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

A 2020 Vision for the SBC

Fourteen years is a good Biblical number. Biblical numerology is an often neglected study, but those who have written on the subject, including theologian Dr. Henry Bullinger, tell us that the number fourteen "being a multiple of seven, partakes of its significance; and, being double that number, implies a double measure of spiritual perfection."

In 2020, just fourteen years from now, the Southern Baptist Convention will be celebrating her 175th Anniversary.

I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I would like to offer a 2020 Vision for the SBC with the desire that it be actual 20/20 vision. These points are only offered for discussion, and do not represent the official position of an agency or board.

In 2020 . . .

(1). The Southern Baptist Convention is now called the World Baptist Convention. The name change is solely for the purpose of reflecting the true identity of the convention. No longer are we mainly a group of churches in the American south, but rather we have planted churches around the world that wish to be identified with our convention.

(2). The first World Baptist Faith and Message, approved overwhelmingly by each WBC state convention and other WBC national conventions, focuses on the essentials of the faith. These essentials include all the fundamentals of the faith, but third tier doctrines which have divided Baptists in different cultures are left out of the WBFM in order to promote unity within our diversity.

(3). There are no split individual state conventions connected with the WBC. Reconciliation and restoration among split state conventions has occurred through a genuine revival in the hearts of pastors, denominational leaders, and people of the WBC in states that were once split. Our love for Jesus Christ and His people is evident to the world because newspapers are reporting on what we are doing together to change the world rather than reporting on our fighting and bickering with each other.

(4). The International Mission Board of the WBC has 10,000 missionaries appointed in countries that are in great need of an evangelical witness. Other countries that have been evangelized have churches that now identify with, and support, the work of the IMB of the WBC in unreached people groups.

(5). The World Baptist Convention has grown from 44,000 churches in 2006 in the Southern United States to 115,000 churches around the world. The autonomy of the local church continues to be respected, and the World Baptist Convention takes her orders from messengers who meet once a year, and has resisted the temptation that usually plagues large mainline denominations to operate from the top down. The local church remains the highest authority in the WBC.

(6). Trustee appointments are made by the Nominating Committee from a list of people offered to the WBC by the individual state and national convention officers. The vast size of the WBC necessitates more involvment of state and national leadership in the appointment process and broadens the appointment process.

(7). Theological training expands with the creation and support of an additional six seminaries --- all overseas. These seminaries are run by national trustees, but willingly identify with the WBC and affirm the WBFM.

(8). Leadership within the WBC, including trustees, convention officers, and other leadership comes from churches that give a minumum of 7% of undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program. Churches could identify themselves as a WBC church by simply giving to the Cooperative Program, but members or pastors of those churches could not serve in leadership positions of the WBC without giving the minimum 7% to the CP.

(9). The World Baptist Convention is known by the world more for her emphasis on the gospel of Jesus Christ than for any political, social, or cultural stand. Since the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, the WBC has determined to focus on obtaining God's power rather than an attempt at political or social power.

(10). The World Baptist Convention is held each June at multiple sites around the world, with each site connected to the main site in the United States via the world wide web. The convention is known for the worship, preaching testimonies, and business conducted by the messengers and not for her politics.

I am reminded that the angel told Mary, "With God nothing is impossible." For the above to happen the SBC will have to be led by people who are not satisfied with the status quo, do not desire any personal power or fame, and truly wish to see the gospel of Jesus Christ impact the world through our beloved convention.

My wife says I am naive. :)

I may be, but surely there is nothing wrong with dreaming. :)

In His Grace,



BSC said...


You'd better not let Dave Hunt or his band of apocalypse hounds get ahold of this. Next thing we know you'll be supporting the European Union and fitting into a prophetic chronology of the Tribulation.

Come to think of it...Wade Burleson. Hmm. I think the numerology of your name can be added up to 666 in some way.

Fess up, old boy. You're really preparing the soil for a one world government and church. Not to mention the Anti-Christ.

Yet another reason you should resign as trustee.

Bryan Riley said...

You may say I'm a dreamer... but i'm not the only one. Maybe ben is on to something. You are in cohorts with John Lennon... hmmmm. :)

Roger Simpson said...


I don't think change will happen quite as fast as going to a WBC in 14 years.

There have been attempts over the past decade or so to change the name of the convention from "Southern Baptist Convention" to something else to reflect our growing presence in "non-southern" parts of the USA. As you know, that change has consistently been rejected.

I think one can extrapolate from past name change rejections that going to a "world convention" would be most unlikely.

David L. Miller said...

I am a Baptist pastor in Iowa, where the name Southern Baptist Convention is a definite hindrance to our work.

I would love to see the name of the SBC changed. I just have never thought of a good name.

"World Baptist Convention" doesn't ring the bell for me. I like the concept, but it doesn't grab me.

Cooperative Baptist Convention might have been nice, but that ship sailed.

American Baptist - taken
Conservative Baptist - taken

International Baptist Convention?
United States Baptist Convention?
Great Commission Baptist Convention? (Is that taken?)

Anyway, if we want the SBC to be more than a regional convention, we should come up with a more than regional name.

GeneMBridges said...

Obviously, you're Post Mill. Thank you for tipping your hand. Look out the Eschatology Committee will come after you, Wade. ;)

World Baptist Convention: Nah, that's too ecumenical sounding. Besides, it sounds like we're usurping the eschaton. Let's save that for the reign of Christ, when we'll all be Baptists :)

Alycelee said...

