to be the missionary arm of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I have details regarding these outside influences that I have kept private for several months, following at every turn the instructions of trustee leadership to resolve the problem, and when those doors closed, I presented a motion to the SBC. The longer time goes by I see that certain trustees (by no means all, and in fact, it is a DECREASING number) will do everything in their power to discredit me.

One of the attempts to discredit me is a repeated effort by former Chairman Tom Hatley to say I am violating confidentiality and putting missionaries "in harm's way" and thus, I should not be in on "confidential trustee meetings." See the Article in the Florida Witness. I find this charge ludicrous and absurd, but consistent with the pattern of certain leaders making allegations against me without providing one iota of evidence, but simply saying to the Board, "Trust us."

There has not been ONE post removed from this blog since its beginning in December. I challenge anyone to find one sentence that puts missionaries in harm's way or in any way violates IMB confidentiality.

A Real Violation of Confidentiality and a Breach of Christian Ethics

Dr. Curtis Sergeant is the Missions Pastor for Saddleback Community Church, the largest Southern Baptist Church in our Convention. Before Dr. Sergeant took his position with Saddleback he served as an Associate Vice President for the International Mission Board, resigning in 2004.

Dr. Sergeant loves the IMB and believes our potential is unlimited. However, he faced intense opposition from a missions professor at one of our Seminaries and a President from another of our Southern Baptist Seminaries. These two joined forces with a small group of trustees in an orchestrated attempt to find "heresy" in the teaching of Dr. Curtis Sergeant regarding the gifts, ecclesiology and women in ministry. Seminary students being trained under Dr. Sergeant in the 2 + 2 Program were told to write down what they heard taught, to forward it to their seminary professor, and he would deal with it. The way the professor dealt with it was to provide the information to trustees, one of whom then, according to Dr. Sergeant, very accusingly and angrily, confronted Dr. Sergeant. It would seem that for all our talk of folowing Matthew 18, we are teaching our students just the opposite.

Nevertheless, Dr. Sergeant spent valuable time going back through the video tape sessions to "prove" he was not a heretic, time that should have been spent focusing on missions.

But the coup de'Etat was what happened next.

Dr. Sergeant had written his dissertation, but due to the sensitive nature of what he had written, he signed a covenant with the Seminary that his dissertation be restricted. In other words, nobody could obtain a copy of his dissertation without his explicit approval. In the appendix there were statements that would compromise the identity and work of many of our most successful missionaries in a very dangerous part of the world.

That dissertation was obtained by the Seminary President's direct order, against the wishes of Dr. Sergeant, but more importantly CONTRARY TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, and copies were made and distributed in order for people to find "charismatic and ecclesiological heresy." This act ignored a legal contract, became a breach of Christian ethics, and was a very substantive violation of professional confidentiality.

All in the name of purifying the IMB.

Soon afterwards the process for the new policies on tongues and baptism began its journey down the trustee pipeline. Most people know the rest of the story.

This is just one example of a multitude of stories that could be told. I only tell this one because I have explicit permission from Dr. Sergeant and it helps clarify that if you have an allegation of a breach of confidentiality, you better be prepared to prove it. Otherwise, it is simply an unwarranted attack to discredit a brother.

Personal Character Attacks Are Attempts to Confuse the Issue

For too long there has been a culture in the Southern Baptist Convention that if you did not agree with a certain interpretation of Scripture then you were not a "true" Southern Baptist. I have attempted to prevent the IMB from sliding down the slippery slope of a narrow, isolated view of the Word of God that excludes conservative evangelicals who disagree over interprations of the sacred text on minor doctrines from participating in missions.

This struggle for the soul of the Southern Baptist Convention is not for the weak of heart.

All I ask from you is simply this: Listen carefully to what is being said. The issues before us are important for they will help establish the course of the Southern Baptist Convention for decades to come.


The Chairman and Instructions to Wade Burleson


In the same article in which Dr. Hatley says I put missionaries in harm's way, Dr. Floyd says "Burleson has already been instructed on what needs to be done for him to have a productive input in relationship with the board of trustees and the ball’s in his court as to what he wants to do."

The instruction I have been given is to apologize to the Board for the "content" of my blog.

I told Dr. Floyd that since I was prepared to defend every last word I have written, and since I have refused to apologize for the content of my blog from the beginning, and since the recommendation for my removal was unanimously rescinded WITHOUT an apology from me, then why in the world would I apologize now?

I have assured Dr. Floyd that I will continue to build relationships with my fellow trustees, sharing breakfast and dinner with them, seeking to learn about their ministries and their families, and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt regarding the past.

However, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the IMB administration and missionaries, whoever they may be, are free to fulfill the mission for which we hired them, free from outside influence.

In His Grace,


Wade

110 comments:

Matt Snowden said...

Can you help me understand the bitterness over the gifts of the Spirit? For the life of me I don't get it.

Dave said...

Wade - thanks for the courage to speak the truth in love. It's interesting how Machiavellian our "leaders" can be. It also very sad that we are lacking Christlike leadership in many arenas of the SBC. I am convinced these continuing witchhunts are not healthy or holy. Please stay to your task! Do not give in to pressure.

Wade Burleson said...

Matt,

I have no clue.

I really don't.

RM said...

Wade,

I have been a Southern Baptist pastor for over 40 years and have seen this same thing occur over and over. The sad thing is that I used to be involved in the "conservative movement" and can assure you that character assassination is one of their main tools. If you could, please send me the email address of the current and past chairmen of the board of trustees.

Charlie said...

Wade
It's all about the very much alive JESUS. I feel some don't believe HE really is alive. JESUS Himself was left alone, even by trusted friends. HE sent us the HOLY SPIRIT to comfort us, guide us, help us relate to JESUS and each other. Paul so many times advised us against leaving any thing out or changing anything the HOLY SPIRIT inspired men of GOD to write. This same JESUS is alive and well today and I know the HOLY SPIRIT is grieved by the hostilties and disputes that interfere with our worship of the
KING. Some one had to take a stand for the Full Gospel. The HOLY SPIRIT has apparently selected you.
I do believe HE is disappointed. At least your Blogs have men and women down on their knees praying that GOD's will be done. I pray for you everyday many times. The personal attacks against you are deployable. Keep the entire armor of GOD around you. The Truth will set us all free.

Charlie of Gainesville

IN HIS NAME said...

Wade,

Because of the persecution you are suffering I started Blogging. I have seen the disciples of the current Leadership in Power come out of the woodwork.

First they came attacking and showing they are arrogant, defiant, bullheaded, accusing you and some others of NOT believing that the BIBLE is inerrant.

Next they started their own Blog's and claimed how they were persecuted on your Blog and others.

Some of these Disciples stopped excepting comments, but continued to Post their HATRED and VENOM.

Some are now trying to look more like CHRIST, by setting rules for their Blog, but they will still want to stir up issues to divide the SBC.

My Pray is for You and Yours to continue in the TRUTHFULLNESS in GOD'S HOLY WORD and the LEADERS of the SBC to WAKE UP.

Your Brother in CHRIST.

Bob Cleveland said...

Matt:

If your position is that God does not do something any more, and someone steps up to say He's done it for them, then you must either prove them wrong, or be proven wrong. At least I surmise that's what happens with the cessationists when confronted by a continuationist who speaks from experience.

My own experience with unknown tongues was so miraculous and powerful that NOBODY is going to tell me it didn't happen.

If you want a thumbnail of that testimony, email me.

Wade: Hang in there. Based on your prior testimony, and my personal experience, you're on target for the Kingdom's work.

Kevin Bussey said...

Wade,

As a SBC pastor of a church that pays for the salaries of the Seminary President and the professor, I want to know who they are. I want something done about this. That kind of stuff is over the top. Thanks for your courage and your quest to tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

I have said this several times and will continue to say it until someone listens. This is exactly what is going on with many of the missionaries on the field. If this same thing were not happening to us, I might not believe that this could really happen within a Christian organization, but it is and i have the scars to prove it.

Our counselor, who is not a SBC church member, but a fine Christian woman, has labeled what we have experienced as spiritual abuse. We have read several book including "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" by Johnson and VanVarderen and "Healing Sprititual Abuse" by Ken Blue. These books have opened our eyes to know what is happening to us (spiritual abuse) and what to do about it. I would recommend these books and several others to anyone who whats to know more about what Wade and MANY others are experienceing.

IMB Missionary going back to the field and give it one more try.

Sonya said...

Wade,
No wonder blogs are so feared by some in leadership. Light is being shined in dark places, so their ungodly deeds are being made known.
But I have to admit to being shocked that these "leaders" would risk the lives of some of our missionaries just to further their own devious agendas.

Another example of how power corrupts.

Jeff Richard Young said...

Dear Brother Wade and Brother Matt,

Among those whose intentions are pure, the bitterness over speaking in tongues comes from Baptists having watched many pentecostals/ charismatics so badly absue this gift to the great harm of weaker believers.

I doubt not that there are also Baptists who use prejudices against tongues speakers to forward the interests of their own party/faction.

One of the reasons that I can appreciate Dr. Jerry Corbaley's PERSON, while so strongly opposing his POSITION on this matter is that I believe he opposes PPL out of a sincere desire to avoid the abuses of tongues speaking that have caused so much hurt to so many in our churches.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff Richard Young,

I agree with your comment.

However, I do not want a convention where leadership believes that their interpretation of the truth is the ONLY acceptable interpretation.

In matters of the essentials unity, but in matters of the non-essentials diversity.

That is the only way our convention will survive.

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff,

One additional item.

ALL who participating in the composing of the new policies did so out of a desire for doctrinal purity, but of course, if there is a demand that others subscribe to their interpretation, then we have moved beyond the great fundamental Baptist doctrines of soul competency into the arena of creedalism.

Theologically I may (or may not) agree with Corbaley. That is not the issue. We must not allow our convention to become so narrow that we exclude those among us who disagee on the interpretation of the sacred text over doctrines that are not part of our basic tenants of the faith.

And frankly, shame on any of us who try to stick non-essentials into our BF&M.

Arkansas Razorbaptist said...

Wade,

This seminary president needs to be held accountable for breaking a covenant agreement. We realize this is probably touchy, but we agree with K-Dawg. This causes our blood to boil. The world’s most oppressive and authoritative regimes have used similar tactics.

Arkansas Razorbaptist said...

BTW -- We are praying for your Refuge service tonight.

CB Scott said...

I worked with the professor and we both worked for the president from 1996-2004.
cb

Kevin Bussey said...

CB,

Can you elaborate?

Wade,

This is so wrong. I guess the seminary in question is in my state. We investigate trivial matters. This one could have endangered a life. I call for action. What must I do to have something done about this?

Wade Burleson said...

Kevin,

I'm not sure what can be done.

