A few months ago Rachelle and I had the privilege of meeting Wintley Phipps at the Oklahoma Baptist General Convention's Centennial Celebration. After the celebration - which was held at the First Southern of Del City, Oklahoma - Rachelle and I went to eat at the Cheesecake Factory in Oklahoma City. At the restaurant we were introduced to Wintley and his wife Anne by BGCO Executive Director Dr. Anthony Jordan and his wife Paula. Wintley and Anne were very warm and engaging in their conversation with us and Rachelle and I became big fans of their ministry that night. I had never heard Wintley sing until the Centennial Celebration, but I have since listened to him on multiple occasions via television and C.D.
My blogger friend Wayne Smith sent me the above video this week. Though this recorded portion of one of Wintley's performances is over eight minutes long, it is worth every minute of your time to listen to it. The recording is from Carnegie Hall in New York City and it has to go down as one of the most moving renditions of Amazing Grace ever recorded.
Have a great weekend and a wonderful Lord's Day Sunday!
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
WELCOME TO ISTORIA
Simply Amazing: Amazing Grace at Carnegie Hall
The SBC Great Commission Resurgence Is Here
Just as historians look back to 1979 and the election of Adrian Rogers as the beginning of what is now known as "The Conservative Resurgence," I believe future historians will look back at the election of Frank Page in 2006 as the beginning of what will one day be called "The Great Commission Resurgence."
Tuesday I gave a report to the Board of Directors of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma regarding the incredible upsurge of Cooperative Program giving from Southern Baptist churches in Oklahoma. Bob Shelton, BGCO Stewardship Director, has led our Oklahoma state churches to concentrate on getting back to giving 10% of undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program. This past year, for every one dollar of undesignated giving to SBC churches in Oklahoma, 9.7 cents was forwarded to the Cooperative Program. That is an increase from 8.9 percent of every dollar the year before. The current national average is 6.4 percent. That means in a church with a one million dollar budget, if that church were from an Oklahoma Southern Baptist church, it would give on average $97,000 to the Cooperative Program. Likewise, if that same million dollar budget were in a church that was a non-Oklahoma Southern Baptist church, it would give on average $64,000 to the Cooperative Program. That is a very significant difference.
One of the great saxophonists of years past was once asked why his music was so much better than the average saxophonist. He replied, "If it ain't in your heart, it can't come out your horn." Until we actually place the Great Commission at the center of our purpose for cooperation, as Oklahoma churches are now doing, we will continually snipe at one another over non-essentials and fragment and splinter in dizzyingly different directions as a convention.
If we are to reach our goal of an additional 3,000 missionaries on the mission field in the next few years, it will only occur through increased CP dollars and intentional cooperation with churches and people who may not see eye to eye with us on tertiary matters. When CP giving increases, all the ministries of the SBC (the IMB, the seminaries, the North American Mission Board, state conventions, etc.) will prosper. The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma has received through June 30th of this year $430,000 more in Cooperative Program fund receipts than our state CP budget. Last year the BGCO took in more than 2.5 million dollars in receipts than we budgeted. At the end of the fiscal year we immediately forwarded half of that 2.5 million dollars to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, which then forwarded it to our missions agencies, seminaries, and other national SBC ministries. When water in the harbor we call CP rises, all boats rise with it.
Cooperative Program dollars have been used in the state of Oklahoma in some incredible ways this past year. Our BGCO state offices keeps 60 percent of CP money sent to them from Oklahoma churches and forwards 40 percent to Nashville. Of that 40 percent sent to Nashville, the International Mission Board receives half, and the other agencies of the SBC divide the other half. We are working as a state to forward even more monies to our national agencies and in reality, due to our additional $1.25 million surplus gift last year, Oklahoma Southern Baptists gave almost 41 percent of our state Cooperative Program revenue to the national SBC agencies.
The money that stays in Oklahoma is put to tremendous use to impact lostness in our state. It would be too much to list all that Oklahoma does in terms of ministry, but suffice it to say, people in Oklahoma know about Southern Baptists - in positive terms. From the 40,000 young people who attend Falls Creek, to the professional television commercials produced by our staff and aired across the state and seen by 90% of television viewers, to the Disaster Relief response teams that spread across the nation representing Oklahoma, when people think of Southern Baptists in Oklahoma, there is a positive feeling.
And that is the way it should be.
The harmony among the pastors in Oklahoma is unprecedented. We don't always agree with each other, but we don't yell and scream at one another. We don't always see eye to eye, but we respect the other person and his/her views. We have a sweet spirit among us in our state.