You're just forever hopeful.
I like that about you.
Afterall, aren't we supposed to be a hopeful people, looking for our delifverance?
What it's going to look like, I just don't know, I only pray that God allows me to be involved in His plans, His work and His kingdom and I submit to doing it His way.

Dorcas said...


I can see right through you. World Baptist Convention (WBC). Wade Burleson Convention (WBC). World Baptist Faith and Message (WBFM). Wade Burleson Faith and Message (WBFM). Or how about WB FM radio (all Wade Burleson all the time).

Looks like someone has a 2020 vision for World Baptist domination.

Okay, okay. :)

I we DO have to have a name change, the thought of which makes me cringe each time it comes up, let's always look at the initials ... starting with David's suggestions -

International Baptist Convention (IBC). IBC Root Beer. Beer. No, that won't work.

United States Baptist Convention (USBC). Could be good, I can think of the advertising now at the switch: Now "U" can be a part of the "SBC" too! It's not just Southern Belles and dueling Gentlemen anymore!

Okay, I really do hope some of the underlying ideals happen. I am definitely a dreamer too. I just think the name change suggestion should be the last thing on the list. What with Warner Brothers and Wade Burleson, there just isn't any room left for another WB.

But keep us hoping for that better future, man!

Nomad said...

Wow! That is some kind of dreamin'!

I have to agree with David Miller inasmuch as "World" BC doesn't really do much for me. I really like his "Great Commission Baptist Convention" but it doesn't roll off the tongue very well.

Unfortunately, even though I have been thinking about this for several years, I can't really come up with something that I like. Yikes!

TruthOfActs said...

You tell us of a beautiful dream of love and cooperation to further the kingdom of God.
If that could only happened!

I’m afraid in 14 years if what Danny Chisholm tells on his blog about 24 Missouri churches being told where to give all there money or they will be kicked out, becomes the status quo, the only voice heard in the SBC will be, “Where did everybody go?”
Rex Ray

tim rogers said...

Brother Wade,

I will resist the temptation to take Sister Dorcas' use of initials to anything other than a joke. However, she does stir the conspiracy juices.

Having said that, let me point out something that I feel is a flaw within your dream when it comes to Baptist polity. The way you describe the appointment process and the state conventions working within the system appears to be connectionalism. That is something Baptist have been against and truly does remove the autonomy that we are famous for.

Let's face it, the uniqueness of the SBC is that people who do not always agree on everything choose to cooperate in order to bring the Gospel to a lost world. Is there really an improvement for that?


Dorcas said...

Tim - yes, I was joking.

You need to keep up. By now, everyone knows that I am the true power player in the mix.

Odd that one man's vision for unity is such a hard sell when people will buy any conspiracy theory that comes by in an instant.

I just don't think the name change is necessary. That was the point of my post which I gave in a humorous manner. My name is Dorcas and it has brought me no end of grief from teasing, yet it is my name and I am not currently inclined to change it. I think we need to focus on function of the system and not get so stuck on the name (its form).

peter lumpkins said...

My Brother Wade,

I appreciate the time to share a few of your dreams. And, understandably, though what you're thinking out loud, is not necessarily what I would have thought out loud, many of the comments thus far demonstrate quite nicely, at least for me, just why not only your prophetess of a wife peeled the right banana, but also why significant change, in so short a time as 14 years, remains virtually impossible for the SBC--that is, apart from an Ezekiel 37 remake.

If I posed a "brain-storming" session in my small group and such whines and whimpers gushed forward, shooting out of the sky, someone's honest , heart-felt ideals, I'd probably reach over and grab my cup of Dancing Goats and head for the door, bidding them all to have a peace-filled evening.

What a way to start the day! I trust yours, my Brother Wade, will be filled with grace.

With that, I am...


ewinwe said...


i would make a few changes ...
(4). The International Mission Board of the WBC has 10,000 missionaries appointed in countries that are in great need of an evangelical witness. These missionaries come from both the US and around the world, making it truly an INTERNATIONAL Mission Board. Other countries that have been evangelized have churches that now identify with, and support, the work of the IMB of the WBC in unreached people groups.

(6). Trustee appointments are made by the Nominating Committee from a list of people offered to the WBC by the individual state, national and international convention officers. The vast size of the WBC necessitates more involvment of state, national and international leadership in the appointment process and broadens the appointment process.

if this is to become a WORLD organization, then why not get the world involved? missionaries appointed from around the world, working side by side with southern baptists. or is there the issue of 'they were not baptized by the proper person or in the proper way' going to be the big problem with that? hmmmm

ah well ... you can dream big, so why can't i? :-)

craig from Georgia said...

I can't give any words of exhortation about the SBC, but I can refer you to a sure thing you can hang your hat on!

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:11-13)"

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)"

"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:4)"

Wade Burleson said...


Your post was funny!


Your post would be funny if it weren't so close to the truth! :)


That's exactly what I meant by the word "national" (other nations).

CB Scott said...

"All I have to do is,

DREAM, dream, dream, dream"


It just hit me. Your are the long lost brother of Don and Philip Everly. You look so much like your brother Philip.


Tell the truth. Why did you guys break up?


Wade Burleson said...



ain't tellin

UCM said...

the main site in the U.S.?

it will probably be in Africa or South America... where the Church is growing...

and WBC will be sending more missionaries to the U.S. and Europe than any other places in the world

davidinflorida said...

Pastor Wade, At first I thought that you were mostly tongue in cheek. After reading your last paragraph, I feel that you are not..... Dreaming while awake as defined in Dic.com ---an involuntary vision occuring to a person while awake OR a vision voluntarily indulged in while awake. Which of these applies to you, voluntary or involuntary?....Still, your last paragraph is the key ..... The convention must be led by people who are tired of the status quo and do not desire personal power or fame. When this happens , then you will see your dream.......

john said...


