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

Respecting the Opinions of Others in the SBC

Eighty years ago this month, the Southern Baptist Convention convened to consider the adoption of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. Some Southern Baptists thought the 1925 Confession to be too broad and moderate and believed it lacked the doctrinal preciseness required for the 'accountablity' a theologicl confession should bring to the convention. One particular messenger, a Rev. Stealey, had already been to the microphone to oppose the adoption of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message on the grounds it was too broad. E.Y. Mullins, Southern Baptist statesman, theologian and President of the SBC, stepped to the microphone to address the majority report for the adoption of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message (emphasis mine):

Members of the Convention:--

There is one thing that I believe a man can always do with safety, and without disappointment, and that is to appeal to the sense of fair play of a Baptist body. Now there are individual Baptists to whom you can not make that appeal, but there are now present a great body of Baptist people, and down in the bottom of their hearts there is honesty and there is common sense, and there is a spirit of fairness; and I come to you this afternoon simply and solely with a plea for Christ and his truth, for the work of his Kingdom, and for fair play with all the brethren.

I hope to make good the basis of that plea for fair play in a few moments, and I believe that this great body of splendid Baptists will respond to that appeal, and that is all I ask…

Now, brethren, I might say this, although I don’t suppose it is necessary to dwell on it, if we were to undertake to put our personal preferences in the doctrinal statement and insist upon our personal group preferences being put in the confession of faith, for Baptists covering eighteen states like this, where would we ‘fetch up at’ I can just think of things I know some men would put in. Some people would want to insist on a twenty-four hour day in Genesis, and some a period day. Some people would insist on post-millennialism, and some people on premillenialism. Some people would insist on church succession and some on anti-church succession. Some would insist on a universal church and some would oppose the universal church. Why, there is no end to where we would go… Brethren, I appeal to you for fair play. I don’t believe it is fair play for a group of brethren who are particularly committed to this standpoint, to come here and inist that everybody in the conference confrom to that standpoint.

We are all conscientious in our point of view. Brother Stealey says he is conscientious, so am I. God forbid that I shouldn’t be. We have all got conscience, and the Baptist conscience is a thing which a Baptist in England said has worn out more hammers than all other agencies in Great Britain. I believe that one things about the Baptist conscience is fair play. One thing about the Baptist conscience is straight-forwardness. One thing about the Baptist conscience is its willingness to recognize the opinions of other people and rights of other people, within gospel limits.

I can tell you, some of the finest and most orthodox men—I would name them, men like James P. Boyce, F.H. Kerfoot, James Orr, men like James Denney, and H.R. McIntosh, the Scotchman, Abraham Kuyper of Holland—all these men take a position of this kind,--men who are the greatest hope of orthodoxy on the other side of the ocean, in books they have written, orthodox to the core, and very valuable. They take the same position this statement takes.

I appeal to you this afternoon in the name of our God and Saviour, in the name of God’s work, the many missionaries, and great educational work of God’s Kingdom that Southern Baptists are doing in such a magnificent way, in the name of all these things I plead with you, let us get together; let us unanimously adopt this statement as it is here.

Well, if you don’t I just leave it on your hearts and ask you prayerfully to consider it, and ask the Master to show you how to do the thing that shall be just to every interest, that it shall be just to the cause and just to Jesus.



Source: Biblical Recorder
Date: June 24, 1925
Title: ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT E.Y. MULLINS, AT THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, IN SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY REPORT ON BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE Credit to Benji Ramsaur for sending me the address.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wade,

After reading many of the blogs with their numerous comments, accusations, name-calling, and outright un-Christlike behavior, I wonder why we cannot respect the opinions of others in the SBC.

It is such behavior which we have witnessed over the past few months that has myself and many of my on-field colleagues not wanting to return to the USA for our stateside assignment. But, unfortunately, we must, in order to tell what God is doing around the world.

A 10-40 Windows Missionary

Anonymous said...

Wade,

While the theological persuasion of Boice was not fully passed down to Mullins, I think maybe something of the Southern Baptist spirit was.