And that is the way it should be.
In our Stewardship Committee meeting yesterday we discussed some very significant churches in Oklahoma that have tremendous potential to increase their missions giving through the CP. Someone mentioned Henderson Hills Baptist Church in Edmond, probably the largest Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma in terms of budget and attendance, and made mention of the fact that Henderson Hills, though they are in the top fifty churches in terms of CP giving, could be giving so much more.
I was quick to point out that for Henderson Hills to be a significant contributor to the Cooperative Program, they must know that their autonomy is respected, their cooperation is valued, and they feel appreciated by state churches and pastors. Too many Southern Baptists are quick to make an enemy of a fellow Southern Baptist because either a church or a pastor does not see eye to eye with the powers that be. Worse, some are so determined to narrow the doctrinal parameters of what it means to be a Baptist, or demand ideological conformity to narrow views of non-essential issues, that if Southern Baptists are not careful and we let those ideologues speak as if they were the official spokespersons for all Southern Baptists, then churches like Henderson Hills, or Cornerstone in Arlington, or other non-traditional Southern Baptist churches might begin to feel unwelcome. For a convention that is built on cooperation, large conservative SBC churches that are made to feel unwelcome because of demands for ideological conformity on tertiary issues is the death knell.
The Southern Baptist Convention would do well to follow the example of Oklahoma. Focus on cooperation. Focus on the Great Commission. Accept people and their tertiary differences. Keep Christ and the gospel central. When that happens, the harvest will come.
The Great Commission Resurgence has already begun.
Would to God that it continues for decades to come.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Tuesday I gave a report to the Board of Directors of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma regarding the incredible upsurge of Cooperative Program giving from Southern Baptist churches in Oklahoma. Bob Shelton, BGCO Stewardship Director, has led our Oklahoma state churches to concentrate on getting back to giving 10% of undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program. This past year, for every one dollar of undesignated giving to SBC churches in Oklahoma, 9.7 cents was forwarded to the Cooperative Program. That is an increase from 8.9 percent of every dollar the year before. The current national average is 6.4 percent. That means in a church with a one million dollar budget, if that church were from an Oklahoma Southern Baptist church, it would give on average $97,000 to the Cooperative Program. Likewise, if that same million dollar budget were in a church that was a non-Oklahoma Southern Baptist church, it would give on average $64,000 to the Cooperative Program. That is a very significant difference.
One of the great saxophonists of years past was once asked why his music was so much better than the average saxophonist. He replied, "If it ain't in your heart, it can't come out your horn." Until we actually place the Great Commission at the center of our purpose for cooperation, as Oklahoma churches are now doing, we will continually snipe at one another over non-essentials and fragment and splinter in dizzyingly different directions as a convention.
If we are to reach our goal of an additional 3,000 missionaries on the mission field in the next few years, it will only occur through increased CP dollars and intentional cooperation with churches and people who may not see eye to eye with us on tertiary matters. When CP giving increases, all the ministries of the SBC (the IMB, the seminaries, the North American Mission Board, state conventions, etc.) will prosper. The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma has received through June 30th of this year $430,000 more in Cooperative Program fund receipts than our state CP budget. Last year the BGCO took in more than 2.5 million dollars in receipts than we budgeted. At the end of the fiscal year we immediately forwarded half of that 2.5 million dollars to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, which then forwarded it to our missions agencies, seminaries, and other national SBC ministries. When water in the harbor we call CP rises, all boats rise with it.
Cooperative Program dollars have been used in the state of Oklahoma in some incredible ways this past year. Our BGCO state offices keeps 60 percent of CP money sent to them from Oklahoma churches and forwards 40 percent to Nashville. Of that 40 percent sent to Nashville, the International Mission Board receives half, and the other agencies of the SBC divide the other half. We are working as a state to forward even more monies to our national agencies and in reality, due to our additional $1.25 million surplus gift last year, Oklahoma Southern Baptists gave almost 41 percent of our state Cooperative Program revenue to the national SBC agencies.
The money that stays in Oklahoma is put to tremendous use to impact lostness in our state. It would be too much to list all that Oklahoma does in terms of ministry, but suffice it to say, people in Oklahoma know about Southern Baptists - in positive terms. From the 40,000 young people who attend Falls Creek, to the professional television commercials produced by our staff and aired across the state and seen by 90% of television viewers, to the Disaster Relief response teams that spread across the nation representing Oklahoma, when people think of Southern Baptists in Oklahoma, there is a positive feeling.
And that is the way it should be.