Maybe I am naive, but how can we reconcile with liberal state conventions when we (that is the liberal state conventions and the conservative state conventions) do not believe the same things? Your "dream" is cute, but it borders on fantasy.

martyduren said...

According to some, we already have a Worldly Baptist Convention.

BSC said...

Here you go again....

Leaking out our Memphis plans for the world to see. Wade...how can we succeed in our plans to ouster certain leaders if everybody knows our agenda.

But I think I've done enough damage control.

Now PLEASE do not post those blueprints to Scarborough Hall and the ventilation duct schematic. Whatever you do, don't blog about our plans to plant tiny cameras in the eye sockets of giraffe, kudu, and bisected buffalo.

If that secret gets out...we're in trouble.

David R. Mills said...

I don't know who "bsc" is, but it would be great to know his Theology about eschatology wouldn't it? I hope he is not a Pastor. Great post Wade, I'd like to see that 20/20 plan although at 70 I would probably have to see it from Heaven. Praise the LOrd!!!!!

Wade Burleson said...


There you go again. A valid, good name for the SBC (World Baptist Convention), that just happens to match my initials, is now trashed by a snide, cynical comment from Marty Duren. Sigh. You bloggers. What are we going to do with you? :)

Wade Burleson said...


Contrary to published reports, I am not Batman and BSC is not Robin. Nor is BSC the devil and I his archangel.

BSC stands for "Baptists Scared (of) Cole" or "Beautiful Script Choreographer" or my favorite "Burned, Scorched, Coled" all synonyms for putting in print your Scriptural fallacies and having Benjamin S. Cole respond.



P.S. Deep down he really does have a great heart.

Wesley Shotwell said...

We already have such an organization. It is called the Baptist World Alliance and it is clear that Southern Baptists want no part of cooperating with other Baptists around the world.

Wade Burleson said...


Interesting observation.

James Hunt said...

Love your thoughts. May God lead us into His vision for the future, and, as much as your stated visionary items reflect God's heart, may they come to fruition.

And, I like David Miller's suggestion of: International Baptist Convention.

Tim Cook said...

What a beautiful idea...seriously, that is my dream for our convention as well. Of course, I always wake up...sigh.

Roger Ferrell said...

It is interesting that your wife would use the word naive - she is probably right. But we need more naive people. As a pastor for the last 9 years, I have often led our church leadership in praying to be naive. And I cannot help but contrast your magnificent, hopeful dream with the biting sarcasm of most of the comments. It seems that all we see sometimes is those who would oppose us. I pray that God would give me blinders so that I can fix my eyes on Christ Jesus, and his glory and be free of the jaded, sophisticated, critical, negative spirit of the age.

Here, by the way, are the definitions of naive:
1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous
3. having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique
4. not having previously been the subject of a scientific experiment, as an animal.

I am assuming your wife meant definition 1 or 3 (4 would also be true I hope) which are good things. And even 2 is not a bad thing if we give more credence to God's truth than the bile and venom that poisons it. Does not He promise that the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth like the waters cover the sea?

It is time we start being hopeful and believing God rather than buying into the half-truths and misinformation around us. Then we can be kind and gracious to those who oppose us rather than sarcastic knowing that if God is for us (or in this case we are for God and his redemptive activity), none can be successful against us. Jeremiah warned of prophets who prophesied their own imagination, but I see only hope and faith in the redemptive heart of God in your vision.

On our Student Church Planting blog (http://missionmpossible.blogspot.com) , Geoff Baggett and I are committed to joyful expression of the real truth of God and ignoring the slings and arrows that come toward us; those doomsayers who say things will not work or oppose them for political reasons. Particularly since we are seeking to engage students in missional living, we cannot afford the luxury of our own bitterness. So we pray God will keep us hopeful, innocent of back room dealings, focused on the task and the possibilities, and yes, naive.

Keep dreaming and pray for more Southern Baptists who are naive.

Wade Burleson said...

Okie Dokie folks.

On to OKC for last service with the Senior Adults of the Fall Revival for the Baptist Village Retirement Communities. The series I have preached is entitled "The Gospel in Genesis"

I have spent each day focusing on one major soteriological doctrine.

Adam -- Representation
Abel --- Propitiation
Abram --- Justification
The Angel --- Sanctification
The Ark --- Glorification

The last two may need a helpful description. The angel is Christ or "the angel of the Lord" who met Hagar at the well. I am showing that sanctification is not "becoming more holy" but being separated by God for a special purpose, and once you realize that, you will be able to concentrate on the one who separated you (God) and say of him, like Hagar, "Thou God seest me."

The ark is Noah's ark. In the same manner that Noah and his family were shut in the ark and carried from one world to another, sheltered from the wrath of God, so too, God's people will be taken to glory sheltered from God's wrath.

The old folks are loving it! And so am I.

Blessings to all.

Wade Burleson said...

James Hunt,

Couldn't resist one last comment before I leave.

The International Baptist Convention is taken by the old European Baptist Convention that was formed with the help of the SBC and IMB missionary John Merritt, who also happened to serve as IBC's President under the old name.

Also, Roger . . .

Thanks for the kind words. However, don't be too hard on those making comments. Their sarcasm is all in fun, and because I know most them personally, I know they would all be the first to do anything radical if it was in the best interest of the kingdom at large.

I frankly have laughed at most of the comments --- maybe it is because I know everybody's hearts.