Boice states that these were the guiding principles in relation to the Abstract:

1. A complete exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of grace, so that in no essential particular should they speak dubiously; 2. They should speak out clearly and distinctly as to the practices universally prevalent among us; 3. Upon no point, upon which the denomination is divided, should the Convention, and through it, the Seminary, take any position.

Point 1 speaks of desiring orthodoxy, point 3 speaks of desiring denomination unity.

A one interesting thing I learned recently is that Dr. Broadus was the first faculty member at Southern to believe in "general atonement". And in relation to this, you have Boice (a believer in limited atonement) working side by side with Broadus. And I think it might say something about the spirit of Boice that while he believed in limited atonement, the Abstract of principles allowed for flexibility in relation to the atonement.

And, of course, Boice sided himself with the "big-picture oriented" Missions minded Baptists.

Now, with Mullins, I think you see the same kind of thing in what he said in this post: A desire for orthodoxy, a desire for unity, and a desire for the big picture of missions. Also, I think it says something about his spirit that, while he did not believe in limited atonement, he did not try to get a confession approved that would have excluded those who did.

The fundamentalist spirit, however, seems to cause people to break into smaller and smaller pieces (including fundamentalists themselves). Hence, a desire for orthodoxy there might be, but there seems to be a breakdown in regards to unity and thus the big picture of large scale cooperative missions.

Therefore, in light of the spirit that Boice and Mullins seemed to have, it seems to me that the baton might have gotten dropped somewhere down the road.

Maybe God will not let it lie there.

Maybe God might just do the impossible once again.

Benji

David Flick said...

Wade,

I have an idea that you already know this, but the "Rev. Stealey" which you mentioned was Dr. C. P. Stealey. In 1925, he was the editor of Oklahoma Baptist Messenger. In 1912, Stealey came to Oklahoma and launched the Messenger and continued as editor until 1928, through a period of nearly sixteen years.

Space does not permit me to delineate the details here, but Stealey was involved in a lot of controversy. I can't lay hands on the date, but sometime in the 1920's Stealey joined J. Frank Norris (who was a militant fundamentalist) and founded the Premillennial Baptist Missionary Fellowship. A few years later that body was chartered under a slightly different name and in 1950 the name was changed to the World Baptist Fellowship. -- [Source: The Baptist Heritage, by H. Leon McBeth, pp. 762-763]

It is not surprising that Stealey, being a Norrisite, would champion a narrower fundamentalist-like confession in 1925. Oklahoma, as you well know, still has a large number narrow-thinking Southern Baptists.

Thank God for E. Y. Mullins and his tribe.

Anonymous said...

. . . So, again: Any year's version of the Baptist Faith & Message--1925, 1963, or 2000--is REPRESENTATIVE of the personal theological persuasions of every kind of Baptist ever walking on the planet Earth (and many other evangelical Christians, as well) and can be the basis for our cooperation IF we will cooperate--which is the real question. Only the Holy Bible itself describes EXHAUSTIVELY the personal theological persuasions of any of us (if you want to know all that I believe theologically, I'll hand you a Bible and tell you to read it--but if you want to know a summary of what I believe from the Bible, I'll hand you any year's version of the BF&M statement and tell you to read it; each of us can sign any year's version of the BF&M as REPRESENTING our personal theological persuasions--each of them does, though none of the three exhausts those persuasions-- which is OK).

Everyone: permit each other one to choose the BF&M version to which he will adhere, and everyone take two steps forward TOGETHER for evangelism and missions.


David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Paul Burleson said...

Wade,

While E. Y. Mullins was speaking concerning the adoption of a confession of faith and his spirit was essential for the Convention to not be derailed into disunity in 1925, I believe the same spirit is needed in RESOLUTIONS passed by any sitting convention in any year.

While resolutions do not form policy, it is well known that entities of the Convention can mistakenly take such statements and view them as the will of the entire Convention and make policy accordingly.

This, in fact, is incorrect. They are simply the view, at the moment, of the gathered messengers who may or may not truly be in touch/tune with all of our Convention folks.