My purpose in posting this is to point out that there is a difference between a substantive allegation of breach of confidentiality and character assassination for the purpose of discrediting a brother.

Sarah said...

Wade- This is really sick. I read this post this morning and all day I've prayed for you and others that have had to deal with this horrible treatment by those that we should be regarding as fellow brothers and sisters. It's truly disheartening to find out that the very missions agency that I was hoping to work for one day is participating in very unbiblical, ungodly things. I'm praying for you and your family.

Maiden said...

Wade

As you have stated in several of you blogs, there are two sides of the story. Unless we have both sides, facts tend to be slanted no matter how hard we try to be accurate; maybe that is happening to you. Have you contacted the seminary prof and president and asked their side? I would like to hear their response. Let's not fall into the same mistake you state your accusers are making of you.

Wade Burleson said...

Maiden,

You will be hearing from the person responsible for culling the dissertation for heresy very soon.

I agree there are two sides to every story.

In the climate of the recent SBC climate only one side has been getting out.

Thankfully both sides are now being heard.

Anonymous said...

This is an aside to the topic of the post, but I heard something the other day that was very disturbing. I'm wondering if it is just another attack on your character, or if it is true..

I was told that during the Katrina disaster you went to provide Christian aid, but you also told your congregation during a service(very proudly from what I was told) that you wore a gun on your hip the entire time.

Is this true? And if so how do you justify that with Christian beliefs and missionary values?

If it is not true, then there are aparently many who want to paint you in a certain light..

Bob Cleveland said...

Jeff (and others).

I called Jerry Corbaley one day some months ago and shared my testimony about speaking in unknown tongues. I got the impression that he'd never heard a logical, unemotional display of how that manifestation came about in someone's life, as he was most gracious in his response. He asked if I might find some other friends with the same gift, who could minister to our Baptist bretheren who didn't, so they might understand our feelings and our position. I didn't know how to go about that, so it didn't come to pass. But there was certainly no condemnation whatsoever.

I know there have been abuses, as is the case with many aspects of Christianity (like liberty). But we'd not dream of letting abuses in "healing ministries" keep us from earnest prayer for the healing of a loved one, and we shouldn't allow abuse of any other gift to change our view of it, either, given what the bible says.

Based on my experience, I can agree with your assessment of his position. It's logical, to me. And I agree with your expressed attitude toward him.

Given the nature of man, all this isn't anything new, nor is it restricted to our opinions of, nor our actions concerning, controversial gifts.

Anonymous said...

I would like to respond to the post that says the attacks on people about tongues and gifts "comes from Baptists having watched the pentecostals abuse it." I believe this says it all. Some seem to think it is ok to attack or slander anyone you disagree with as long as you have a good excuse.

Throughout the centuries, one group of men or another have decided that they had all knowledge and perfect interpretation about ALL things in the Bible. (the inqisitions) (islam fascist) (some baptist) Then, these self rightous groups would attack every group they disagreed with. Over the centuries, there has been torture and slaughter all in the name of "I am right and you are wrong". Even John Calvin manipulated the systems to have supposed heretics tortured and put to death.

The Word plainly says "forbid NOT the speaking in tongues", yet, there have always been some who will argue that that 1corr 14:34 that tells women to be silent is for today, yet, then they say that vs 39 isn't.

Who gives anyone the right to say what is for now and what is for then? What makes anyones opinion of Scriptural interpretation perfect? If, in the same breath Paul says women should be silent, and don't forbid the speaking in tongues, what gives any man the power to omit either for today? Am I the only one to see that something is not right?

By the way, as Baptist numbers get smaller, the fastest growing number of members and salvations in the last 50 years is pentacostals.

If God was doing a mighty work among the SBC like is happening among the pentacostals, it would be trumpted from the rooftops.

Instead, using the greatest press machine in protestant work, the SBC, some of its leaders and some of its pastors just can't help themselves to attack all that they disagree with.

We might be wise to adhere to Jude 1:9 " But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

Could it be that "some have ears and don't hear" when it says "FORBID NOT"? Could it be that as Jude 1:9 says "these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand;

For all the slander and attack that goes against Brother Wade, or anyone else that dares to be different from the ALL KNOWING MEN, let me take you to Jude 1:9

God help us all as we get on our knees and ask for help to keep our mouths shut about another mans journey to the Cross of Christ.


Alone Before The Throne

Anonymous said...

Wade, you wrote:

"I agree there are two sides to every story.

In the climate of the recent SBC climate only one side has been getting out.

Thankfully both sides are now being heard."

THANK YOU for letting us hear the other side. Thank you!

Steve

Maiden said...

Wade

Not to be anal, but have you been able to secure responses from the prof or any of the 2+2 students?

As one of the comments above stated (1st anonymous), there is a real fear among some company employees that if they complain they will be blacklisted; pro/con established policy.

Jeff Richard Young said...

Dear Anonymous with the Gun Question,

You are opening a HUGE can of worms, worth many a controversial post and many a hundred emotional response. Since your questions is so far off the original topic, maybe you should ask by e-mail or phone.

Just so you don't think Wade is off in left field by himself, I know of several of my colleagues in ministry and many other church members who, as responsible citizens, go about armed as a matter of daily routine, and especially when entering high-crime areas.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

Greg Cloud said...

Hi all,

One thing we need to remember in all this, and I'm talking mainly to the new unidentified Christian from Enid above, is that its not about Wade or me or anyone else...its about Christ.

I wish that whenever someone looked at me, they would see Christ shining through me...but too often that is not the case. They see me, with my own fears, desires, quirks and faults---and how I respond to them. Often my faith is weak, and the gap between what I do and what I idealize for myself is quite wide. People see this, point to it, and think less of Christ because of my weakness, or what they perceive as weakness. This causes me great grief, and is the subject of much of my prayer life.

I am not Christ. I must point to Him. If He can use me to minister to any person, despite my weakness and being slightly cracked, then that is to His greater glory. He is doing the ministering, not me. Don't look at me. Look at Him--He can fix and use you too.

Jesus cautions us not to pick at the speck in our brother's eye without first dealing with the board in our own eye. Just using this issue with Wade as an example, although I might not have carried a fire arm into such a situation, can I blame him for using his experience to decide on how he chose to equip himself in this situation? No. Even Peter carried a sword.

My experience is different from his. I, too, have been a career police officer. But the blood on my hands has dictated to me that I forego carrying a fire arm any more. However, I am willing to put on Wade's shoes and walk in them for a moment and understand where he is coming from. Therefore I do not and cannot condemn him if he actually did carry a firearm into this situation. The important thing is, he was willing to go into this situation at all, when not many were, at a great perceived personal risk. Not many folks did. Did you? To my shame, I did not.

I'm sorry, Wade, if I seemed to put words in your mouth. I hope you are not too exasperated with me. Hang in there.

It's all about what Jesus can do with us, not about us.

Blessings,

Greg

Wade Burleson said...

Dear Anonymous,

The Stat Counter to which I subscribe gives computer I.D.'s in addition to location.

It is because of people like you that I end up having to moderate comments.

Please tell the truth about your identity and your purpose.

Wade Burleson said...

Greg,

I appreciate your kind response to the question posted by Anonymous. Jeff, you did a good job as well.

You are answering a person who is lying about identity and purpose. Don't waste your time.

GuyMuse said...

I remember when I first heard that Curtis Sergeant was no longer with the IMB. Details were sketchy as to why he left the IMB for Saddleback, but I was personally sorry to see him leave. There are few people on the planet who are as passionate about unreached people groups and know HOW to do it, and know HOW to teach others to do it. Personally I have learned more from Curtis than any other single source outside of the NT. He is probably one of our sharpest minds and missions practitioner the IMB has ever had. Since most of his work and ministry were in highly confidential areas of the world, few people have probably even heard his name, but the Lord knows what kind of impact his life and ministry have had on UPGs.

All this to say I am sorry that politics was involved in his moving on to Saddleback. I now look forward to hearing some great missionary work coming out of Saddleback as I understand they are adopting the world's micro-groups.

mr. t said...

Ditto to what Guy Muse just stated. Curtis had a huge impact on our ministry as well. It is a shame what transpired, I did not know about this, but am confident that God will use him for even greater impact through Saddleback.

t. d. webb said...

Anonymous said, "I was told that during the Katrina disaster you went to provide Christian aid, but you also told your congregation during a service(very proudly from what I was told) that you wore a gun on your hip the entire time.

It is curious that "Anonymous" "bravely" chose this specific time to bring up a totally unrelated topic of hear-say. . .Could it be that such comments are motivated by a desire to distract readers from the infinitely serious issues raised in this post by someone who doesn't hide his identity? Go figure. . .

In His Grace and Peace,

Tom

Wade Burleson said...

Maiden,

I have received the pertinent documents that confirm the events as related by Curtis Sergeant, and the attempt to correct the problem was undertaken by Dr. Sergeant himself.

OKpreacher said...

It saddens me to hear that one brother would try to "dig up" dirt on another brother. We as Southern Baptists need a fresh touch from the Lord that brings revival. This touch will only come as we decide to repent of our fleshly attitudes towards God and one another. We all need to renew our commitment to the Lordship of Christ, because without His leadership we will continue to attack one another. Wade, I appreciate your blog.

Stephen Pruett said...

This story and the fact that these leaders have the audacity to do it and to keep it private among themselves and a few supporters (they thought) indicate serious flaws in our convention. The fear (or hate?) of diversity on secondary issues seems to be greater than the fear of God. However, I am sure this is not how these persons view it. It seems to me that they have convinced themselves that almost anything they do is justified because they are doing God's work to keep the SBC pure. Is there any way to persuade them otherwise? I cannot think of one, but shining a light on their actions seems a good start. Thanks Wade. On a related but admittedly self-serving subject, I would like to plug my blog at http://essentialsonly.blogspot.com. it was inspired by yours. I do not post every day, but try to post a rather detailed (long) discussion every week or so. The current topic is another one that I am concerned could become a basis for exclusion from service: the particular interpretation one assigns to Genesis 1 and 2.

Matt Snowden said...

Bob,
I agree with you. Many folks abuse the Lord's Supper, baptism, the bible, pastoral leadership, etc. We will not give up on those. We should not give up on the gifts. Thanks for sending me your testimony.

Wade Burleson said...

Stephen Pruett,

A man after my own heart.

Well said.

wade

tim rogers said...

Brother Wade,

What you have "revealed" really is not something that is new. Everyone knows you are speaking about Dr.s Patterson (President) and Eitel (Professor). This was revealed in 2003 by your friends at APB http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2003/11_5_2003/ne051103patterson.shtml.

Ben Cole was the one that Reviewed the dissertation and presented his findings, thus Ben's repentance at Memphis for his work and the resignation of Dr. Seargant.