How I wish I could get to know others in the same manner.

Lee said...

Which "liberal" state conventions are you referring to? As far as "reconciling" goes, the SBC executive committee gladly says "thank you very much" when taking the checks given by the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Baptist General Association of Virginia. They don't seem to mind being reconciled to allowing them to help fund their ministries. If there was any thought on the part of the SBC leadership that there wasn't a relationship between themselves and either of those two conventions, they should have the decency to say "no thank you" to the money, as well as restricting members of their churches from serving as trustees.

There isn't anything doctrinally that would remotely suggest liberal beliefs on the part of either of those groups, and the SBC's taking of their money is a clear indication that they don't have a problem with them, either. I can't speak for Virginia, but in Texas, it seems to be a fight over which group of good ol' boys gets to decide who the prominent and important people are.

I think your vision is a good one, Wade, and the name change to represent a less regional perspective is a good idea. I'm thinking that leaving Baptist out of the name might not be such a bad idea, either...


I'll duck now.

Roger D. Lee said...

Brother Wade,

Why all the discussion of a name change? I too, pastor in a northern state but I do not see the SBC as a staumbling block. I am not marketing the SBC to the community. My message is of Christ and my service is to the Lord. The term Southern Baptist should be for intra communication.

I was not raised a Southern Baptist and I do not put all my stock in the future of Southern Baptist's. After all did the Lord not say that His plans will never be thwarted. The mission work of God will prevail. His Word will go forth and disciples will be made. We make much ado about nothing. I believe our ideas and plans supersede those of God too many times.

I apologize if I did not pick up on any humor in the original post.

BTW, I am a loyal Cub fan. I am not offended by the name Chicago.

Roger Lee

Jim Shaver said...

In 14 years if Southern Baptists are not meeting annually via Video Conferencing, then we will be nothing more than a footnote in the history of denominations.

Steve Young said...

I guess I am a little naive, but I enjoyed the "dream" and do not see it as unreachable as some. Our convention is not perfect (or I could not be a part of it), but it is the one group that could realistically dream such a dream with a hope of seeing it happen.

I appreciate your balance. For the SBC to continue to grow (size and Kingdom influence) we need more leaders like David Rogers. Thanks for the dream. Most information outlets are driven by the negative. We need more input like this.

IN HIS NAME said...


First of all the best comment was given by "" Roger Ferrell""...

YOU ALL might want to reread what Roger said and Think about it.

My Dream and I'm not a Dreamer would be that Our new name would be the UNITED BAPTIST CHURCH (UBC). I would Pray that it Happen in the next 2 years with Frank Page being our President. Each and every day we are sending Brothers and Sisters away from the SBC.
Why, Because they want to follow JESUS CHRIST and are tired of all the fighting that has taken place for the past 20 years. We can stand on what God's Word says and never compromise the Word of God. God will have His Day of Judgment with the Men that have stepped over the line and allowed Politics in Our SBC.

In His Name

Wayne Smith

IN HIS NAME said...

Roger D. Lee,


You All need to reread what another Man of God Says.

In His Name

Wayne Smith

Robert Hutchinson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bryan Riley said...

Lee, I almost said that and decided not to. Ugh, fear of man. Yes, why keep baptist in it? :) I'm sure there will be many that say, if you don't want that name then you can gladly leave it. How loving and thoughtful of them. :)

Robert Hutchinson said...

i am WEARY of being on the downside of sbc work. i got tired of hearing it at seminary in ’00, ’01, and ’02 and i am really tired of hearing it still…you've heard it…”70% of sbc affiliated churches are in plateau or declining.”

if i knew how to bold, italicize, and underline comments on this thing I would do that with the number 70%.

decline, decline, decline, decline…that’s what i keep hearing and it is really starting to get to me. it needsta get to all of us.

makes me wish i had lived in the late 19th or early & mid 20th century where each year the percentages and growth line on the report chart were in the BLACK heading for heaven instead of in the RED heading for hell. how wonderful it must have been attending one annual meeting after another and seeing MORE messengers instead of FEWER the year before…and that, because of legitimate growth and not infighting.

the question is…how do we grow again? and i would only count true growth as anything beyond our peak as a convention. we must first take back the ground we’ve lost and then move beyond that before we can honestly say that we have grown as a convention.

but to get it done there MUST BE an attitude of, a mentality of, a spirit of…COOPERATION.

second, we MUST HAVE...COMMITTMTED HEARTS. what is a committed heart?

in the summer of 1865 when southern seminary had practically no financial resources and struggling after the civil war the professors discussed the fate of the school and after much prayer and deliberation…dr. broadus said, "suppose we quietly agree that the seminary may die, but we'll die first." That first year dr. broadus had only one student in his homiletics class…and he was blind! (the sbc 1845-1953, pg. 134).

the goal of 115,000 churches, 10,000 fulltime missionaries, and 6 international seminaries in 2020…inspires.

i agree with wade, as a convention we must get a vision, set goals, formulate a plan and then, like nike…just do it! the master didn’t say to the good and faithful servant…well envisioned…well intended…well planned…he said…well done.

Bob Cleveland said...


I think a really big dream (the song keeps running through my mind.... To Dream the Impossible.....) would be for the SBC to, oh, say...

Stop narrowing parameters for service.

Get honest with numbers.

Quit shooting flaming arrows at each others.

Stop it with the politics of power.

If we got that stuff right, I don't think we'd have to worry about the rest of it.

It's nice to have dreams, though.