Therefore, I believe the spirit you've presented in the words of Mullins need to be reflective even of resolutions presented to our gathered Convention.

I'm aware that many insist resolutions do not carry any authority and are not binding and I know that. But if you can get a particular Convention to pass a particular resolution you have two or three problems in the midst of whatever good is accomplished.

One is that our American culture/people, to whom and in which we attempt to minister, do not always know that fact. It can open/close doors because resolutions are viewed [incorrectly] as the beliefs of the totality of Southern Baptists.

Ears are then closed to the gospel and it's NOT because of the offense of the gospel but the lesser theological views that even Baptists don't all share equally.

Another is that some Southern Baptist christians DO hold some varying views of lesser doctrines as deep convictions. They would never insist others hold the same convictions, just that they be free to hold their convictions without punity.

That's no problem unless resolutions go theologically BEYOND our adopted BF@M and then entities use them as a misplaced basis for restrictions on leadership or service and penalize people with other views.

I'm convinced that we need to be careful of resoutions particularly that smack of theological or political issues because we could build a small verbal cage [I picture grown arms and legs sticking out of a baby crib] that would restrict or hamper the job of evangelism of a Convention that was formed to agree on the true fundamentals of the faith and win the lost in a unified missions effort.

Baptist Theologue said...

I am in agreement with Mullins’s three points (TUP) affirmed in his soteriological system. Interestingly, five-point Calvinists have more difficulty fitting their soteriology within the 1925 BF&M than they do within the 1963 and 2000 documents. I agree that Mullins was attempting to be irenic, but if I had been a five-point Calvinist in 1925, I would have voiced my concern about the document. The New Hampshire Confession of Faith and the 1925 BF&M are virtually identical in the wording of the sections on the way of salvation, justification, the freeness of salvation, repentance and faith, and election, but the two documents differ significantly on the wording of the section concerning regeneration. Lumpkin quoted the section concerning regeneration from the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833), enclosing in brackets the additions made by J. Newton Brown in 1853:

“[We believe] That in order to be saved, we must be regenerated or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; and is effected in a manner above our comprehension or calculation, by the power of the Holy Spirit, [in connection with divine truth,] so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the Gospel; and that its proper evidence is found in the holy fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.”

William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1959), 363-364.

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith thus places regeneration before faith and repentance (“voluntary obedience to the Gospel”) in logical order. In contrast, the 1925 BF&M places faith before regeneration in logical order:

“Regeneration or the new birth is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature and a holy disposition is given, leading to the love and practice of righteousness. It is a work of God's free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ and made manifest by the fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.”

“Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” SBC Net: Official Website of the Southern Baptist Convention (Nashville: Executive Committee of the SBC, 2007), http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed 16 April 2007).

Mike Ruffin said...

Wade,

The kind of spirit exhibited in Mullins' words is of course exemplary for all of us.

Be prepared, though--as I'm sure you know, there has been a pretty strong effort over the past few years, especially during the debate over the 2000 BF&M, to paint Mullins as being outside the pale of what SBC leadership considers "orthodox."

As for me, I still turn to his Axioms of Religion (the original, not the abbreviated Hobbs version) every now and then to remind myself of the theological underpinnings of Baptist thought.

Bob Cleveland said...

As to resolutions, I've never understood them anyway. Who are they for? If it's to take a public stand on something, we're declaring our public position on something other than what Paul said he'd stick to ... Christ, and Him crucified.

One nice thing about resolutions, though, is that I don't have to worry about taking a public stand on something; it's already been done for me by a meeting where 51% of 9000 or so Baptists decided what I think.

So much for that troublesome requirement about salt and light.

I respect the opinions and theology of others. Romans 14 kind of tells me to. And, other than learning from others, the opinions of others as to my theology doesn't make much difference to me.