Brother, these findings are not something that are secrets out there. It may be secretive in the ways it all happened but this was revealed back in 2003. I heard rumblings about it in 2002 and then the APB reported it in Feb. 2003.

I ask that when you have this information, not to be "smoke and mirrors" in your wording. If you have the facts and truth present it and do not drag out a suspense filled post. Name the players and state exactly what they did.

Tim

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

"I ask that when you have this information, not to be "smoke and mirrors" in your wording. If you have the facts and truth present it and do not drag out a suspense filled post. Name the players and state exactly what they did."

Tim, you have a habit (unintentionally I'm sure) of sounding a tad condescending in your comments.

Also, it is also a little presumptious for you to say I have friends at ABP. I don't know you, not to mention I have never even met you, so I am more than a little surprised that you would attempt to identify who my friends are.

I think you are making a ton of assumptions, and stating them as facts, without having any first hand knowledge.

Finally, your link to the Associated Baptist Press article is broken.

Please use HTML.

In His Grace,


wade

TruthOfActs said...

Wade,
“When An Attack Is Different from the Truth” reminds me of the book, “Glimpses of a Seminary Under Assault” by Russell Dilday.

Wade, at one time the IMB recommended you to be fired for what proved to be false reasons. How would you like the reason given to Dilday for being fired? (Page 265) “We’re the board; we don’t have to have a reason. We have the votes to do it and we will.”

Dilday wrote that a month later, the board gave 16 reasons—all blatantly false. “Another complaint raised occasionally by individual trustees was that I opposed the Patterson/Pressler takeover. I did not deny this charge, but made it clear that my opposition was not against conservative theology; which I endorsed, but against the shameful, worldly political methods the takeover group employed.” (Page 261)

Wade, I see you and Dilday declaring truth, but attacked with shameful, worldly political methods by fellow conservatives.

Jim Denison—Pastor Park Cities Baptist Church, Dallas and former Professor at Southwestern Seminary wrote: “Dilday is one of the greatest leaders this generation of Baptist has known. These lessons learned the hard way will profit all who care about the church and seek to lead her people effectively.”

Jess Fletcher—former Vice President of the SBC Foreign Mission Board wrote: “Great progress was in place when this intrigue surfaced and took him and that progress down.”

W. Randall Lolley—former President Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC wrote: “Russell’s book is a must-read for anyone who cares about what happens when a seminary is “highjacked” by an alien vision.”

Charles R. Wade—Executive Director, BGCT wrote: “Southern Baptists have lost more than they know in the manner by which the seminaries have been politicized.”

Marv Knox—Editor, the Baptist Standard wrote: “Dilday provides a touching and insightful in-the moment history of those pivotal years that forever changed the Southern Baptist Convention.”

Wade, one difference you have with Dilday is he has a book and you have a blog. Your blog of seven months has over 284,000 hits while his book of two years probably has very little.

Rex Ray

miriam plowman said...

Tim -
I guess not everyone knows. And the article mentioned doesn't reveal the light which this blog does.

http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2003/11_5_2003/ne051103patterson.shtml

Wade - I've never done the link thing before... I hope this works... but this is the article perhaps.

I knew about, from a missionary standpoint, the things mentioned in this article. Because I watched them happening on the field.

It's just altogether a disheartening thing to see this article and realize how the intent has been lived out over time and is still being so. And that it was so calculated. The loss of missionaries then was something that grieved me... the loss of mission personnel has continued and worse yet the loss of heart of many on our frontlines is a wound we will be held accountable for... as the "intent" continues to "purify" and the narrowing constrictions seek to maintain and tighen their grip.

When did Southern Baptists (or rather the right kind of Southern Baptists - which I guess I'm not one of) get the copyright to the Great Commission?

I'm praying for a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit.

Keep us posted.

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks Miriam for your post.

The article which Tim references in his post, and which you provide in HTML, IS old news.

After reading it I don't have a clue what Tim is talking about in his post.

I have no idea what the article has to do with Curtis Sergeant and the breach of ethics by removing Dr. Sergeant's dissertation, in violation of a contract, off of reistricted status.

TruthOfActs said...

Wade,
I guess you won’t print my last post as I agreed with Tim and Miriam who the mystery men were.

You corrected them by saying that was old news, but you said from the start, “…there were outside influences at work within the IMB these PAST FEW YEARS that have hindered the IMB President and staff…”

Wasn’t their three year old information a perfect example of that?

Are we just playing games of guess what I know? You say you don’t know what Tim is talking about. How can he make it clearer when he wrote: “Name the players and state exactly what they did.”

Wade, you have always been straight with us—don’t change now, please.

Rex Ray

Wade Burleson said...

Rex,

I always shoot straight.

I will not name names till I have a chance to confirm myself personally what Curtis Sergeant told me.

In other words, I am not going to name a person unless I have spoken to him personally.

However, what Curtis told me was first hand and he did use names. If he chooses to reveal the names, that is his perogative, but I won't do what you, Tim or anyone else desire until I am ready.

I don't live to please men, I seek to live by principles.

If you can't understand that, you can't understand me.

miriam plowman said...

Rex,

Actually I didn't agree who any mystery men were.. I was just curious as to the link referenced by Tim and did a quick search to find it. And it didn't seem to say or reveal exactly what I heard on this blog. It did talk about what has been ongoing... and the same spiritedness.

I know enough to pray and to trust God.. and to have some light for the targeting of those prayers... and I can do that... I guess for me I don't have to know the names to know my part in this journey.

Ephes. 6:10-13
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. [11] Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. [12] For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. [13] Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

Some of us aren't in a position to physically take a stand and some are, but all are in a position to stand spiritually. I am thankful to God for that. I am also thankful for men like Wade on the frontlines here at home who are willing to allow God to use them.

Rzrbk said...

I am not sure I follow all of the back and forth about who knows what and who has revealed what names. I have known Curtis Segeant and his parents since he was a high school student and have followed his career with the IMB closely with much pride. To accuse him of teaching heresy is ridiculous. Wade, you are right when you say there are a multitude of stories related to this.

The story of Keith Eitel’s 2003 letter to the trustees which was distributed by Paige Patterson is well known and was written about at the time in BP and ABP and many state papers. The names were mentioned. Wade this does relate to what you are sharing because Curtis’s teaching on the church were part of the attack on Jerry Rankin, MLC and the IMB in general. These two names are no secret.

Here is what Jerry Rankin had to say about it at the time. Taken from the Baptist Standard 11/24/03.
Eitel's criticisms have endangered collaborative efforts between Southeastern Seminary and the IMB, Rankin said. "It is hard to see how we can continue such a partnership when disrespect for leadership and policies is being nurtured, non-biblical subversive behavior is encouraged and blatant disregard for truth is propogated.”
Rankin also said he would write Patterson, "to seek an explanation as to why he would cast aspersion on our board relative to the conservative resurgence."

As far as I know there was no effort to hold Eitel or Patterson accountable for their actions. Perhaps Ben Cole will reveal what heretical statements he gleaned from Curtis’s dissertation. Perhaps some of the SEBTS students working for Eitel could reveal what they were reporting and if it constituted heresy.

In the Memphis Declaration the following statement was made. Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.
Would accusing Curtis of heresy be described as using careless or unchaste speech. How many declaration signers are willing to confront Patterson or Eitel?

It was also said, Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention's sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.
Can we not hold the trustees of SWBTS seminary accountable to investigate if cooperative program funds were used to pay an employee to seek information to damage the reputation of the head of another entity, the IMB. Can we hold the trustees of the IMB accountable to defend our president and missionaries from these attacks by demanding accountability of those making these attacks. Come on declaration signers. Time to act.

It is interesting that Keith Eitel wore a book titled Paradigm Wars in which he attacked Jerry Rankin’s motives for installing New Directions and at the same time praised Mike Stroope who helped institute many of these ideas into CSI and later IMB practice.

Roger Simpson said...

Wade:

My previous comments on this BLOG regarding "CPM", "New Dimensions", and "Relationships with the Seminaries" have been mostly based upon "reading the mail" on your postings and those commenting.

I was unaware of the rather significant "case history" available in the public domain regarding some of these issues.

To attempt to fill at least a small void I just ordered the book "Paradigm Wars".

I find it is pretty tough for layman to get a handle on what is going on with the IMB. I am still trying to grasp all of this in the full historical context -- say the last decade. I don't know if the IMB is on the right track or not.

I appreciate the posts of Miriam Plowman and Rzrbk since they suggest documentation which may (or may not) bear on your main issue of "narrowing of parameters".

Somehow, I sense that there is some type of convulated inter-relationship between most of the issues on the table regarding the IMB. Even if the issues are logically separable it could be that they serve as "markers" around which various camps are polarized.

I never dreamed there was so much "stuff" going on with the IMB.

I see you just implemented a gatekeeper policy that only allows registered bloggers to comment. I just signed up as a blogger so I can stay in the loop.

tim rogers said...

Brother Wade,

you say that I am condescending. I am sorry!

The term "your friends" was used because I thought you said in a comment post on another blog that a reporter with APB was a friend of yours. I could be mistaken and if I am, please forgive me.

If i have made an assumption without facts plase state them. I believe your comment to Maiden about the person responsible for "culling" the disertation is a tacit acknowledgment that you knew that person on a personal level. As a student and Alum of SEBTS everyone on campus knew that Ben Cole had a close relationship with Dr. Patterson and he was not shy or ashamed to let others know he had that type of knowledge of the inner circle workings.

The link I posted was not broken, I just am not computer savvy enough to do an active link. Maiden correctly presented the link and it links to the Biblical Recorder who ran the APB story.

Brother, please forgive me if I have offended you. The "smoke and mirrors" statement was never intended to offend, I just wanted to point out that it appears in this post that openness is not exactly what was taking place.

Brother, you are the one that has pushed for openness and then you state you have no idea what the article that refers to Dr. Eitel has to do with Dr. Sergeants dissertation. From my understanding it was Dr. Sergeants dissertation that Ben Cole "culled" and Dr. Eitel, along with other information, used to make his assessments of the IMB.

As you have stated you are in contact with Dr. Sergeant to get his permission for some items. I am glad you are using that source and am interested in seeing his response to your inquiry.

Blessings,
Tim

IN HIS NAME said...

Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Those hearing this sermon must have wondered about the religious leaders, who seemed to be good men, teaching spiritual truths about Messiah and His kingdom. Jesus made it clear they were not good for they were leading others astray. Even if they were doing supernatural deeds — prophesying in His name, driving out demons, and performing many miracles, they were not obedient to the Father, continually doing His will (Mat_7:21). They would be refused admission to the kingdom because Jesus had no personal relationship with them (Mat_7:21, Mat_7:23).

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks for the clarification Tim.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone as open as I have been.

I have a call in to the Seminary President's office. I left a message with his secretary, and at her request, left a detailed message with a question I desired to ask the President.