The harmony among the pastors in Oklahoma is unprecedented. We don't always agree with each other, but we don't yell and scream at one another. We don't always see eye to eye, but we respect the other person and his/her views. We have a sweet spirit among us in our state.
And that is the way it should be.
In our Stewardship Committee meeting yesterday we discussed some very significant churches in Oklahoma that have tremendous potential to increase their missions giving through the CP. Someone mentioned Henderson Hills Baptist Church in Edmond, probably the largest Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma in terms of budget and attendance, and made mention of the fact that Henderson Hills, though they are in the top fifty churches in terms of CP giving, could be giving so much more.
I was quick to point out that for Henderson Hills to be a significant contributor to the Cooperative Program, they must know that their autonomy is respected, their cooperation is valued, and they feel appreciated by state churches and pastors. Too many Southern Baptists are quick to make an enemy of a fellow Southern Baptist because either a church or a pastor does not see eye to eye with the powers that be. Worse, some are so determined to narrow the doctrinal parameters of what it means to be a Baptist, or demand ideological conformity to narrow views of non-essential issues, that if Southern Baptists are not careful and we let those ideologues speak as if they were the official spokespersons for all Southern Baptists, then churches like Henderson Hills, or Cornerstone in Arlington, or other non-traditional Southern Baptist churches might begin to feel unwelcome. For a convention that is built on cooperation, large conservative SBC churches that are made to feel unwelcome because of demands for ideological conformity on tertiary issues is the death knell.
The Southern Baptist Convention would do well to follow the example of Oklahoma. Focus on cooperation. Focus on the Great Commission. Accept people and their tertiary differences. Keep Christ and the gospel central. When that happens, the harvest will come.
The Great Commission Resurgence has already begun.
Would to God that it continues for decades to come.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
A Parable About An Unrepentant Son (or Sinner)
In a place called Vineyard there lived a Father and two adopted sons. One day the Father told the sons He would be leaving the Vineyard, but He would certainly return at a future time. He left instructions for the boys that the Vineyard was to be tended, and the grapes were to be harvested. There was no doubt both sons loved their Father, and there was no misunderstanding as to their mission - they were to harvest the grapes.
Over time, however, the sons had families of their own and soon many people from the the two son's families were in Vineyard harvesting the grapes as instructed by their Father. Eventually one of the sons, named Order, noticed his brother was not washing the grapes the way Father had taught them. Worse, all of those in brother's family were washing the grapes in the same manner - different from Order's way.
Order gathered his own children who were in the Vineyard and instructed them again in the proper way to wash grapes. Order spent hours that first day teaching his children the way Father had instructed them to wash grapes. The next day Order gathered his kids around and taught them again the principles of proper washing. Some of the young children who listened to Order were scratching their heads - they had always washed their grapes the way Father had taught them and were confused as to why they were being kept from the Vineyard to remind them of their Identity.
Soon, the reason for Order's ways were clear. Order 'order'ed his family to not associate with his brother's family in the Vineyard. He informed them that those grapes being harvested by their kin were possibly not part of a legitimate harvest because they had not been properly washed. Some of the more rebellious and independently-minded children of Order objected. The Vineyard was the Father's Vineyard, they said, and we are but stewards. Do not brother and his family answer to the Father and not to you, dear Order?
Order was livid. In his mind his own children were losing their Identity and a Rennaissance of what it means to be part of Order's family was needed. Order told his free-thinking children that if they did not have pride in being part of Order's family, they should leave the Vineyard. The children of Order responded, quite directly, that the issue was not disagreement with Order, but whether or not they would obey orders to not cooperate with their brother's family harvesting the grapes.
Order then pulled out all the stops against his brother and his brother's family by saying to all of Order's kids - "Our brother and his children are unrepentant sinners and we have been told by Father not to associate with the unrepentant, but to treat them as publicans. They do not belong in the same Vineyard with us." Some of Order's kids heard this and thought Order had lost his mind. Some wondered how Father would react when He found out Order called the Father's son an unrepentant sinner. Others in Order's family were embarrassed that those outside the Vineyard - people who didn't understand how the family operates - might think Order spoke for the whole family. One wise son of Order, however, won the day by speaking up when Order announced the need for an intensive Renaissance of Order's ways.
"Order," said the wise son, " Do you honestly believe it wise to take all of your kids out of the Vineyard to protect them from the brother's faulty methods of washing? Have you ever considered the fact that brother will one day answer to Father, and it might be best for us who are part of Order's family to work side by side with our brother's family, washing the grapes the way Father taught us, but concentrating on the harvest rather than identifying brother as an 'unrepentant sinner?'"