Oh yes ... as to narrowing of what it means to be a Baptist, there's a tendency for people to view the minimum requirements as the maximum obligation. In that sense, the narrower we make it, the better folks'll feel about however they live, as long as they don't violate the rules. The BF&M really lets our hearts show through; moreso IMO than, say, the Westminster Confession ever did, for me.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Thanks for this post. After reading comments, especially on Ben Cole's and Robin Foster's blogs, and having some engagement with others on Robin's, I did not feel much "toleration" for views which were out-of-step with the (percieved) majority. Talk about tent-narrowing, and glad of it! Yours is a breath of fresh air, and is about the only thing keeping even one of my feet in the SBC.

John Fariss

Bro. Robin said...

John please show me where you were not tolerated on my blog.

I haven't seen where I or others have presented you in any bad light. No one treated you in a way that was intolerant of your views. The facts were debated through rigorous argumentation. If you like, I can post all the comments here in Wade's comment section for all to see, but that would be disrespectful to Wade. If you have been treated intolerantly, please let me know on my blog so I can take the appropriate action.

Matt mispelled your name, but he apologized and corrected his error.

If you equate rigorous debate with intolerance, then Wade's site would also be intolerant. I am for rigorous debate.

Amy Downey said...

I believe the point is still being missed, regarding the NBC controversy, in your follow-up blogs.

You appear to be attempting to paint into a corner anyone who disagrees with the NBC and your position as unloving, etc. I honestly believe this is by design and as a strategic approach. However, I will grant that you might not realize how you are coming across to folks like myself.

So let me explain myself. To disagree, and to state it strongly, with your connection with the NBC is not showing a lack of respect for your opinion. What this disagreement attempts to do is to challenge not only your's but other's opinions (including perhaps my own). This is not a lack of respect but a call for all of us to defend what we hold true as true.

By the theme of these posts, it appears that you are wanting to have your cake while not allowing others to have their own.

I guess it all boils down to the fact that effective communication (and this is what I told someone last night) takes into account not only what it meant but how it will be received. Received by not only our allies but also with those whom we might disagree.

Something that perhaps we all need to think about.

Amy Downey said...

By the way, I read through my last comment several times to make sure that I expressed myself accurately. Even while editing and re-writing portions, I realize that some (and this to an extent is their perogative) will interpret my post as something that I did not intend. Consequently, I guess my point is made -- effective communication is a subjective sport.

G. Alford said...

Paul,

That's no problem unless resolutions go theologically BEYOND our adopted BF@M and then entities use them as a misplaced basis for restrictions on leadership or service and penalize people with other views.

Excellent comments Paul… I agree 100%...

Unfortunately I live in the great state of FLORIDA and John Sullivan, the Executive Director of the Florida Baptist Convention, feels that resolutions and his personal opinions should be turned into LAW…

Therefore, many Baptist of my generation who do not believe the Bible teaches strict abstinence form all alcoholic beverages (wine) can no longer serve in the Florida Baptist Convention in any capacity at all.

The spirit of Mullins is in very short supply in the SBC today…

Grace to all,

Mike said...

I think all should take a good look at David Rogers' May 30 blog posting regarding NBC and Gospel Coalition. David hits the mark again and again and again. He speaks plainly and does not waffle positions or soften the Gospel or its impact and consequences on people.

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2007/05/celebration-of-new-baptist-covenant-and.html

Debbie said...

Amy: It seems I have gotten the same impression reading your comments and not only on this blog.

Amy Downey said...

Debbie,

My comments are to Wade and him alone. I will not engage in conversation with a 3rd party because that is unfair to the original recipient of my comments. I will let him speak for himself as he does not need others jumping to his defense.

Wade Burleson said...

Amy,

Anyone who has been around me for any length of time, or even slightly knows me, understands that I respect anyone and everyone who disagrees with me. I welcome vigorous disagreement over NBC and respect people with opposing views. Under no circumstances would I desire to imply that people who disagree over this issue are unloving, and if you read that in what I write, I seek your forgiveness. Frankly, I keep scratching my head over why you continue to write about NBC when this post and the ones before it had nothing to do with it. I've written everything I intend to write about it.

Amy Downey said...

Wade,

You asked a good question and I will provide what I hope is a good answer.