Rzrbk said...

This is a warning to Roger Simpson and anyone else who reads Keith Eitel's book Paradigm Wars. My mention of it was not an endorsement. I consider it an inaccurate poorly documented account of the move to New Directions at the IMB that is totally from the CSI point of view. It also discusses the history of the group that broke away from the IMB in the last century in China. Mainly I would disagree with sections on CSI under the leadership of Mike Stroope and the attempt by Eitel to read Jerry Rankin's mind on his reasons for pretty much turning the IMB strategic direction over to disciples of Mike Stroope. I am in the U.S. at this time so my copy of the book is back home but I can recall some of the general direction of the book.
I believe the book was basically a disertation for a doctorate at some school in South Africa. Keith seems to take Mike Stroope at his word for any thing he had to say critical of Jerry Rankin, Avery Willis and several generations of missionaries. I saw no evidence of any attempt to interview people with different points of view than Stroope or Eitel. For instance Faye Pearson was the Area Director for East Asia at the same time Stroope leading CSI in that region. It would have been interesting to compare her views on what Stroope and CSI were accomplishing to what Eitel was reporting based on what Stroope told him. Eitel basically praised Stroope as the most charismatic, visionary, dynamic missiologist in the world today. At the same time he was saying Jerry Rankin and Avery Willis and any one not involved with CSI was old paradigm and trying to hang on to out dated methods and strategies and just trying to protect their jobs. If he had been doing full disclosure, he would have let you know that Stroope was still hurting from having lost out on the leadership position he wanted at the IMB. As with other things Eitel has written, its goal is to attack the IMB and its leadership. Stroope, who presently teaches at the divinity school at Baylor, was a willing partner. It will probably be a while before an accurate history of New Directions is written but it will be an interesting read.
Ron West

Roger Simpson said...

Ron West:

When I get the book I'll read it through the "lens" of the of your comment.

When I was trying to grasp the "Conservative Resurgance" I got books by Shurden (spelling?) and Pressler (among many others)and this gave a view from both sides. I was able to come to conclusion on where I stood -- since on that polarizing issue I don't think sitting on the fence was/is possible. There was quite a fault line - such breaking up Texas into two pieces.

I hope we are not on the cusp of a similar result at the IMB.

Last week in Falls Creek quite a few young people committed themselves to pursue "full time" Christian service -- some of them contemplate being foreign missionaries.

Our former pastor Tom Eliff is now a "pastor to the missionaries" of the IMB.

All this stuff seems consistent with the presupposition that everything is hunky-dory at the IMB. Instead I see anecdotal evidence that there are a number of disfunctional elements. Who knows what would happen if all the energy expended by various "sides" in dealing with Richmond power plays was focused on responding to calls for help by missionaries adift overseas?

IN HIS NAME said...

Do you think Dr,Paige Patterson would approve of these Baptist???

FULLER, ANDREW (1754–1815)
William Carey (1761–1834)

Founding father of the English Baptist Missionary Society; an advocate of evangelistic Calvinism

Born in Wicken, Cambridgeshire, Fuller joined the Soham Baptist Church at the age of sixteen. Even though he had had no formal training in theology, he was called to be its minister five years later. In 1783 he became the minister of Kettering Baptist Church, where he remained until his death.

Among the Baptists of his circle there was a strong tendency toward hyper-Calvinism (the belief that there should not be any invitation to salvation in the proclamation of the gospel, since God would surely call his elect). After much careful study of both the Scriptures and such authors as Jonathan Edwards, Fuller concluded that hyper-Calvinism was a false and erroneous system. Thus in 1785 he published his The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation or the Obligation of Men Fully to Credit and Cordially to Approve Whatever God Makes Known, a book that helped to create the evangelistic and missionary spirit among British “Free” churches. Some of Fuller’s colleagues, however, did not like this, and so the terms “Fullerism” and “duty-faith” were coined to express their estimation of his evangelistic Calvinism. On the other hand, William Carey (1761–1834) was much impressed by it and, after the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society in 1792, Carey became its first missionary and Fuller its first home director.

Fuller also took a major part in the formation of the new Baptist Union in 1813. Americans recognized Fuller's contributions and gave him D.D. degrees at both Princeton and Yale. His complete works were published in 1838 and have been reprinted several times. Fuller's example and thought are a constant inspiration to Baptists today.

A Brother in CHRIST

Doc said...

Wade,

For the IMB to adopt a policy that would prevent the Apostle Paul from being sent out as a Baptist missionary is indefensible!

Because as we recall Paul said in.1 Cor.14, v.18."I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all" and in v. 5 "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues".and finally in v.39 "Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to
prophesy and do not forbid to speak in tongues."

Moreover Peter in the house of Cornelius used "hearing them speaking in tongues" Acts 10 46. as a justification to those "who were circumcised" in Jerusalem why he baptized and accepted gentiles into the church.


Later Peter then uses this Cornelius experience of hearing gentiles speak in tongues to defend Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem against a "sect of the
Pharisees" who demanded that Paul's converts obey Jewish law.

How then can we disobey the specific command of the Apostle Paul and forbid anyone to speak in tongues?

How can we not understand that the Apostle Peter and later all the Apostles accepted speaking in tongues as an authentic Christian experience?

TruthOfActs said...

Wade,
I though the link that Maiden posted (2003 Baptist News—‘Patterson airs professor’s charges of lax theological scrutiny at IMB) was interesting in making complaints against the previous administration of Keith Parks.

“Parks made clear his belief that Southern Baptists should be united around missions more than theological conformity. Parks was saying that doctrine or theology divides us but missions unites us. In contrast, leaders of the fundamentalist movement within the SBC…indicated that unless our theological convictions are solidly established squarely on an inerrant Bible, we will have no legitimate or reasonable basis for doing missions.”

Russell Dilday wrote in 1986, page 142: “We are discovering that we can be Baptist brothers and sisters without being twins. And that there is room within the parameters of Baptist faith for differences of opinions. In our churches and conventions alike we Southern Baptist have always been able to disagree agreeably, express our convictions, come to resolutions and move on to the future stronger and more unified that ever.”

Wade, do you think it is possible to return to the old way that Baptists went about doing the Lord’s work?

Rex Ray

TruthOfActs said...

Wade,
You always shoot straight but with this post your bullet fell short of the target. It’s like a murder mystery with the last chapter missing.

You wrote, “I will not name names till I have a chance to confirm myself personally what Curtis Sergeant told me.”
Why didn’t you tell us that two days ago? Why didn’t you wait till you knew personally all the facts before you wrote the post? Newspaper reporters are fired for writing hearsay. You may not have intended it, but this post drags on in suspense in learning who the mystery men are.

You can see I don’t like criticism either.

By the way, today, a doctor told my wife good news that she had a small stroke that cause brief confusion and may never happen again.

Still your friend,
Rex Ray

Dave said...

Rex,
I agree with you on this one. Thanks for your posts. As of August 1, we still have no more information about this situation that was the subject of this post.

Roger Simpson,
Don’t you or anyone else be afraid of reading Paradigm Wars. Contrary to what Mr. West writes (he is entitled to his opinion), it is not an inaccurate account of the major paradigm shift the IMB went through. It is a valid point of view that deserves understanding. It gives the CSI point of view which is not presented in other books. Thus, it was simply logical for Eitel to present a view that had not been presented before.

No one should be afraid to read about what was really going on during those difficult days of transition some ten years ago. Jerry Rankin’s view at the time was quite clear. Paradigm Wars simply balances that view. Mr. West in his criticism of the book says, ”Keith [Eitel] seems to take Mike Stroope at his word for any thing he had to say critical of Jerry Rankin, Avery Willis and several generations of missionaries” without giving opposing points of view. But Eitel’s purpose was not to present the opposing points of view as such positions had been made over and over and over. Eitel did lean heavily on information from Dr. Stroope, which is exactly what anyone who wanted to get the true picture would do. Dr. Stroope knew CSI better than anyone else. He was the Area Director for CSI (which emcompassed the entire unreached world, not just a portion in East Asia). He was the architect of the radical changes that led the IMB to start reaching the unreached. Thus, it only makes sense that Eitel would utilize his comments heavily. Readers today are largely unaware of both the magnitude and ferocity of negative comments about CSI that abounded some ten years ago. Isn’t it only logical that someone would try to at least balance the accounts being written?

The reality was that for a number of years before New Directions came into being, Jerry Rankin, Avery Willis and others, including the vast majority of IMB missionaries who were not a part of CSI, opposed, in one form or fashion, what CSI was doing. At one stateside assignment conference in Virginia, all returning missionaries were put into groups of 12-18 to discuss “the CSI problem.” There were no discussion groups about the “old mission mentality” (which was the norm up until CSI came along) and its ineffectiveness in reaching unreached peoples. No, the focus was on this new entity, CSI, that was trying something new and actually being effective in reaching out to peoples previously unreached. These discussion groups were led by Avery Willis. The truth is that not only at stateside conferences, but on the field, many CSI workers were vilified for being secretive, covert, and basically unchristian in how they do missions. These accusations were unfounded and untrue. Could it be that most missionaries and even IMB administration somehow felt threatened by Dr. Stroope and CSI? It is in this context that Paradigm Wars was written.

What has gone unsaid and unnoticed in all of this is that what is now taking place in the IMB with the so called New Directions, is the result of what Dr. Stroope and others set up years ago in CSI. You will seldom hear any one question today the “whatever it takes” mentality of the IMB to reach the unreached. Yet the “whatever it takes” attitude was a major part of CSI long before it became popular in the larger IMB. And it was CSI who was first effective in reaching the unreached and leading Southern Baptists to do this.

So instead of inappropriately characterizing Dr. Stroope as being a “willing partner” with Dr. Eitel in attacking the IMB and its leadership, perhaps Mr. West should thank Dr. Stroope for his incredible patience, his fortitude and determination, vision , leadership and his godly character, in dealing with administration, trustees, and fellow missionaries to see that things were changed! For the truth of the matter is, without the leadership of Dr. Mike Stroope, the IMB and its New Directions may very likely never have come into being. We may still have been encumbered by the old system that wasted so much energy and time on non-essentials.

One last note, Mr. West wrote that Eitel viewed Dr. Mike Stroope as “the most charismatic, visionary, dynamic missiologist in the world today.” The truth is that Dr. Stroope may, indeed, BE the most charismatic, visionary, and dynamic missiologist alive today. Without a doubt he is the best that Southern Baptists have to offer. It’s an utter shame he was no longer wanted at the Board. Perhaps Mr. West is not a missionary and may have never met Dr. Stroope, and thus would have no way to know what was really going on at the time nor of the tremendous contribution of Dr. Stroope. But one thing is sure, the IMB owes a large debt of gratitude to Mike Stroope.