Order loudly rebuked the wise son in front of all the family, and even suggested the boy didn't understand the ways of Order. He implied the boy might be a secret member of brother's family; or worse, not even someone who should be in the Vineyard in the first place. Brother's family heard all the arguments on the Order side of the field and began to wonder why Order's family fought so much.
Right then, in the midst of all the debate and arguing among Order's kids, Father returned.
When Father asked for an accounting of the harvest in the Vineyard, Order proudly told Father that he had done his best to keep Order's family washing the grapes properly. When Father asked why the Harvest was low, Order proudly explained that when brother's family began to depart from the proper mode of washing grapes, he had withdrawn all of Order's kin from the Vineyard in order that he might rebuke them for associating with brother's family who were washing grapes improperly.
When Father heard from Order all the problems between brothers in the Vineyard, He called for the brother in unrepentant sin to stand before Him to give an account for his actions.
The moral of this parable is in the form of a question.
Which son stood before the Father in unrepentant sin?
Over time, however, the sons had families of their own and soon many people from the the two son's families were in Vineyard harvesting the grapes as instructed by their Father. Eventually one of the sons, named Order, noticed his brother was not washing the grapes the way Father had taught them. Worse, all of those in brother's family were washing the grapes in the same manner - different from Order's way.
Order gathered his own children who were in the Vineyard and instructed them again in the proper way to wash grapes. Order spent hours that first day teaching his children the way Father had instructed them to wash grapes. The next day Order gathered his kids around and taught them again the principles of proper washing. Some of the young children who listened to Order were scratching their heads - they had always washed their grapes the way Father had taught them and were confused as to why they were being kept from the Vineyard to remind them of their Identity.
Soon, the reason for Order's ways were clear. Order 'order'ed his family to not associate with his brother's family in the Vineyard. He informed them that those grapes being harvested by their kin were possibly not part of a legitimate harvest because they had not been properly washed. Some of the more rebellious and independently-minded children of Order objected. The Vineyard was the Father's Vineyard, they said, and we are but stewards. Do not brother and his family answer to the Father and not to you, dear Order?
Order was livid. In his mind his own children were losing their Identity and a Rennaissance of what it means to be part of Order's family was needed. Order told his free-thinking children that if they did not have pride in being part of Order's family, they should leave the Vineyard. The children of Order responded, quite directly, that the issue was not disagreement with Order, but whether or not they would obey orders to not cooperate with their brother's family harvesting the grapes.
Order then pulled out all the stops against his brother and his brother's family by saying to all of Order's kids - "Our brother and his children are unrepentant sinners and we have been told by Father not to associate with the unrepentant, but to treat them as publicans. They do not belong in the same Vineyard with us." Some of Order's kids heard this and thought Order had lost his mind. Some wondered how Father would react when He found out Order called the Father's son an unrepentant sinner. Others in Order's family were embarrassed that those outside the Vineyard - people who didn't understand how the family operates - might think Order spoke for the whole family. One wise son of Order, however, won the day by speaking up when Order announced the need for an intensive Renaissance of Order's ways.
"Order," said the wise son, " Do you honestly believe it wise to take all of your kids out of the Vineyard to protect them from the brother's faulty methods of washing? Have you ever considered the fact that brother will one day answer to Father, and it might be best for us who are part of Order's family to work side by side with our brother's family, washing the grapes the way Father taught us, but concentrating on the harvest rather than identifying brother as an 'unrepentant sinner?'"
Order loudly rebuked the wise son in front of all the family, and even suggested the boy didn't understand the ways of Order. He implied the boy might be a secret member of brother's family; or worse, not even someone who should be in the Vineyard in the first place. Brother's family heard all the arguments on the Order side of the field and began to wonder why Order's family fought so much.
Right then, in the midst of all the debate and arguing among Order's kids, Father returned.
When Father asked for an accounting of the harvest in the Vineyard, Order proudly told Father that he had done his best to keep Order's family washing the grapes properly. When Father asked why the Harvest was low, Order proudly explained that when brother's family began to depart from the proper mode of washing grapes, he had withdrawn all of Order's kin from the Vineyard in order that he might rebuke them for associating with brother's family who were washing grapes improperly.
When Father heard from Order all the problems between brothers in the Vineyard, He called for the brother in unrepentant sin to stand before Him to give an account for his actions.
The moral of this parable is in the form of a question.
Which son stood before the Father in unrepentant sin?