You asked why I keep referring to the NBC. It is because I believe, and this is my perogative to do so, that your subsequent posts are designed to offset disagreement over your original NBC post. At other times you have posted a blog in anticipation of future events. In other words, your blogs appear to have a theme or purpose behind them. For example just a few days before the Klouda lawsuit became public, you posted a blog about the possibility of Christians suing each other. Coincidence ...?

My answer ... short and sweet.

In addition, thank you for your apology. It is obviously accepted. And I do appreciate your spirit in providing it.

Wade Burleson said...

Your welcome Amy. I would encourage both of us not to attempt to read the mind of someone we do not know. We should take at face value the words that are written and avoid assigning motives. Healthy relationships and better dialogue are both facilitate when we do those things.

In His Grace,


Wade

Wade Burleson said...

By the way, you are missing out if you do not engage Debbie. We both could learn a great deal from her.

Lee said...

There's a thin line, apparently, between "vigorous debate" and unloving criticism. I don't really understand why those who claim belief in an "inerrant, infallible" Bible would ignore it's teaching when it comes to the rules of engagement for disagreement. The standard for speaking to unbelievers is gentleness and respect (see I Peter 3:15-16). Shouldn't we do better than that when disagreeing with people who are our spiritual family?

I think the dominance of the leaders of the conservative resurgence in convention life over the past few years has led some of those who hold those views to think their's is the only opinion that really matters in the SBC. But then, when only 9,000 or so messengers, from 2,000 or so churches, are the only ones who show up at the convention, while those who hold differing points of view have generally tended to stay away, it can appear to be that way. Last year, when more messengers showed up and more churches were represented than has been the case for more than a decade, there were some surprises. San Antonio, deep in the heart of Texas, where the conservative resurgence has never been very popular, might be a very surprising wake-up call for those who think that everyone in the SBC thinks like they do.

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that your way of interpreting the scripture is the only correct way. I'm amazed at how easily and completely some people pass right over direct scriptural support for a divergent view without even acknowledging it.

Anonymous said...

Dear Robin,

Words get us into trouble, don't they? Especially when we use different dictionaries, or different definitions even if within the same dictionary.

I did not mean that I was "disrespected," and if I came off that way, I appologize. That is not what I meant. And yes, I would agree there was some good and honest debate. I often enjoy that, and hope others do too, and for the most part (and here I refer to comments made specificially to me), there was no hateful speech or anything of the sort. Looking back at my entry, I can see where that was a possible implication of what I said, and I apologize for it. That is NOT what I meant or experienced.

The intoleration to which I referred is more of a perception that there was, overall, a unwillingness either to move from entrenched positions or to consider that the position I (and others) hold is possible and valid and not worth fighting over, in what are often called "third tier" doctrines. Such toleration might sound something like, "I disagree with your viewpoint, but then again it isn't necessary that we agree on it to remain brothers, not only in Christ, but even in the SBC." Granted, someone acknowledged that one could hold to my position and still be a Southern Baptist, BUT not be considered for employment or leadership. To me, that IS intoleration. It is (again to me) a statement that unity requires near absolute uniformity, and that is what I was referring to in my post on Wade's blog. For being unclear about that, I apologize.

And BTW, Matt didn't owe me an appology for misspelling my name. I often tell people that my horse-stealing ancestors just didn't know any better. Mention of it was no more than an poor attempt to introduce a bit of humor--again aimed at reducing anxiety over the real subject matter.

I say it's time to go back to the past--to Mullin's position. Let's rachet down the stress instead of jacking it up!

John Fariss

Jack Maddox said...

wade

This was a great trip back to our Baptist heritage and history! This kind of post reminds me why I loved Dr. Leon McBeth's class's so much at SWBTS.

It also gives me a chance to say to you Bro. Wade that I greatly respect your positions and the way you present them. A few of them I am in whole hearted agreement with...and in almost all of them there is some truth that we all can rally around. Your thoughts are well planned and thought out, and you articulate them very well.