So Roger, don’t be afraid to read the truth about what really happened. The truth always sets us free.

Matt said...

This and everything else that has been going on at the IMB has just inspired me to start my own mission organization that is INTERDENOMINATIONAL, church planting, and focused on the unreached and our persecuted brothers and sisters. Thanks for the inspiration, and good luck IMB, you have lost me forever.

tl said...

Dr. Mike Stroop now teaches at Truett Seminary, a part of Baylor.

It's ironic that Dr. Eitel would quote Stroop and then seek to have one whom Stroop strongly influenced fired.

Curtis Sergeant was a part of Stroop's CSI.

What Dave said about pre-New Directions and how non-CSI missionaries vilified CSI is true. I was not in CSI, but I heard comments about CSI workers from FMB missionaries (I was one/am one) that were astounding.

foxofbama said...

Wade: Strange as it may sound, similar thing happened to me in a church where votes to put me off the roll were 24-2 and then May 28 this year, off the property. Deacons are calling on me to apologize and Repent.
I see reconciliation to have more of the character of Bishop Tutu process in South Africe. Dialogue hoping for insight and reconciliation, at least an easing of tensions.
In Baptist conscience tradition, I stoked a more straight forward look in our congregation of the troubles of the last 25 years in Baptist life. I think, and I hope you will respect this, that our church if looking at its characther, history and tradition squarely, falls in line with CBF Camp. Looking at the products of the church and where their Christan and Baptist Pilgrimage has taken them; if you know the soul by its fruit, then ours is a CBF, congregation.'
But out of fear in my opinion, the pastor and his wife were complicitous in a whitewash of the discussion.
Some bulleying women--see James Ault's great chapter on the Neck that Turns The Head--took charge and put the fear of God in the Pastor, and he washed his hands of the Stephen Fox matter.
Kinda smarmy exercise all the way around.
While I think you have a lot to pilgrim out of; I see some hope in the dialogue you are scheduled to have Thursday with outsted DOM and my good friend David Flick, and my online friend and poet Tom Webb, there in Enid.
I have blogged of how remarkable an occasion this portends.
Sfox

Wade Burleson said...

Matt,

I would encourage you to reconsider. The IMB is simply now addressing a problem that needs addressing. Patience during the process is necessary, but in the end, it will be worth it all.

Rzrbk said...

Wade,
I apologize if this has gotten too far away from your original post about the attack on Curtis Sergeant. I think there are some things that still need to be said and I hope you will post this.

Roger Simpson,
I hope you are still reading this. I admire you for trying to find out for yourself what the conservative resurgence was all about. I think reading the books by Shurden and Pressler will certainly give you two viewpoints but they would both be from the opposite ends of the spectrum and might still give you a distorted view. I don’t know of a book written from a completely balanced perspective. Although it is could not be called unbiased, I would recommend you read Russell Dilday’s book on a seminary under attack to find an accurate portrayal of the methods and dishonesty of the conservative resurgence.

Dave,
I am a missionary and I served and still serve in the region of the world where Mike Stroope operated. I am not trying to be critical of CSI or most of the people who served with CSI. They served in some of the most isolated, difficult areas of the world under repressive regimes and many accomplished great things for the Kingdom of God. I have a great deal of respect for Curtis Sergeant and others who served in CSI. What bothers me is that when you want to discuss CSI with true believers such as yourself their first inclination is to do as you have done, belittle the accomplishments and motives of those who are not part of their organization. I will respond paragraph by paragraph to your post.

Keith Eitel claimed to be presenting an accurate account of the changes therefore he should have presented a balanced picture. You talk as if no one was presenting the CSI point of view before Eitel’s book. Have you ever read any of Garrison’s books on CPM that the IMB has been printing and selling or giving away for years to anyone who will take one? Is that not the CSI point of view? Mike Stroope was not the architect of the radical changes that led the IMB to start reaching the unreached. First of all, we have been reaching the unreached throughout our history. That did not begin with CSI. Keith Parks was the architect of this movement and Lewis Meyers, Jim Slack and others got it started. Mike Stroope came in and capitalized on what they began. You need to understand also that this was part of a wave that included many not under the SBC or IMB umbrella. There were factors at work that had nothing to do with CSI or Mike Stroope.

As far as the ferocity and magnitude of the negative comments about CSI, most of the fighting was taking place inside CSI. We were excited when we first heard of the plans for CSI. With the Berlin Wall coming down and China opening up it was the right time to develop strategies to get into these hard to reach places. When we first begin meeting CSI people, we were surprised to find that they had already been brain washed into thinking that if they had any contact with missionaries from established works that they would somehow be infected with an old paradigm disease and therefore wanted nothing to do with us. I am told that Stroope was one that promoted this attitude. That attitude did not promote unity in the FMB. Some of the more mature people figured out after a while that this was baloney and established friendship and relationships outside CSI.
Do you really think nothing CSI did was worthy of criticism or correction? Was there absolutely nothing they could learn by listening to others? That seems to be what you are saying. You talk about the old missionary mentality that was ineffective in reaching unreached peoples and then say CSI was trying something new and actually being effective in reaching out to unreached people. I served with many of those that you would describe as having the old missionary mentality and also work with many that were with CSI and still are using the CSI methods. There is always a need to find new strategies and methods for different times and different places but I have seen no evidence that CSI’s methods are more effective than those previously used. Most of the CSI people I observe are building relationships and sharing the gospel the way we have always done. We have all been successful at times and failed at times. I have never heard the story about the discussion groups at MLC about what is the matter with CSI. I wonder if you were actually there and if that is exactly as you tell it. I imagine the discussion was about how we could break down the misunderstandings that existed between CSI and their colleagues who were not in CSI.

The what ever it takes mentality did not belong to CSI. It was active in the mission force before CSI existed and was just as active outside of CSI as it was inside. I have had friends who lost their lives serving in difficult areas and were never part of CSI. Do you think they did not have a what ever it takes mentality?

I am sure Dr. Stroope is a good person and has a charismatic personality. As far as being the best Southern Baptists have to offer, that is questionable. I think we have many missiologists at the IMB and even in CSI that are as visionary and dynamic as him. Many have often felt if CSI under his leadership had spent as much time and effort in fighting the devil that they did in fighting among themselves and fighting other missionaries they could have accomplished much more. I have noticed before that some of his supporters such as yourself have an almost cult like devotion to him in their praise. I am curious as to where that comes from. Perhaps you could share how you became so knowledgeable about CSI and about those of us who were not part of CSI.

Wade Burleson said...

The Seminary President who removed Dr. Curtis Sergeant's dissertation from "restricted" status was Dr. Paige Patterson. I refused to reveal his name till I contacted him personally to discuss this issue. The Missions Professor was Dr. Keith Eitel, Dr. Patterson's missions professor at Southeastern. The "restricted" dissertation in question was at Southwestern Seminary, and was not removed from restricted status until after Dr. Patterson became the President of Southwestern.

Transcript of Phone Conversation with Dr. Curtis Sergeant, July 26, 2006, Missions Pastor, Saddleback Community Church

Wade: Were you aware that your dissertation had been taken and picked apart?

Curtis: Yeah

Wade: How were you made aware of that?

Curtis: Well, first of all they said they were going to do it several times. Then I kept getting complaints on how they were having trouble getting access to it. I had it on restriction so that they had to get approval from one or two or three different people to view it. It contains some particularly sensitive information that could be damaging to current field work in _______, especially, as well as a couple of other countries if it got into the wrong hands.

Wade: Right

Curtis: But, you know, it was for that purpose that we put it on restriction; and they kept saying we put it on restriction to keep people from finding out how heretical I was and all this. They threatened that they were going to get it off restriction, and actually they did so after Paige, by Presidential decree, took it off, which again is unethical, because I had signed an agreement to keep it restricted. But I did what I could, so the way I look at it is the blodd's on their hands if something serious happens in the field.

Wade: Would you be willing to make public that your dissertation was taken off restriction?

Curtis: They didn't even notify me when they took it out from under restriction.

Wade: Wow.

Curtis: I found out through a third party.

Wade: Would you be willing at some point for that to be made public?

Curtis: Sure.

Email Response from Dr. Paige Patterson

Brother Burleson, I have spent most of my life in the academic world and am unfamiliar with any such contracts. I know of none here. When I arrived, there were a few dissertations which I was told were restricted. All restrictions on dissertations were removed in keeping with standard academic practice. The making of copies of dissertations is not a matter that is the purview of the student. I am sure copies have been made of Dr. Sargeant’s dissertation just as there have been of mine. I have one. Beyond that I am unaware of how many have been produced or by whom if such exist.


All of my questions, as I am sure yours, have not been answered, but my point in posting this post, as well as this comment is specific:

When a person makes a charge of "breach of confidentiality" he better be specific.

I am of the opinion that the IMB Board of Trustees and her administration and staff should be free from outside pressure and influence, whether it come from other agency heads or other agency employees.

The attempt to influence, manipulate and coordinate trustees of the International Mission Board to root out "heresy" within the ranks of the IMB has created the problem that we face as a Board today.

I will do everything within my power to see that conservative, evangelical Southern Baptists, who hold to the authority of God's Word and subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message, may be able to serve as missionaries and staff for the IMB without fear of reprisal or accusations of "heresy" for their personal interpretations of the sacred text that happen to be different from any self-appointed denominational watch dog.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Roger Simpson said...

Rzrback:

I saw your comment and I am still hanging around on this thread.

Wade:

It is good that you have chapter and verse with direct information from those involved with the disclosure of the dissertation.
This in much better than hearsay evidence.

Jeff Richard Young said...

Dear Brother Wade,

Thank you for giving names and quotes. That is very helpful.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

IN HIS NAME said...

WADE said
The Seminary President who removed Dr. Curtis Sergeant's dissertation from "restricted" status was Dr. Paige Patterson. I refused to reveal his name till I contacted him personally to discuss this issue. The Missions Professor was Dr. Keith Eitel, Dr. Patterson's missions professor at Southeastern. The "restricted" dissertation in question was at Southwestern Seminary, and was not removed from restricted status until after Dr. Patterson became the President of Southwestern.

WADE did you ask WHY HE (Dr Page Patterson) didn't contact Dr.Curtis Sergeant prior to removing the resticted status on his dissertation.

A Brother in CHRIST

Wade Burleson said...

He said that he did not believe in "restricted" dissertations in the academic world, was aware of no contract to keep it confidential, and followed what he believed to be protocol in removing all dissertations from 'restricted' status.

I did not ask why he did not inform Dr. Sergeant

TruthOfActs said...

Wade,
An email had this, “God determines who walks into your life....it's up to you to decide who you let walk away, who you let stay, and who you refuse to let go."

Once you told me that you were not like me. I replied as Paul told Agrippa “Would to God that…you…become the same as I am, except for these chains”; I hope you become like me except for these chains of slander and rejection.