Cooperation Does Not Mean a Lack of Conviction
There are a handful of blogs that I read for personal edification and continuing education. One of those is David Rogers' blog Love Each Stone. David is a Southern Baptist missionary to Spain. He and I were at Baylor University together in the early eighties and I have followed his family and missionary career ever since.
I constantly learn from David. He is one of the most gracious men you will ever meet - or read. He is always chaste in his speech, civil in his deportment, and everything about him is seasoned with grace. David exemplifies the finest of who Southern Baptists are and what Southern Baptists believe. Most people know that David is the son of the legendary Adrian Rogers, has been educated at our Southern Baptist universities and seminaries, and has faithfully served Christ on behalf of Southern Baptists in mission fields abroad for two decades.
Recently David and Malcolm Yarnell, a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, entered into an online debate over the importance of cooperation among Great Commission Christians. Malcolm Yarnell takes the position that the only true
Great Commission Christians are Baptists. Everyone else, including Methodists, Presbyterians, non-Baptist Congegrationalists, Reformed Churches, Assemblies of God, and other Christians are in 'unrepentant sin' (his words, not mine) and Baptists should not cooperate with them on the mission field or in any church planting endeavors.
David Rogers responds to Malcolm's views by brilliantly showing why Christians should never divide over "secondary matters" or "disputable matters." David's hypothetical illustration of the "Common Loaf Denomination" is one of the most precise and understandable Biblical rationales for cooperating with other non-Baptist Christians on the mission field and in kingdom work you will ever read.
Then, Dr. Yarnell responds to David. Please read the letter in its entirety. Below are a few of Dr. Yarnell's statements to David (quoted exactly), with my observations and commentary of Dr. Yarnell's words.
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_____________________________________
______________________________________
I wish to commend Malcolm Yarnell and David Rogers for this very informative dialogue. I respect both men, believe them to be very sincere brothers in Christ and have absolutely no problem in serving with either of them at the International Mission Board. I do believe that in David and Malcolm you have a very clear understanding of the tension and the give and take between two diametrically opposite ideological and missiological viewpoints. Whichever viewpoint ultimately prevails in the IMB and the SBC will determine the course of our future. The differing ideologies, in my opinion, are best illustrated in this cartoon sent to me by Art Rogers.
I constantly learn from David. He is one of the most gracious men you will ever meet - or read. He is always chaste in his speech, civil in his deportment, and everything about him is seasoned with grace. David exemplifies the finest of who Southern Baptists are and what Southern Baptists believe. Most people know that David is the son of the legendary Adrian Rogers, has been educated at our Southern Baptist universities and seminaries, and has faithfully served Christ on behalf of Southern Baptists in mission fields abroad for two decades.
Recently David and Malcolm Yarnell, a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, entered into an online debate over the importance of cooperation among Great Commission Christians. Malcolm Yarnell takes the position that the only true
Great Commission Christians are Baptists. Everyone else, including Methodists, Presbyterians, non-Baptist Congegrationalists, Reformed Churches, Assemblies of God, and other Christians are in 'unrepentant sin' (his words, not mine) and Baptists should not cooperate with them on the mission field or in any church planting endeavors.
David Rogers responds to Malcolm's views by brilliantly showing why Christians should never divide over "secondary matters" or "disputable matters." David's hypothetical illustration of the "Common Loaf Denomination" is one of the most precise and understandable Biblical rationales for cooperating with other non-Baptist Christians on the mission field and in kingdom work you will ever read.
Then, Dr. Yarnell responds to David. Please read the letter in its entirety. Below are a few of Dr. Yarnell's statements to David (quoted exactly), with my observations and commentary of Dr. Yarnell's words.
_________________________________________
"David, if I were to make a guess, it would be this: you, my friend, are still searching out exactly what you believe in many of these matters! "I have read every one of David's letters, and it is evident that David is rock solid in his beliefs on baptism, the Lord's Supper, ecclesiology, etc . . . Dr. Yarnell even mentions that David expresses his views clearly. I find the statement that David Rogers, a Southern Baptist educated, long term career missionary is "still searching" exactly what he believes on baptism, the Lord's supper, etc . . . a little patronizing.