PS: How about the name "Worldwide International Network for Evangelism? We could ALL serve W.I.N.E. that way.

Bob said...

I like your dream!

TruthOfActs said...

I told my wife about your dream, and she said, “Is that before or after Jesus returns?”

Lee beat me to the punch in squashing John’s comment of: “How can we reconcile with liberal state conventions…”
Your dream cannot happen until that fake ‘liberal or moderate/liberal’ concept dies off. In Moses’ day it took 40 years.

Also it’s like Wesley Shotwell said, “We already have such an organization. It is called the Baptist World Alliance…”
Wade, your dream was started by Southern Baptist 101 years ago, but our leaders led the SBC to withdraw from it two years ago with the same strategy that it was liberal like John’s liberal state conventions.

The definition of ‘liberal’ by some means ‘not one of us.’ That concept is not original as John (different John but with same opinion) told Jesus, “We tried to stop him because he does not follow us.”

Wade, to make part of your dream come true, you can join a 150 year old convention, BGCT, which has been accepted by the 47 million Baptist World Alliance.
Rex Ray

Jackson Magazine said...

When you write of state conventions reconciling do you mean compromising the integrity of Christian belief? For instance, should the Protestants reunite with the Catholic Church? After all this would take a reconciling of the heart and according to your philosophy that is what is needed. The doctrinal differences are not a concern or at least you did not state it to be. I’d like to know your thoughts as to why Texas or Virginia split. Why do you think that happened? People were after fame and power? I affirm the BF&M 2000 and I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. If someone says they agree with me but will not join in and lead the SBC and Baptist institutions to affirm those principles than they do not view the Bible as a hill on which to die. That is sad. As it was in the SBC during the 80’s and throughout the Church’s history we do not need reconciliation with those who shun from affirming and leading others to affirm the Bible. Those who affirm the Bible and lead an organization to do so should not move. The ones who are to move are those who deny the Scripture or feel it irrelevant to affirm its inerrancy. Again I ask you, why did the state conventions spilt?

Don Minshew said...

The largest problem with your idea, Wade, is that it reeks of typical American hutzpah. Cooperation works best when practiced in common culture. National conventions have enough problems understanding each other without the addition of international relations. New Directions altered our relationships with national conventions to the point that they believe we have no regard for their work (except when we want to report their baptisms as if we were actually involved). Let this idea get out to them -- as expressed by an IMB trustee and they will be certain of our lack of interest.

GeneMBridges said...

I have spent each day focusing on one major soteriological doctrine.

Adam -- Representation
Abel --- Propitiation
Abram --- Justification
The Angel --- Sanctification
The Ark --- Glorification

^Further proof that Brother Wade is a conservative Baptist. How many points of application were there?

WBC...I see this as plan for World Domination. Headline: Dispensationalists Concerned - One world Baptist Church to usher in the kingdom.

colinm said...

If taking money from someone/something means that you tacitly agree with the doctrines and paractices the giver espouses, I suggest each of you have a lot of investigative work before you pass the offering plate next Lord's Day.

The idea is noble, I would say, to desire to cooperate worldwide for the gospel's sake. In the age of American materialism, individualism, and narcissistic tendencies, we are prone to think our noblest intentions would be accepted by all that truly desire to 'consider' the issue. Any name change of the SBC to emit a global inclusivism, I believe, would further the notion of a narcissistic mindset in Americans as viewed by the world community. "What," I can hear them say, "do the American baptists see in their theology that makes them think they represent all world baptists?" In fact, they would be right. I do not think a name change would change strategy in world missions.

Let us also consider naming conventions. "Baptized Congregations Gathered According to the Primitive Pattern," or "Baptized Churches of Christ," perhaps? How are these? In fact, according to my recent learning, these names were shortened to "Baptist" by 1644. They represent the roots from where our Baptist heritage came. "Baptist," therefore, is an acknowledgement of where we are from, not where we are going. In the same way, Southern Baptist is the name denoting the culture and roots of our denomination, as it is with all established denominations in the world. If there exists bad connotations in the name, I would suggest it is because of what is taught, not what it is called. The fact is that in this day you have to go out and evangelize. People don't just go to church anymore, unless you make your church the "in" thing to do by reliving the catacomb era and dropping the f-word now and again. I would suggest, then, that people are not going to northern churches for the same reason they are not going to southern churches- they are in sin and have erected idols for themselves. If you bring a man from death to life by the word of Christ, I cannot see them saying, "Oh, well, Southern Baptist? Thanks for sharing the gospel that saved me, but, I know how intolerant you guys are. Where is Jimmy carter's church?"

Pastor Brad said...


I think you miss the argument a little about the name change. I'm not sure where, or if, you pastor or minister, but for me in the Great Northeast it is not a matter of a newly saved person rejecting our church because we are Southern Baptists. The issue is gaining an audience with the lost people long before they ever step foot in a church.

While most people here are 2nd-3rd generation unchurched, only 2% evangelical, which probably means .5% actually saved, they still cling to the notion that they are religious because they go to mass or the synagogue a few times a year. Therefore, if I am talking to someone, they invariably ask what kind of church I am with and I say, "We're baptists," 85% of the time the conversation is over. If I said, "We're Southern Baptists," the conversation is over 95% of the time and they leave with the impression that I am a backward, ignoramous.

It's not about getting them in the door, it is about it being a stumbling block to the gospel.

Robert Hutchinson said...

how about a compromise?

ISBC--the International Southern Baptist Convention

or...the Intercontinental Southern Baptist Convention

extend the scope yet keep the heritage.

Lee said...