On your post of July 27, you made a comment, “I have learned in this process to realize there are two sides to every story.” You also wrote, “I am beginning to understand how those in the BGCT and BGAV very possibly MAY have been slandered in the PAST. The problem is, I just don’t know since I have not been involved.”

How involved do you have to be before you are involved? Did you not hear the slander at the SBC this year about moderates, them being slandered on your July 5 post, or read any books on the subject?

You have just called the main leader of the SBC takeover (Paige Patterson) a “self appointed denominational watch dog.”
Patterson asked my missionary cousin in an accusing tone, “Do you use King James in preaching?” Patterson calmed down when my cousin said he used the Korean Bible.

Patterson’s email to you was a brush-off with his, “all restrictions on dissertations were removed in keeping with standard academic practice.”
He did not admit to breaking rules that could endanger the lives of missionaries. He put the blame on “standard academic practice.”
Patterson practices ‘the ends justify the means.’ His goal was to root out anyone he suspicion of believing different from him and it was no bother to him if others were hurt by him breaking rules.

A student at SWBTS told me he liked two professors until one pointed pointed the other out at a gathering and said, “There is one of those we’re trying to get rid of.”
One reason Hemphill was replaced by Patterson was because Hemphill was too nice a Christian to be a ‘hatchet man’ in removing unwanted professors.
Patterson told them if they resigned they would get a good recommendation and if they refused they would be fired with a bad recommendation. That method was against the rules, but that was Patterson’s specialty.

Likewise, it seemed to be left up to Patterson when a committee from the SBC Executive Board was to report back to the Board giving reasons for leaving the Baptist World Alliance. Patterson’s slander of the BWA backfired when the records proved him wrong. Patterson has never given a reason why he wrote the untruths.
Before taking the vote at the 2004 SBC to leave the BWA, Patterson was the last speaker. He added new charges that the BWA was friendly to homosexuals.
The BWA was railroaded without being allowed to defend itself at its own trial.

The only thing that I have been PERSONALLY involved was I asked Patterson if the Criswell Study Bible explained all the so-called errors or only some of them. He answered in a loud voice that all could hear, “We got all of them.” When I asked about the girl being dead in Matthew and alive in Mark and Luke, he explained in a voice that only I could hear, “We got all we could.” (Wonder if he had anything to do with the Holman Bible having the girl alive in Matthew?)

Wade, will you examine your own words for slander and rejection? You wrote: “I will do everything within my power to see that CONSERVATIVE, EVANGELICAL Southern Baptist, who HOLD TO THE AUTHORITY of God’s Word and SUBSCRIBE TO THE BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE…”

Are you omitting Southern Baptists who are so-called moderate and not so-called conservative?
Are you saying some Southern Baptists are not evangelical?
Are saying some Southern Baptists do not hold to the authority of God’s Word?
Are you saying Southern Baptists who embrace the BFM 1963, but not the BFM 2000 are excluded?

Wade, I’m not leaving because I “refuse to let go.”

Rex Ray

Clay Giddens said...

Wade,
I understand the pain and anguish you have gone through over this whole mess. I have some candid questions, however.

What about the countless others who have been unfairly crushed by these SBC tactics? Is there no retribution for them or perhaps vindication that they might have been misquoted or misrepresented?

I have viewed it all from start to finish (or to the present). The "feeding frenzy" doesn't end when the perceived prey is gone. The predators turn on their own because in the end the intent was divisiveness and not brotherhood and being inclusive.

Keep the faith, but remember those who were martyred before you!

Wade Burleson said...

Clay,

I will remember. I am a better person because of my experience, and I am learning every day.

Wade Burleson said...

Rex,

I have always believed that Christian people can cooperate together in missions.

I believe that you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Right?

I also believe that your struggle with the BFM 2000 is that it goes way beyond the essentials and adds nonessentials as a test of fellowship. Right?

All I can say is I am doing what I can to unite us.

I would hope Rex that both "sides" could come to the place where grace, kindness and truth would be characteristic of our persons and fellowship.

I will do my part to see this happens

Ed Pruitt said...

Wade,

Are you not breaking confidentiality by advertising Curtis’s dissertation on your site??? If you are truly concerned about security, then why tell the world about a sensitive document. Perhaps, Dr. Hatley is right about you???

HEP

Ed Pruitt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Philip said...

Ed, there are key differences here.

1. The information Wade has revealed has been with the permission of Curtis.

2. Wade did not reveal the contents of the dissertation, only the existence of it.

By the way, multiple question marks aren't really effective. One is plenty to get your point across!!!

sbc pastor said...

Wade,

It appears that by sharing on your blog (which is viewed by hundreds or perhaps thousands every day) about the existence of a dissertation that contains highly sensitive information that you may have unintentionally jeopardized the safety of some IMB missionaries. Although this information may not have been gleaned from Trustee Forums, it still could place some missionaries in harm’s way. Perhaps this is what former Chairman Tom Hatley was afraid would happen.

Let us fervently pray for the safety of our missionaries and that all of our trustees will be far more careful with the extremely sensitive information that they are entrusted with – from any and all sources. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Philip said...

Well, I'd say the new talking points went out. The strategy is to turn it around and make it about Wade, while ignoring the troubling issues he brought up.

Wait...I guess it's not a new strategy at all.

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

sbc pastor,
YOU REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM OR IS IT WACCO.

TruthOfActs said...

Wade,
Thanks for saying you believed Christian people can cooperate together in missions. That in a way is saying Christians don’t have to be out of the same cookie cutter in doctrinal beliefs on nonessentials which some of our leaders insist.

You didn’t answer any of my questions but said “I believed that you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Right?”

I know that Jesus answered trick questions with a question, but to be fair I don’t believe my questions were trick questions, but were questions to help you see that your words revealed the same slanted view of the ‘conservative resurgence.’

Your question was a round about way of asking me if I believed the Bible was the Word of God. Yes, I believe the Bible is the Word of God, but what has that got to do with my questions? You are like the woman at the well on changing the subject.

I believe that you and I both agree there are nonessentials in the BFM 2000 that go beyond the essentials and should be removed.

You say you hope both ‘sides’ could come to the place where grace, kindness and truth would be characteristic of our persons and fellowship.
One ‘side’ has been practicing that all along. For example, when Dilday was fired, the faculty told him they were ready to strike, demonstrate, shut the school down, or resign and start a new school. Dilday told them their first concern was the students and to continue teaching.
From 1,000 to 2,000 students gathered on his lawn and asked should they strike, walk out of the classrooms, march on the administration building, boycott the school etc. Dilday told them the work of the kingdom was bigger than any of us and to continue their studies and led them in singing, “Open our eyes, Lord: we want to see Jesus.”

Why was Dilday fired? In his own words: “I had vigorously opposed the fundamentalist takeover and domination of the SBC. I was therefore—even though a theological conservative—on the “wrong” side of the denominational controversy.”

In conclusion, the ‘conservative resurgence’ was a smoke screen for a political takeover of the SBC by decreeing the need of overthrowing ‘rebels’ (non-existent) and return the convention back to the Bible. (Scare tactics) This power has produced the replacing of Dilday with what we have now—and I quote: “self appointed denominational watch dog.”

Rex Ray
PS
Wade, on this post, you have presented a case of sin or wrong doing. You have presented all the evidence needed to convict a person if it were a murder trial. You even have his confession. But now, ed pruitt has added you to the crime and suggested that Hatley was right about you. SBC pastor also agreed.
They do have a point about publicity, but to take that and conclude that Hatley is correct takes too much imagination—about like the ‘conservative resurgence’ seeing liberals on every corner.

IMFletch said...

Wade,

thanks for setting the record straight on this. I had seen a little of this from the outside, but wasn't quite sure what happened.

As an IMB m. from our great state, I'm concerned with the direction of state involvement in foreign missions. Our partnership missions coordinator and several other leaders are pointing churches to be involved in missions through a for profit tourism agency, instead of through the IMB. The evidence of this is in last weeks Baptist Messenger. This has been very discouraging for me as I've spent time talking to churches here this summer.

Chad

Ed Pruitt said...

Rex Ray,

The reason I said that perhaps Tom Hatley was right about Wade is that if Tom was concerned about Wade’s loosed lips or fingers in this case, then guess what, Wade has now made it public about Curtis’ dissertation. Now there may be a real breach of security. I do not care about Curtis’ stance on woman pastors. I do not care if he is a liberal or not. I do care about the IMB personnel in secure areas.

Maybe Wade should resign the as trustee? Maybe then the board can get on to winning the world for Jesus! That is the concern on my heart.

HEP

Roger Simpson said...

Ed Pruitt:

No one on this BLOG has divulged any of the information inside the dissertation. You are incorrect to say that Wade has disclosed any information in the dissertation.

The permission to allow copies of the dissertation to be made was given by the seminary. Wade had nothing to do with permitting the copies to be made.

The country where the missionary work is going on as described in the dissertation has NOT been disclosed anywhere in this BLOG.

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

ed pruitt and spc pastor are looking and hoping to get a promotion by the present leaders of the SBC.

Ed Pruitt said...

Dear SBC is Baptist,

As to your comment concerning me wanting a promotion, you have no idea. You see, I am beginning to make plans for retirement. I plan to continue my life as it is for another 9 to 12 years and then retire to Thailand. I enjoy my life just as it is, and do not desire a promotion from the current powers that be nor the future powers either.

My concern is that this bickering has gone on long enough. How far will Wade go to discredit those he opposes? In the beginning I believed that Wade was sincere, but now it seems like a vendetta or maybe he has something to prove. I don’t know, but something needs to change.

And as for Curtis’s dissertation, just bringing his name and confidentiality into this dogfight does jeopardize his past work with the company. While Wade did not actually post the dissertation data, he brought attention to him. Anyone can type in his name and a couple of key words and pull up not only the country and city, but also people associated with him. Wade should have never done that! Wade has posted things that should not be posted. All I am saying is maybe Tom Hatley was right about him.

HEP

Ps. And by the way, I do not even know Tom Hatley, nor have I ever even met him. So don’t go there. One last thing, why don’t you post under your real name?

TruthOfActs said...

Ed Pruitt,
You said, “I do care about the IMB personnel in secure areas.”
Oh, really? What have you done to prevent their identity being revealed?
Have you called Patterson to put the dissertation back on restriction? What about an email to him? At least your next comment on Wade’s blog could plead for Patterson to fix what he messed up—that is, if you really care?

But you won’t because you don’t want to step on the toes of the hero of the conservative resurgence. You want to stay in their good graces by saying Wade has ‘loose lips’ and suggesting he resign so the IMB Board can get on to winning the world for Jesus? That phrase has been used so often to support a weak statement, it’s old hat.
Your saying, “That is the concern on my heart” might touch me if I could stop laughing.