_________________________________________
"My fear is that you have been brought to a precarious position by some of the worrisome trends in modern missionary thought and practice. These worrisome trends include, among many others, a confusion as to what exactly constitutes a Great Commission Christian, the invention of a distinction between "Baptist" and "baptistic," the affirmation or denial of the perspicuity of Scripture, confusion as to what it really means to cooperate with other Christians, and lack of clarity regarding a Baptist hierarchy of values."Since Dr. Yarnell is not with the IMB, I'm not sure if he knows that the mission and purpose statements of the International Mission Board, adopted by the trustees of the IMB and implemented on the mission fields around the world, define precisely what a Great Commission Christian is, affirms the perspicuity of Scripture, and lay out clearly the terms of cooperation with other Great Commission Christians while maintaining Baptist distinctives. Dr. Yarnell's remarks appear to be very similar to the letter sent by Drs. Keith Eitel and Paige Patterson to IMB trustees in 2003 which criticized the administration and missionary employees of the IMB for these very issues. The 2003 criticism was specifically and directly rejected four years ago by the IMB trustees.
_____________________________________
In other words, David, let us be clear that on the basis of the long-standing Baptist interpretation of the Great Commission, the following groups specifically do not qualify to be called Great Commission Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians (and other Reformed Churches), Non-Baptist Congregationalists, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God. I will not provide an exhaustive list, for that would require a dictionary, but suffice it to say that any other Christian group that believes or practices what these Christian denominations distinctively believe and practice may not be legitimately classified as Great Commission Christians, even if some of them may be classified as "evangelicals."I would be very interested in knowing if Dr. Yarnell's list of illegimitate Great Commission Christians is given to the public at large as an official representative of SWBTS, or merely his personal opinion? I would assume it represents his personal opinion and I affirm his freedom to express it publicly. It illustrates very clearly the direction some would like to take our board.
______________________________________
The errors of these other Christian churches are why some Baptists are more than willing to refer to them as "unrepentant sinners." When you disobey Christ, you are a "sinner." When you refuse to change your ways, you are "unrepentant." Thus, those who refuse to repent from their disobedience of Christ are "unrepentant sinners." This terminology seems to rub evangelical ecumenists in an especially noticeable way, which is probably why some of us readily use it. It helps bring forward important issues that are being buried in the rush of some naïve and errant children of the free churches to convert to Azusa Street, Canterbury, Geneva, Rome, and Constantinople.I will not comment on this paragraph. I believe it says enough on its own.
I wish to commend Malcolm Yarnell and David Rogers for this very informative dialogue. I respect both men, believe them to be very sincere brothers in Christ and have absolutely no problem in serving with either of them at the International Mission Board. I do believe that in David and Malcolm you have a very clear understanding of the tension and the give and take between two diametrically opposite ideological and missiological viewpoints. Whichever viewpoint ultimately prevails in the IMB and the SBC will determine the course of our future. The differing ideologies, in my opinion, are best illustrated in this cartoon sent to me by Art Rogers.
Ration is the Root of Cooperation: Let's All Ration
The word cooperation speaks of many people coming together, with everyone restricted to limited allotments of power, limited allotments of assets, limited allotments of influence. Oligarchies and monarchies by their very nature limit nothing. The few or - the one - hold all the power and control.
I believe it is essential that leaders of the SBC - including SBC pastors - understand that the Southern Baptist Convention is built on cooperation. The local church is the highest authority, and we have over 45,000 local churches in the Southern Baptist Convention. No one church has all the influence, not one church contributes all the leadership. No one church dictates to the whole what we can, or cannot believe or do. We cooperate together.
So it is with the agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention. Not one agency or respective President controls the SBC. No one president is alloted all the power, nor should he be. The Great Commission Council is composed of all the agency heads of the SBC, and cooperation is as essential among the Presidents of SBC agencies as it is pastors of the SBC.
There is room in the Southern Baptist Convention for every Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, missions-loving person. We need people from all sides of the non-essentials issues to let their voices be heard. We need people from all sides of the tertiary matters to make their views known.
What we don't need is the exclusion of one person over against another. We don't need attempts to stifle one side of debate, while encouraging the other. We need truth-telling without motive assigning. We need open, direct and transparent communication, and not anonymous letters. The SBC needs as much information as possible in the hands of as many people as possible. We operate best when the many cooperate together with limited allotments of power, money and influence by all.
I personally believe, thanks to the efforts of many, the base of power and influence that has been in the hands of just a few is spreading to many. As it spreads, nobody should begrudge it.
The SBC is built on cooperation.
I believe it is essential that leaders of the SBC - including SBC pastors - understand that the Southern Baptist Convention is built on cooperation. The local church is the highest authority, and we have over 45,000 local churches in the Southern Baptist Convention. No one church has all the influence, not one church contributes all the leadership. No one church dictates to the whole what we can, or cannot believe or do. We cooperate together.