Jackson Magazine--

I can't speak for Virginia, since I don't know for sure how their doctrinal statement reads, but in Texas, the BGCT affirms the 1963 BFM which clearly states that the scriptures are "truth, without any mixture of error." That's at least as strong a statement on the subject as the BFM2000. The split did not occur because of inerrancy. If you would care to point out a doctrine or belief of the BGCT that compromises Christian integrity, it might make it easier to understand what you are talking about.

If the SBC really has a problem with the "Christian integrity" of the BGCT, then it should politely decline to receive funding from it. I'll take the fact that they haven't done that from either convention as a sign that the SBC's leadership isn't all that troubled by either group's theology.

Being Baptist will never matter more to me than being Christian. Whatever differences we may have over interpreting scripture, we are brothers and sisters in Christ with anyone else who has a born again relationship by the grace of God through faith in Jesus. Before we rupture fellowship with other people of the same covenant over the man-made name with which we choose to identify, we need to think about that. Thank you for supporting my decision to say it.

colinm said...

like the RSBC?

The Relatively-Southern Baptist Convention

The SBC as
Separatist BC

Then the IBC
Inclusivist BC

We could also do the GBC (general BC) and PBC (particular BC) and watch the GBC embrace universalism and the PBC fight off hyper-calvinism.

How about PMSBC
Post-Modern SBC
but I guess you would have to add the "E" here:

Dorcas said...

Because I can get by with saying this ...


Does that church have a woman pastor?

Dorcas said...

Seriously - that is why the name change idea is so frustrating to me ... we get down into this silliness of abbreviations and so forth.

However, I don't think the name change was the primary point of Wade's post. I'm beginning to wish I had never started the "initials" joke at all.


colinm said...

Not necessarily. Effeminism is not lacking in some leadership positions. But, being Pomo, you must add the E onto B.C.

irreverend fox said...


if we are the WBC then would it not be wise to combine the efforts of NAMB and the IMB and just have the IMB with subdivisions such as NAMB, EMB(Europe)...and so on? What would be the point in one entire "board" working just in North America and one mission board for "everybody else"? I'm for one mission board, the IMB, which would include all nations, the US included.

David Rogers said...


As much as I admire the broad vision, and sincere aspirations for shedding a good bit of our ethnocentrism inherent in your proposal, I can't help but saying here, especially from the perpective of an international missionary, that I agree with what several others have already said about the "Elephant in the Parlor":

The Baptist World Alliance

Imagine the USA decided to pull out of the UN, and then several years later announced plans for a parallel organization to the UN, more in line with "democratic values." As much as a lot of Americans would love to see that happen, how do you think it would go over in the world arena?

And, as much as I hate to say it, I'm afraid the idea of a World Baptist Convention that did not have its roots in the BWA would go over about the same with many, many Baptists around the world right now. They would also be quick to point out the parallels between it and the formation of the CBF as an alternative organization.

Having said all that, and thrown so much "cold water" on your dream, I do think:

1. It would be great to change the name Southern Baptist to something less culturally constrictive.

2. It would be wonderful to come up with a plan to "share the well" of Great Commission resources in a more equitable way around the world, while at the same time avoiding the trap of unhealthy dependency, with developing churches and groups of churches around the world.

3. It would also be great to have more true fellowship and interaction with believers from other cultural contexts, and seek God together for determining the guidelines for how we interpret and apply the transcultural authority of the Word of God to our lives and witness as His Church in today's world.

Dorcas said...

Colin -

It was my attempt at humor. A "PMS" joke. I was not suggesting that all post modern churches would accept women as pastors.

colinm said...


I got it. I was using your humor to make a blanket statement about the effeminate culture that pervades our churches, though.

Greg Cloud said...

(9). The World Baptist Convention is known by the world more for her emphasis on the gospel of Jesus Christ than for any political, social, or cultural stand. Since the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, the WBC has determined to focus on obtaining God's power rather than an attempt at political or social power.

I kind of think that this one factor is the key to all the others, and the fulfillment of the dream.

Didn't the Holy Spirit say: "If one says 'I love God' but hates his brother, he is a liar"?

If we state that we have a relationship with God, but can't even work through our differences with other Baptists.....

God forgive me.

VBC, Muldrow, OK

Wade Burleson said...

David Rogers.

Yep. I agree.

Maybe this dream causes us to take a closer look at present reality.


Matt Snowden said...


Your dream does make us look at present realities. That may be the biggest gift it gives.

I like the part in it that says, "The local church will remain the highest authority in the WBC."

I attended a lunch given by NAMB today. It was for SBC ministers attending the Catalyst Conference in Atlanta. John Avant and Ed Stetzer spoke. They presented a very local church vision for denominational life. I was encouraged.

TheMDude said...

Have you ever seen Epic 2014? Sort of a futuristic projection of how the media has (and is) converged. Maybe we could get someone to produce on on your "vision"? Take a look at http://epic.lightover.com/


Bryan Riley said...

David Rogers and Alan Cross consistently have the most thoughtful and thought provoking comments and posts, do they not? Fantastic.

My eyes are getting bad. From the back of my chair to the computer screen I saw Pomo, as Porno. Perhaps it was because that is all too familiar to my sinful self. I had to realize that meant Post Modern. Language. Amazing.

Greg (143!), great comment.

TruthOfActs said...

Jackson Magazine,
I was getting a little up-tight with you until I learned you are only 22. That means you were only 14 in 1998 when the new Texas convention of about 20 to 30 churches split from the old convention of over 5,000 churches.