Wade is wearing his heart out trying to improve the Board by getting off non-essentials and getting on with the Lord’s work, and here you are blaming him. RIDICULOUS

You say, “This bickering has gone on long enough.” What you call “bickering” is really RIGHT and WRONG. That’s been going on since Adam and Eve because the devil never rest in getting good people to fight each other.

You asked “How far will Wade go to discredit those he opposes?” What you should ask is; “How far will Wade tell the truth on those beating him with a baseball bat?”

You said, “I do not care if he [Curtis] is a liberal or not.” Can you see your slander in your statement? Maybe you see it clearer if I said, “I don’t care if Pruitt beats his wife or not.” I did not say you beat your wife but now, can you see the implication you made about Curtis?

You are correct in saying something needs to change. Maybe it could start with us; I’ll try to drop the sarcasm if you try dropping the slander.

Rex Ray

SBC IS BAPTIST said...

REX,
I agree with you on those attacking Wade. All I see is PRIDE PRIDE of the Leaders and their disciples. You can see them patting each other on their back on the various Blogs.

A Brother in CHRIST

Ed Pruitt said...

Rex,

Forgive me if I slandered anyone. That was not my intention. I thought Wade had mentioned it as to why Dr. Patterson released the dissertation. Below is a quote from Wade, which is in the above article.

“That dissertation was obtained by the Seminary President's direct order, against the wishes of Dr. Sergeant, but more importantly CONTRARY TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, and copies were made and distributed in order for people to find "charismatic and ecclesiological heresy."

Pardon me, but I misinterpreted that for liberalism. Now that I interpret Wade correctly, I will rephrase my statement.

I do not care if Curtis is a Charismatic or an ecclesiological heretic or not (no implication implied). I care about those on the field in secure areas, and Wade has put them at risk. I would like to see US, the SBC get on with soul winning.

And as to your request for me to partition Dr. Patterson to restrict Curtis’s dissertation. I will do no such thing because I feel certain that he is a godly man with years of wisdom, and he will do what is right in the sight of God.
And no, I am not his disciple, however, I do hold him in high esteem and with great respect, as should you.

In conclusion, perhaps I should not even spend my time dialoguing in such matters. The only reason I posted in the first place was that I hoped there might be someone out there who was concerned with bringing resolution to this year long Wade issue. If the trustees concern was over Wade’s blog, then I feel that maybe they have a good reason to be concerned.

If I have offended you my dear brother, I am genuinely sorry. I leave this for you and Wade’s followers to sort out as I is obvious you are interested in my input.


Blessings,

HEP

Ed Pruitt said...

Correction:

Sorry for the mispelling:

"It is obvious you are not interested in my input."

HEP

Philip said...

Dear friends,

It is with a heavy heart that I have to report a tragic occurance. A hijacking has taken place, and I feel I can be silent no longer. The victim was an innocent party, but it has no standard defense measures in place, except society. That victim is language. Allow me to explain.

In one of the preceding comments, somebody interpreted "charismatic" to mean "liberal". That greatly disturbs me. It disturbs me because what they understand by "charismatic" is most likely tongues, but most certainly includes some other "fleshly" gifts of the spirit, gifts that Jesus Christ, God Himself, gave us through the Holy Spirit, also God Himself.

Now I understand Christian brothers and sisters can disagree on whether or not tongues should be spoken in public or not, but we cannot weaken our language. We are the ones who must defend its proper use, so I'm standing up for it now. I will not allow the use of the word "liberal" to be applied to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who practice a style of worship that the Bible clearly endorses. If you want to say that the gifts went away after the apostles, go ahead. But acknowledge that it's your own conclusion using extra-Biblical context and reasoning. And do not call those who believe differently "liberals", the lowest of all insults a proper Baptist can throw.

I grew up in the Methodist church. I can show you liberals.
A liberal denies the deity of Christ.
A liberal denies the Virgin Birth.
A liberal denies the ressurection of Christ.
A liberal condones homosexuality, in the church and in the pulpit.
A liberal denies the gifts of the Spirit.
A liberal denies the totality of scripture.

A charismatic is not a liberal. Are there liberals who are charismatic? I suppose maybe, but not many.

I've been watching these political discussions for several months now, and I've concluded the SBC needs a healthy dose of perspective. There are some genuine enemies out there that we need to be vigilant against. Charismatics are not one of them. And neither are those who interpret "oinos" differently than you.

Let's keep our language pure. It's not helpful or intellectually honest to dillute it.

Ed Pruitt said...

A point of clarification:

Philip,

I was not referring to Charismatics as liberals. I misinterpreted the phrase, “ecclesiological heresy” as liberals. I have a dear pastor friend that I graduated with who speaks in tongues. I do not speak in tongues, but I love him dearly and he is a dear brother, and he is no liberal. Sorry for the confusion.

HEP

TruthOfActs said...

Ed Pruitt,
Your reading is like some who take one verse of the Bible and go astray because they don’t read all the verses that pertain to the subject.

You failed to remember that Wade had already stated that Curtis was proven innocent of being a heretic with the video tape sessions.
You quoted Wade correctly: “…copies were made and distributed in order for people to find charismatic and ecclesiological heresy.”
Wade should have written: “…copies were made and distributed in order for people to [TRY] to find charismatic and ecclesiological heresy.”

In your blind faith in Patterson, you sound like his wife when she said, “I will obey him even when he’s wrong.”
You say with his wisdom, Patterson will do what is right in the sight of God. Are you saying he never makes a mistake? Even Jesus made a mistake of believing his Father would not forsake him on the cross.

Look at the facts:
1. Curtis’ dissertation was restricted to protect certain missionaries.
2. Patterson lifted restriction trying but failing to find evidence to prove Curtis a heretic.
3. Burleson receives email from Patterson admitting the restriction was removed.
4. Pruitt blames Burleson and not Patterson for endangering missionaries.
5. Pruitt suggest Burleson resign but says Patterson will do what is right in the eyes of God.
6. Pruitt refuses to ask Patterson to put restrictions back on the dissertation.

Pruitt, at present, who has the power to keep these missionaries identity safe; Burleson or Patterson?
Is your concern of hurting Patterson’s ego more than your concern for missionaries?

You are wrong in me not being interested in your input because it reveals the slanted thinking that has fooled most Baptists far too long.

Rex Ray

Philip said...

Thanks Ed,

I should have clarified that with you before I went on my rant. My wider points still stand, just not against you apparently.

Ed Pruitt said...

Rex,

Do you honestly believe that Jesus made a mistake? You stated “Even Jesus made a mistake of believing his Father would not forsake him on the cross.”

If you believe that it is even possible for Jesus to be mistaken on any issue, my dear brother, we have bigger problems than the Wade/Curtis issue. If Jesus was mistaken as per your claim, perhaps he was mistaken concerning your salvation also. You had better hope he was not mistaken. As for me, I am certain that He is God and thereby not mistaken or surprised on any issue. In fact, He even knows how this will all pan out.

And as to Dr. Patterson, I do not have blind faith in him, but I do believe that he tries to pattern his life by scriptural teachings, and by doing so he will do what honors God. I do not know Dr. Patterson very well, but I will say this. I have never known him to do anything that would harm the cause of Christ. He is a man who bears the scars of standing for truth and righteousness, and is worthy of our respect. Remember the Bible teaches that we are to not dishonor those whom God as anointed, and clearly Dr. Patterson is one of those. If you believe he is wrong on this issue, take it to Jesus. He is quite capable of handling it.

In fact, that is such good advice that I will do the same concerning Wade and is resignation.

May Jesus be honored in all of our lives.

HEP

TruthOfActs said...

Ed Pruitt,
I see you have not comprehended what Jesus asked on the Cross. Was it a fake question or a real question when Jesus asked his Father, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
I believe it was a real, sincere question.

Several times Jesus answered questions by saying only his Father knows. God withheld from his Son the worst part of the Cross and that was him being separated from his Father.

The song, “Jesus died alone for you and for me” is based on truth.

Jesus proved he did not know his Father would leave him by Jesus telling his disciples they would all leave him alone (at the Cross) in John 16:32, “Yet I will not be alone for the Father is with me.”
Maybe “mistaken” is the wrong word. Jesus did not make a mistake, but he did speak not knowing the truth. So what do you call that?

Ed, we serve a wonderful Savior—it’s a shame if we are arguing but I wish we could call it a discussion with both of us learning.

I am still appalled at your lack of knowledge of the deeds of Patterson. Why do you think Chapman pointed his finger and said Patterson was the one that wrote the report (for leaving the BWA) to the SBC Executive Board? I’ll tell you why. Even though Chapman was the committee chairman and should be responsible for the report, he didn’t want to be connected to the report since it was later proven untrue.
You are defending a guy that told a gun club, the greatest need in America was for every boy to have a dad, a dog, and a gun. (I guess Jesus got thrown out the window?)

YOU WANT BURLESON TO RESIGN? THAT’S KILLING THE MESSENGER!

Rex Ray

Dave said...

Ed Pruitt,

You yourself stated that you don't know Paige Patterson very well. That's obvious by your statements about him.

As this post was trying to make clear, Paige Patterson went against commonly accepted norms and released Dr. Curtis Sargeant's dissertation against Sargeant's wishes simply to try and prove Curtis guilty of "heresy." Of course, Patterson failed. Yet it's a game he's been playing all his life. We're tired of it. The vast majority of us appreciate greatly Wade Burleson's actions in trying to expose and thus bring to an end such ungodly actions by supposed leaders in our convention.

Rex,
I, too, find it hard to swallow Patterson's comments on every boy ought to have a dad, a big dog and a gun. I don't have a problem with the dad and dog part, it's the gun part that's troubling. And this man is the President our one of our seminaries? Wonder if he packs heat when he goes to chapel? During trustee meetings? Or heaven forbid, was he loaded and ready to shoot at Greensboro? Patterson's rhetoric is sick. It's time he goes!

Out of the fight said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Out of the fight said...

I am not an advocate for Dr. Patterson, but his comment has been tainted to represent something he did not mean.

Quoting statements like this without context is irresponsible. We could easily develop a faulty perception of Wade if we believed innuendoes such as this one that are readily available about him anywhere you look.

The Story Reads,

Little boys, he said, need three things--a dog, a gun and a dad.

"Every little boy needs a dog," Patterson said, "and not a little yip dog, but a big dog that he can be proud of."

By learning to care for the dog and providing its food, grooming and veterinary needs, Patterson said, the boy will learn responsibility.

Similarly, the boy will learn responsibility and respect for the safety of others if he has a gun.

"Get him a gun," Patterson urged. "Not a play gun, but a real gun. Play guns are the most dangerous guns in the world."