May I add that to disagree with you however, even vigorously so, is not to disrespect you but to actually say that one feels your position is important enough to reply to. Have you ever heard the term "I will not even dignify that thought with a response" ? I believe the fact that you're "THE BLOGGER KING OF THE WORLD!" tells us that your opinions are worthy of response. Wade, you and I certainly disagree on MOST issues facing our convention. To disagree is the mark of dialogue and respect...to ignore and never mind is the act of one who is disrespectful of the opinion of another and feels it merits no response.

This little Baptist spat of ours, just like the one you posted about, will be decided by Baptist folks in the time honored way. Not everyone will like the end results, and some may even be faced with issues and decisions based upon deeply held theological and ideological convictions which could even effect their participation in our SBC family...but none the less let me emphatically say…

I respect Wade Burleson because of the way he makes his point, it is not necessary that I agree with the point he makes...and I may fight his position with all that I have and all that I am but at the end of the day whether I prevail or I am vanquished, God will be honored by my efforts and the tactics I utilized in the struggle.

at least I pray so.

Jack

Jack Maddox said...

lee said

"There's a thin line, apparently, between "vigorous debate" and unloving criticism. I don't really understand why those who claim belief in an "inerrant, infallible" Bible would ignore it's teaching when it comes to the rules of engagement for disagreement. The standard for speaking to unbelievers is gentleness and respect (see I Peter 3:15-16). Shouldn't we do better than that when disagreeing with people who are our spiritual family?"

I agree! Can you cite where folks who disagree with Wade on this issue have been 'unloving"? The line between unloving criticism and vigorous debate is a rather subjective one, don't you think? To some, to question ones so called facts, opinions or suppositions is deemed 'unloving'

I do really agree with you though...I wonder, and this is in context to Wades remarks on respect" if the character assassination and mean spirited attack of Ben Cole on not only Dr. Patterson, but now his takes on ignorant posters and obese Baptists would subjectively fit into ones definition of 'gentleness and respect'

It would seem to me that your comment is best applied to all of us…and we would be better for it if not only listened, but if we heard what you were saying!

Jack

Wade Burleson said...

Jack,

One of the things I learned a long time ago is that when a man talks about the sin of others he is calloused regarding his own, but when a man talks of his own sin, he has no desire to point out sin in others. I will definitely focus on being gentle, patient and kind to those who disagree with me, but will leave others and how they handles themselves to God.

Jack Maddox said...

Wade

well it seems perhaps you are insinuating that I may be a bit 'calloused' to my own sin? Not at all my brother...in fact if you will read the last paragraph in my last post you will see that I certainly include myself in this lot...however, my point is that we hear a lot about being unkind and unloving by folks who disagree, my point is simply that it should and must cut both ways.

You are correct that none of us are to be the police of the other in matters of the heart...however, when ones tactics go above and beyond basic Christian decency and decorum, then one must speak out and say "Thou art the man!"

I would expect that when I am out of line...I believe you would also. We are ultimately accountable to God but we are also accountable to one another concerning our words and ways.

Is that not what motivated you to begin this blog wade?

Jack

Anonymous said...

Paul,

As a former state Convention president, I think I can tell you that your statement about resolutions is not completely accurate.

Resolutions state the will the particular convention in session. They are not binding on churches or on individual members within the denomination.

However, they ARE binding on convention staff. A large state convention passed a silly resolution about movies in hotel rooms. It seemed meaningless. However, the staff was bound by it. For the next year, no state staff member was allowed to stay in an hotel, because it would violate this resolution. They had to wait until the next convention to alter the resolution.

Resolutions may be the silliest thing we do as a denomination. However, they ARE serious business to the employees of the convention.

If we pass a resolution at the convention that weariing pink is inappropriate on Thursdays, you and I can still wear pink anytime we want (and we are both masculine enough to carry it off).

However, Coop Program employees better not be caught in pink between 11:59 PM Wednesday to 12:00 AM Friday.

When we talk about "non-binding" resolutions - that is not really true.

Dave

blackhaw66 said...