You told Wade, “I’d like to know your thoughts as to why Texas or Virginia split. Why do you think that happened? People were after fame and power?”

Yes Jackson, people were after fame and power. The ones that split failed to be elected in the old convention so they started their own. They grew fast with the aid of slander.
Their first president, Miles Seaborn was quoted in the Baptist Standard 11-18-98 as saying; he would not give another nickel of his tithe to anywhere he thought was ungodly. Their executive director, Jim Richards stated, “Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent. To the foes of Southern Baptist of Texas, we say we’re not in competition with you, but we’ve been called to contrast you.”
They ‘contrasted’ in their news journal, Plumbline October 1998 that CBF had leaders who:
1. Deny deity of Christ, need for his death, and importance of virgin birth.
2. Call for the ordination of gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons.
3. Proclaimed the Bible does not condemn all farms of homosexual behavior.
4. Call for the ordination of women as senior pastors.
5. Refer to God as “mother.”
6. Defended the reproduction and distribution of child pornography.

You seem to add the “Bible” as the hill which to die, instead of the book, “On a hill which to die.”
The BGCT looked upon this “hill” as one which to kill as seen by its many victims—seminary teachers, missionaries, and the BWA.

Jackson, you asked Wade, and his answer may not be the same as mine but it keeps the heat off him and I have nothing to loose.
I’ll ask you a harder question: ‘If the old convention was so “ungodly” why did these men, at one time, want to be its leaders?’
Rex Ray

LivingDust said...

Just Not Mad About It Baptist World Convention.

CPMcoaches said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CPMcoaches said...

Bro. Wade,
You Rock! I agree with most of your 2020 Vision
May I suggest changing SBC to
"Multiplying Baptist MOVEMENT"
I really like the word "Movement" vs. "Convention" but can compromise ; ) I hope by 2020 that all IMB Trustees will be required to study Missiology and/or the MIssion Basis of the Bible. Perhaps through some kind systematized course or study, like Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. Most SBC leadership are woefuly ignorant of the Mission Basis of the Bible.
Ask your local LifeWay rep for the location of their section on "Missions" and understand a key ingredient of how the SBC has lost focus on The Main thing.
I hope to meet you someday when I go home.
From Judson's Land,

Donald said...

Wow, that is more than a dream.

It might have been more realistic to dream of bringing someone back to life than to see that amount of cooperation amongst Baptists :)

If you think that it is hard to get SOUTHERN Baptist to agree on anything, it would take a true miracle to get international Baptist conventions to work together with the SBC :)

Wake up, you are dreaming....

Jackson Magazine said...

To lee & truthofacts

I see my comments sparked a little controversy. Allow me address the questions asked.

First, I am not referring to Judge Pressler’s book A Hill on Which to Die. He did not invent the phrase. I clearly asked was the inerrancy of the Bible a hill on which to die? Is it?

Secondly, my understanding is the BGCT did split over inerrancy and other moderate and blatant liberal philosophies. I think truthofacts question concerning why those who formed the SBCT at one time wanted to be the leaders of the BGCT can be answered by addressing why the split occurred. Yes, the leaders of the SBCT at one time did seek leadership roles in the BGCT. Why? For the same reason Rogers, Vines, Stanley, Smith, Young and Drapper sought roles in the SBC: to change the direction of the Convention. Why did they desire to change the direction of the BGCT? Yes, the BGCT did affirm the ’63 BF&M. I’m sure the readers will remember the whole, “what did Hobbs mean?” debate that went for decades after ‘63 and on through the resurgence. I’m sure that is all old info to everyone and lee simply forgot during his posting. The persons that formed SBCT felt the only way for peace and continuance of the gospel could occur thru forming another organization. Some in leadership at the BGCT, at least the majority of those in leadership fit that description, were hostile to the conservative movement and did not desire to see the same occur in Texas. The SBCT founders felt they could not support places like the Truett School at Baylor due to its moderate professors. Many in the SBC believed Truett would go the way of Southern in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. Also, the BGCT has stopped funding any of the 6 seminaries. Why? Some in the leadership of the BGCT claim individuals that affirm the BF&M 2000 are not Baptists. For that and other reasons funding to the 6 seminaries has been halted. This was the fact at last I knew. Please correct me if I am wrong and the seminaries are receiving funding from the BGCT. I think I have answered the questions asked. SBCT leaders at one time desired to turn the BGCT back to conservative roots and save its institutions from the liberalism that had grasped the SBC seminaries. Saving the seminaries was a successful venture by the SBC; yet, conservative Texas Baptists failed. So, they moved on. I do not believe as truthofacts asserted the SBCT founder desired fame and could not receive it in the BGCT.

Wade, I hope you will be able to weigh in on this. I would like to know your thoughts. Perhaps, you have some insight none of us hold.

TruthOfActs said...

Ah, someone who will answer questions. Thank you. You are correct: the men wanted to change the direction of the BGCT and in failing to become leaders like they did in most states; they split to form their own convention.

You said, “The persons that formed SBCT felt the only way for peace and continuance of the gospel could occur thru forming another organization.”
Your words sound nice, but far from the truth as Richards said, “Theological agreement will be the first foundation of the new convention. Those who depart theologically will be IDENTIFIED and called to REPENT. To the foes of SBTC…we’ve been CALLED to contrast you.”

“Depart theologically”? “Called to repent”—does that mean: Believe like us or burn at the stake. Glad it’s not the 15 century.
Their ‘calling’ was not the gospel and peace but to destroy their “foes” with slander, lies, and name calling. It was so bad, after four months, the BGCT authorized a committee to respond to their allegations; saying “Enough is enough.”