He recalled that when he was teaching his son how to shoot his first rifle, he took him out on a West Texas ranch at dusk. "I put a can up on the fence, and he aimed. When he pulled that trigger, fire flew from the end of that gun and lit up the place, and he thought he'd been kicked by a mule."

The event reinforced in his son the danger of using guns irresponsibly, he explained.

Patterson also said that every boy needs a father, for without a father there "is no image in the house they can relate to. He needs a daddy who doesn't just bring home the bacon, but who develops a relationship with him."

A son follows after his father, no matter the kind of person the father may be, Patterson said. "No little boy needs a daddy or granddaddy who will take him to hell. He's going where you're going. ... When you go to hell, look back over your shoulder; he'll follow you there."

Patterson asked the men to prepare for the future. By coming to faith in Christ, he said, God would make each one a "real man" and guarantee him eternal life; then, their sons would follow their example.

The same theme was presented again at a second sportsman's banquet at First Baptist Church of Little Rock the following evening. More than 600 men and boys attended the church's second annual outreach.

The church's pastor is Patterson's son-in-law, Mark Howell.

Twenty-seven men made decisions for Christ at the Lavaca banquet. Another 36 made decisions at the Little Rock banquet.

Dave said...

Out of the fight,

I can see Jesus telling his disciples, Hey guys, you need a dad, a dog and a gun. Right?

How on earth can he justify the gun statement? No way. Perhaps you miss the point, Rifleman, which is Why is a Christian leader teaching that kids should even learn to use guns? Get it?! Of ALL the other positive things he could've taught, why GUNS? And I bet ole Paige is packing heat as we speak.

TruthOfActs said...

To Out of the Fight,
You make a very valid point of quoting only a portion of what someone says. On August 6, I gave Ed Pruitt a lecture on the same subject.
I believe I read the whole story (the number saved etc) when Patterson’s talk to the gun club came out. I emailed it to my daughter-in-law who lives in the city, to criticize Patterson but she thought I was bragging on him. In anger, she emailed back, “Yes, I’ll have to get my boys to the farm before they start wearing petticoats.”

I haven’t been able to locate the article about Patterson’s talk. Could you tell me where to find it? You seem to quote what he said, but I don’t remember it the way you wrote because you don’t quote him saying what really upset me. As I remember the article, Patterson said, “The GREATEST NEED in American was for every boy [NOT LITTLE BOY] to have a dad, a dog, and a gun.”

Your saying “little boy” makes it worse than ever. “Little boys” are not to play with sharp scissors, matches, and other things; much less a gun.

You don’t have to have a lot of smarts to figure out why Patterson said every boy needed a gun—he was talking to a gun club. He didn’t mind bending the truth to make a hit with them so he could win them to Christ. With Patterson, the end justifies the means.
Heaven help the Baptists if he ever talks to a group of ladies of the night. That’s not nice but I’m just trying to make a point.

Rex Ray

Out of the fight said...

I did not miss the point. He was speaking to a group of hunters at a Wild Game Dinner in a church. It was not a "Gun Club"! I could understand your reservations if he was at a gang bangers convention promoting that every boy learn how to hold a glock sideways or how to properly clean your nine millimeter. I was taught from my father at about eight years old respect for a gun and how to hunt safely, better to learn from your father than never at all. Also what was the rifleman reference for? Your references to ole' Paige packing heat is somewhat disrespectful and something you probably would not say to his face no matter how much you disagree with him. And remember I disagree with him on a lot of things and I am certainly no advocate for his behavior. But this is a little ridiculous. I anxiously await your complete and total acceptance of my viewpoint. (Tongue firmly planted in cheek)

Truth of Acts

I simply cut and pasted a portion of the article from the Baptist Standard. No of the words concerning the news story were my own. Here is the link http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=765

TruthOfActs said...

To Out of the Fight,
See how easy it is when you address who you are talking to?
But your last comment—you just start talking. My last statement was, “I’m just trying to make a point” and your first words were, “I did not miss the point.”
Then you say, “It was not a “Gun Club.” (Those were my words and my mistake.)

I looked down and saw “Truth of Acts” and wondered why you put me down there. Then you ask, “What was the rifleman reference for?” That threw me for a loop and when you chastised for saying Page was packing heat—I knew you had me mixed up with Dave. (After research, I find you were talking to Dave who had said, “Perhaps you miss the point.”)

I hope Dave got this faster than I did. Now that I have that off my chest, I’ll say thanks for the link to Patterson’s speech.
After reading his speech again, I do not agree with your original statement that I had tainted his comment to represent something he did not mean. You said, “Quoting statements like this without context is irresponsible.”
Would you tell what Patterson meant if he did not mean what he said?: “The number 1 problem in America today is a war against boys and the establishment of laws to prevent men from hunting and owning guns. Little boys, he said, need three things—a dog, a gun, and a dad.”

You could expect his words from a non-Christian, but from a president of a seminary who is suppose to inspire students to spread the Gospel, how can he proclaim the number 1 problem is not lifting up Jesus but for little boys to have real guns. How do you think his students felt? No wonder Southwestern is not near the school when Dilday was its president.
Rex Ray

Out of the fight said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TruthOfActs said...

Out of the Fight,
Good job on the greeting identification. We now agree on all the facts of Patterson’s speech. We still differ on its conclusion.

You said you would “probably not” say what Patterson said was “Americas #1 problem.”
Would you mind telling why not?
I’ll tell you why I wouldn’t have said it; because it’s not the truth.

I agree with you that Patterson does not believe “Americas #1 problem is what he said it was. But that makes him a liar. Do you agree to that?
See, you’re getting him in more trouble than I had him in when this conversation started. Are you sure you want to keep arguing that my accusation of him was out of context?
Rex Ray

TruthOfActs said...

Out of the Fight,
Hey! I spend time replying to your comment and when I post it, yours is gone. What happened?
This is funny. Did you take my advice before I gave it to you?
Rex

jgsy3kids said...

Paige Patterson wrote:
"Brother Burleson, I have spent most of my life in the academic world and am unfamiliar with any such contracts. I know of none here. When I arrived, there were a few dissertations which I was told were restricted. All restrictions on dissertations were removed in keeping with standard academic practice. The making of copies of dissertations is not a matter that is the purview of the student. I am sure copies have been made of Dr. Sargeant’s dissertation just as there have been of mine. I have one. Beyond that I am unaware of how many have been produced or by whom if such exist."


I've pondered on this for a few days and on Dr. Patterson's email response.

I guess the question that keeps coming to mind is "How many dissertations were removed from restricted status?" Patterson says "a few" were on restricted status, but what was the actual number? I think this could be telling.....

And at the very least, all those who had dissertations on restriction should have been notified.

He says he was "told" that there were several disserations on restriction...is this because he asked to see one he couldn't? Was this something that was freely told to him without him asking this question?

Also, "being unfamiliar" with this type of contract that Curtis had with SWBTS doesn't mean they don't or didn't exist. Nor does it excuse breaking the agreement.

Frankly, Dr. Patterson's response leaves me with a whole lot more questions than it answers.

Any way to find out how many disserations were held under lock and key prior to PP's edict?

jenni

TruthOfActs said...

Jgsy 3 Kids,
Good point! Looking at Patterson’s email—how much ‘untruth’ can be found?
“Brother Burleson, I have spent most of my life in the academic world [true] and am unfamiliar with any such contracts.”
[“am unfamiliar” gives the impression that at present he knows of no restrictions. To be true he should have said, ‘…WAS unfamiliar with any such contracts.’ So this statement is FALSE as shown by his next sentence.]
“When I arrived, there were a few dissertations which I was told were restricted.”
[It’s like you said, Jgsy, he probably asked specifically to see Sergeant’s dissertation to try to find proof that he was a heretic.]
“All restrictions were removed in keeping with standard academic practice.”
[This is not the truth because the truth was omitted of ‘who removed the restrictions and removing the restrictions WAS NOT standard academic practice. If he had written the truth, he would have said: ‘I removed the restrictions because I changed the academic practice so I could go a witch hunt.’]

Patterson is a master of twisting truth because he has had so much practice. This statement is unkind but true as shown by his record.

Rex Ray

Out of the fight said...

I Edited a mistake, sorry.


Orginal post-

Truth of Acts, (The Truth of Acts that just posted, this message is for you.)

I was originally responding to the post by Rex Ray (The only Rex Ray I have seen in here) in which he said, “You are defending a guy that told a gun club, the greatest need in America was for every boy to have a dad, a dog, and a gun.”

To which I replied, (I being - Out of the Fight) “I am not an advocate for Dr. Patterson, but his comment has been tainted to represent something he did not mean. Quoting statements like this without context is irresponsible. We could easily develop a faulty perception of Wade if we believed innuendoes such as this one that are readily available about him anywhere you look.”

Was it a Gun Club? No.

Did Patterson say, it was Americas #1 problem? Yes he sure did.

Would I have phrased it like that? Probably not.

If you asked Patterson what he thought the #1 problem in the world really was, are you sure he would say, “Lack of gun ownership?” I think if we are honest, all disagreements with Patterson aside, we are certain he would assert that Jesus is the #1 need for people all over the world. Even in his statement he told of the need for fathers to lead their sons to Christ. The accusation was not offered in this light, hence my caution about misrepresenting without context.

Now to your other question. Do you think that you are beginning to choke a little on gnat by calling him a liar? Come on man.

TruthOfActs said...

Out of the Fight,
So you didn’t take my advice of dropping this subject. You sure are good at getting back up when you’ve been knocked ‘out of the fight.’

By the way, I think you have it backwards, ‘you strain at gnat and choke on a camel.’ (It’s pretty hard to choke on a gnat.)

I called him a liar? No, you made him a liar when YOU proved he did not believe what he said. It’s YOUR words that said he did not believe the #1 problem was “Lack of gun ownership” but “he would assert that Jesus is the #1 need for people all over the world.”

Can I help it if I agree with you that Patterson did believe what he said? In conclusion, should you criticize me by saying I “tainted his comment to represent something he did not mean. Quoting statements like this without context is irresponsible” when YOUR telling of his context made him look worse than I portrayed him to start? Can you excuse Patterson for telling a lie just because he knows it’s a lie? (Little boys need real guns—what a joke that is.)

Do you agree that Patterson practices the ends justifies the means?

I’m ready to drop this if you are. I think we are starting to go in a circle.
Rex Ray

TruthOfActs said...

Correction: Patterson did NOT believe what he said.
Rex

Out of the fight said...

Truth of Acts said,

Do you agree that Patterson practices the ends justifies the means?

He has, but with one rebuttal, I don't think it is an overarching philosophy of everything he does. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, mainly his incipient nepotism, but I have a great deal of respect for the man. I am a Criswell grad and have seen him misrepresented more times than any figure SBC life. My original intent for posting was for that reason alone, not to get into a semantical analysis.

God’s Blessings on you and your ministry.