I agree that we need to be gracious when we disagree with one another. I have seen in the blogs against Patterson many times an unChristlike attitude towards him. Many andti-Patterson bloggers have ascribed motives to Patterson without really knowing the full truth. Also many times the blogs only gives a negative slant to part of the story and leaves the rest for the imagination.

I hope, like Wade, that this kind of unChristlike character discontinues.

Wade Burleson said...

Jack,

You sad, "I would expect that (correction) when I am out of line...I believe you would also. We are ultimately accountable to God but we are also accountable to one another concerning our words and ways."

Is that not what motivated you to begin this blog wade?



No sir, I began this blog because of what I perceived as a theological drift toward independent fundamentalism and a demand that people conform to specific tertiary doctrines, including full blown cessationism, Landmarkism, dispensational pre-millenialism, and a hyper anti-Calvinism.

I enjoy the company of people who believe all the above, but will vigorously oppose the imposition of their philosophical and theological ideologies on an entire convention.

By the way, I was not referring to you when I mentioned people talking about others. I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was simply saying I myself am not going to chastize other people on this blog. Ideology and theology are fair game, but even loving those who disagree is my goal.

Jack Maddox said...

Wade

we are quiveling over semantics here...everything you mentioned that motivated you to begin this blog would qualify as "words and ways"...at least that was my intent.

Look, all I am saying in short is that to protest, disagree, and stand against a perceived position of someone is not to be unloving or unkind...it is at it's heart simply principled dissent. It is my opinion this is what you have stated you were doing in starting your blog. I may not agree with the way you went about it, but it is your right to do so!

Jack

Wade Burleson said...

Amen, Jack.

We agree. I think what bothers you (and me), is what seems to be attacks on people, and not vigorous debate on people's actions, theology and and philosophy. People themselves ought never be demeaned -- and I work hard to try to avoid doing so.

Anonymous said...

Now, there you have it Wade. You are now an icon of the Baptist left: people are coming to you to defend Underwood's support of Planned Parenthood and its agenda to teach promiscuity to children (again contact john_pisciotta@baylor.edu). Wade, do you know that Bill Underwood is a first class liar?
He will say "I am prolife; I even oppose the death penalty." Never mind, that he is a big supporter of CHOICE!
For example, before becoming interim president at Baylor, he promised several regents that he would keep leading evangelical scholar David Jeffrey as Provost. He broke this promise on the first day at his job. During his interim, he sought to empower the most anti-Christian force on campus, the faculty senate. Underwood also blasted former president Robert Sloan for his stand against same-sex marriage.
Bill Underwood is now president of a "baptist" university that has an official gay group on campus.
Sloan is now president of a Christ-centered university in Houston.
Thankfully, the regents saw how deceptive he was and kicked him out.
What does that tell you?
You are destroying your credibility everyday more and more my friend. Your logic is pathetic as well. You are going to Atlanta because it is an opportunity to share. Strip bars also offer such opportunities. Would you go there too?

Anonymous said...

I sort of stopped reading this blog for a while. I was very interested and passionate in support of the bloggers movement last year in opposition to the PPL and baptism guidelines.

As I have started reading the blog again recently, I am convinced there is a change in the tone. the tone is different. What was once corrective is now just critical.

Paige Patterson irritates me, but to read these blogs, he is the devil in a blue suit. He is vilified and scorned. Caner, Falwell, and just about anyone in a position of power and authority is viewed negatively.

Frank Page, last year's White Knight (and still mine), is now on the black list for taking a stand against a left-wing group that is organizing in opposition to the SBC.

The tone of the blog seems to have become more "us vs. them" white hats/black hats.

I know that everyone on the blog will say I am wrong, but this is one man's observation. I understand, Wade, that some of this is based on those who comment, not just your blogs. However, I have also noted which comments you confront, and which you let stand. Comments supportive of the SBC tend to be challenged, while critical comments tend to be supported.

From my observation, the tone and tenor of "Grace and Truth" has changed since last year.

I support and agree with many of the ideas presented here, but I am disturbed at the current direction of the blog (and the movement if it respresents one).

Dave Miller