You’re spreading more slander when you say, “My understanding is the BGCT did split over inerrancy and other MODERATE and BLATANT LIBERAL philosophies.”
Would you tell what these bad philosophies are supposed to be?

You asked, “Was the inerrancy of the Bible a hill on which to die? Is it?”
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t most conservatives believe only the original texts are inerrant? Why don’t we have the originals?—God didn’t want us to have them just like he didn’t want us to have the cross, the ark, and on and on. He didn’t want us to have them because man would have made them a substitute for the real thing. God wants you to die for him—not the Bible. The Bible is the messenger. We are not to worship the messenger but the One who wrote the message. To die for inerrancy is to make it an idol.

Patterson admitted Dilday was as conservative as anyone, but was fired as president of SWBTS. (His book, “Glimpses of a Seminary Under Assault” would answer a lot of your questions.)
The BGCT does not support that seminary and five others. It uses that money for other ministries that have no other support.
The new convention does not help. It’s like W.T. Sparkman wrote in the Baptist Standard:
Wooing Another’s Wife April 15, 2002
“I am a widow in my 80th year. The letter written by SBC Executive Committee President Morris Chapman and sent to churches in Texas to suggest they decrease the amount given to the BGCT and also to persuade them to join the rival convention reminded me of a man trying to woo a wife away from a faithful husband and not caring at all how she also would be deserting all her many children—ministries of the BGCT.”
Rex Ray

Jackson Magazine said...

Well, Bro. Rex I couldn’t disagree with you more. I have read Dr. Dilday’s book and found it very interesting. Yes, bitter words were said on both sides. I find it interesting you only site those in the SBCT who have said unkind words. It appears your thought is the conservative resurgence was hostile and conducted thru ungodly character. Were some statements made that displayed disrespect? Yes, and by both sides. However to bring about change in the BGCT certain men gave their time and reputation. I respect such a sacrifice. You paint the picture of a big bad conservative movement that was mean. You also try to show moderate and liberal teachings were not in the institutions or in the BGCT. Is this your thought? I wish you would stop beating around the bush and simply say what you mean, “the conservative movement was not a resurgence but a takeover.” I’ll say that I am unashamed to affirm the majority of actions taken by the leaders of the SBCT and their doctrinal statements to this point. I will also praise the conservative movement and Rogers, Stanley, Drapper, Smith and Criswell. Will you?

Further, I will continue this conversation via email with you, mine being jacksonmagazine@aol.com but not on this blog. It is obvious you and I will not come to an agreement on the issue. Therefore, redundancy will soon be birthed in our discussion.

I’m still waiting on Wade Burleson’s statement. I believe he will praise both organizations thus straddling the fence. I’m not being rude simply stating what will occur. I doubt Wade will show disappointment in the BGCT, if I be wrong than I will be pleased.

TruthOfActs said...

To borrow Dorcas’ words: “Oh Goody”—you’re not going to comment anymore as you think redundancy is taking place. In the boxing ring that is known as ‘throwing in the towel.’
But the good news; I get the last word.

You blame me for quoting unkind words from the SBCT and none from the old convention. I don’t know any from the old convention—I guess you don’t know any either or you would be quoting them.

You wrote, “You paint the picture of a big bad conservative movement that was mean.”
Excuse me, but I only talked about the split-off convention from BGCT and never mentioned the ‘takeover of the SBC. I guess you were reading my mind.

You wrote, “You also try to show moderate and liberal teachings were not in the institutions or in the BGCT.” WHERE DID I SAY THAT? You said there were moderate and blatant liberal philosophies, and I asked you to tell what these bad philosophies were. Am I supposed to believe everything you say without any facts? Is that the way you got your knowledge?
By the way, you didn’t answer my request. In fact, you didn’t answer any of my questions.

You did say you read Dilday’s book. It’s interesting the way you said the book was interesting. You see, ‘interesting’ is a non committal statement. It’s not saying the book was good or bad, true or untrue, etc. It’s like saying, “No comment.”
Would you agree if the book was only half true you should be ashamed in saying, “I will also praise the conservative movement and Rogers, Stanley, Drapper, Smith and Criswell. Will you?”
I think a letter from SWBTS trustee, Ollin Collins expressing his dismay to Bailey Smith, Adrian Rogers, Ed Young, James Merritt, Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, and Homer Lindsey speaks volumes:

“I have to ask, why has there been such a strange silence from you men who have been in leadership over the SBC concerning the action taken by our board terminating, Dr. Dilday on March 9, 1994. I say strange silence because it just seems strange that when we finally did what you men had been leading us to do, and saying needed to be done for some ten years now, and yet once it was done it was as though we had leprosy and nobody wanted to touch us or be associated with us.
We really feel like we have been hung out and left by our self…we received over 450 letters, are bombarded from every news media, Baptist included, telling us what reprobates we are, calling us ecclesiastical bigots and told that there are special places in hell reserved just for us.”

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Wade to come to your rescue. You must have missed his post telling he had much of your same feelings 20 years ago. But now he realizes that the men he had been told were bad are really good Christians.

Sorry that this is more than enough said.
Rex Ray

B.L. said...

regarding names of the convention...why do baptists or anyone put so much in a "name"...i suppose that's a bit of a dumb question....but really?

Jackson Magazine said...

Bro. Rex,
Well, you can nail me to the wall for going back on my word and posting one more time on this matter. I simply want to say thank you for proving my points about your feelings and confirming my thoughts. The fact that you may not see your actions doing this only furthers the confirmation.