So it is with the agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention. Not one agency or respective President controls the SBC. No one president is alloted all the power, nor should he be. The Great Commission Council is composed of all the agency heads of the SBC, and cooperation is as essential among the Presidents of SBC agencies as it is pastors of the SBC.
There is room in the Southern Baptist Convention for every Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, missions-loving person. We need people from all sides of the non-essentials issues to let their voices be heard. We need people from all sides of the tertiary matters to make their views known.
What we don't need is the exclusion of one person over against another. We don't need attempts to stifle one side of debate, while encouraging the other. We need truth-telling without motive assigning. We need open, direct and transparent communication, and not anonymous letters. The SBC needs as much information as possible in the hands of as many people as possible. We operate best when the many cooperate together with limited allotments of power, money and influence by all.
I personally believe, thanks to the efforts of many, the base of power and influence that has been in the hands of just a few is spreading to many. As it spreads, nobody should begrudge it.
The SBC is built on cooperation.
Principles Needed for Healthy Relationships
After quite a few strong comments on what I thought to be a very innocuous post yesterday, I thought it might be good to list five key principles that I believe are essential for healthy relationships among Christians.
(1). Disagreement is not the same as disunity. Some of the healthiest, unified bodies of believers disagree over issues, but are one in spirit and purpose. The key to unity is not conformity but compassion.
(2). Love covers a multitude of sins. When we constantly try to point out sin in others, the spirit of the Pharisees is more prevalent than the spirit of Christ. That is not to say a brother should never be confronted in his sin, but the reasons for doing so should be very clear and unselfish in nature.
(3). Listening is far, far better than talking. God gave us two ears and one mouth, and it seems logical that a person ought to listen twice as much as he speaks.
(4). Courage is the ability to do the right thing in the face of opposition. Humility is the ability to not care if anyone ever knows.
(5). The phrase "I feel" ought to be used constantly in disagreements. (Example: I feel you are mistaken rather than "you are mistaken"). This makes what follows the phrase impossible to dispute (how can you say, "No, you don't feel that") and gives the other person the ability to not feel accused while he explains himself.
Blessings to all,
Wade
(1). Disagreement is not the same as disunity. Some of the healthiest, unified bodies of believers disagree over issues, but are one in spirit and purpose. The key to unity is not conformity but compassion.
(2). Love covers a multitude of sins. When we constantly try to point out sin in others, the spirit of the Pharisees is more prevalent than the spirit of Christ. That is not to say a brother should never be confronted in his sin, but the reasons for doing so should be very clear and unselfish in nature.
(3). Listening is far, far better than talking. God gave us two ears and one mouth, and it seems logical that a person ought to listen twice as much as he speaks.
(4). Courage is the ability to do the right thing in the face of opposition. Humility is the ability to not care if anyone ever knows.
(5). The phrase "I feel" ought to be used constantly in disagreements. (Example: I feel you are mistaken rather than "you are mistaken"). This makes what follows the phrase impossible to dispute (how can you say, "No, you don't feel that") and gives the other person the ability to not feel accused while he explains himself.
Blessings to all,
Wade
A Little Humility in the Pulpit Is Needed in the SBC
I am surprised at the number of people in the Southern Baptist Convention, mostly pastors, who think that it is impossible to be anything but dogmatic when it comes to preaching the Scriptures. I agree with my brethren that the essentials of the gospel - those doctrines that define true Christianity - should be held with firm conviction. But when I explain to some of my SBC colleagues that my interpretations of tertiary doctrines or texts that are not as clear as others, are held by me firmly, but not dogmatically, there are some who seem to think I've lost my Southern Baptist mind. Further, when I explain that I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong in my interpretations and am unafraid to dialogue, listen to, and even cooperate, with those who disagree with me on the non-essentials, my loyalty to the Southern Baptist Convention is questioned. I, my family and my church can assure everyone who does not know me, but reads this blog, that I am as orthodox, conservative and Southern Baptist as any one person you can name in our convention.
I just happen to believe there needs to be a little humility in the pulpit.
My father, Paul Burleson, has pastored Southern Baptist churches for nearly the past six decades. He has pastored small churches and mega-churches before people knew what mega-churches were. He has trained hundreds of pastors who were receiving their theological education at Southwestern Theological Seminary in the 1970's. He is friends with several of big name pastors and SBC executives of today, but is known for his love and concern for the small church pastor. He and my mother, Mary, have led couples retreats for pastors and wives all across our convention. Everywhere I go, people know my father. He is a great preacher and he has every reason to be proud. Because of his maturity and years of experience in the ministry, he has every reason to insist he knows the truth - and is right in his views.
But he has taught me and others what it means to be humble in the pulpit. Listen to his words . . .
To read all of Paul Burleson's excellent post and comment on it, go to his blog and read the two part article entitled The Foolishness of Preaching.
It's worth leaving up all during this September 9th preaching weekend. :)
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
I just happen to believe there needs to be a little humility in the pulpit.
My father, Paul Burleson, has pastored Southern Baptist churches for nearly the past six decades. He has pastored small churches and mega-churches before people knew what mega-churches were. He has trained hundreds of pastors who were receiving their theological education at Southwestern Theological Seminary in the 1970's. He is friends with several of big name pastors and SBC executives of today, but is known for his love and concern for the small church pastor. He and my mother, Mary, have led couples retreats for pastors and wives all across our convention. Everywhere I go, people know my father. He is a great preacher and he has every reason to be proud. Because of his maturity and years of experience in the ministry, he has every reason to insist he knows the truth - and is right in his views.
But he has taught me and others what it means to be humble in the pulpit. Listen to his words . . .
This is where I came to in 1980 in my own preaching when I determined to not preach anything as absolute except what I personally saw as clearly presented in the text. My message changed beyond anything I could have imagined. I came to grips with the fact that much/most of the things I was saying in the pulpit was coming from what I'd heard others, whom I admired, say was in the text or was generally Baptist held viewpoints because of traditions that were baptistic in reputation but had no real foundation in the text itself.
I also began to see that what Peter said of some of the things Paul the Apostle preached was correct. [This is also true of several matters in the text of scripture.] Some of the things he delivered WERE hard to understand and those that were the most difficult I decided I'd better hold my personal view as to their meaning lightly because the correct meaning was more important than my interpretation.
This is not out of a lack of confidence in the integrity or authority of the text but a true awareness of my own inadequacy to hear God accurately on occasion. Some things are clear. Some things are not that clear. When the text isn't totally clear I won't be dogmatic as to it's meaning. 1Timothy 2:15 and the "she shall be saved in child-bearing" is an example. From my present perspective the whole of that chapter may have been delivered through a glass a little darker than some are willing to admit. But that's another post.
Since the true biblical messenger is to be careful of proclaiming his/her own viewpoint, opinions or grievances, I tread lightly on some passages and some theological positions that others seem to state the meaning of with great personal conviction. More power to them. All I'm saying is the messenger CAN get in the way of the message if we declare as absolute our personal views on some issues where there are good people on both sides of a possible meaning of any given text.
I'm not sure but what God may have left some of His total message a little less clear than say the gospel so we will make clear with conviction that gospel and keep trusting Him for greater understanding of other theological areas. I love what Gene Bridges said... and I quote
"And, with that in mind, I think we can be more confident about our reliance on probabilistic reasoning, for if God has wanted us to have more evidence or better evidence, then it was within his power to do so. Hence we are judging certain questions on the basis of the evidence which he has left at our disposal. Therefore, we shouldn't be plagued by nagging, gnawing doubts about the possibility of being wrong. Even if I were wrong some of the time, it's out of my hands, and I'm in his hands. As a Christian, I don't require a godlike control over the evidence. I can go with what I've got because it's what God has given me to go by."
I have to say "amen" to that statement. I can give my understanding of difficult passages but respect others who differ with me trusting the God who gave it in the first place to be able to make clear His message ultimately.
To read all of Paul Burleson's excellent post and comment on it, go to his blog and read the two part article entitled The Foolishness of Preaching.
It's worth leaving up all during this September 9th preaching weekend. :)
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
A Call for Intellectual Honesty and Consistency
Emily Hunter McGowan recently wrote a post over at SBCOutpost entitled Who Shall Have Authority Over a Man? In the comment section I wrote the following:
Yesterday a Texas Southern Baptist pastor challenged me regarding my comment. Pastor R.L Vaughn's tone was gracious as he wrote in his blog . . .
Vaughn continues in his post - switching to the third person . . .
Mr. Vaughn asks a great question. In fact, he goes to the very heart of the issue.
Has there ever been a time that Southern Baptists spoke forcefully, eloquently and passionately in support of the institution of slavery? Have Southern Baptists ever defended slavery from a perspective of trust in, and standing upon, the inerrant and infallible Word of God? Mr. Vaughn acts like this has never happened in the SBC. He implies that anyone who supported slavery -- just as anyone who supported "women pastors" - is doing so based upon "cultural" biases or preferences and is ignoring the clear teaching of God's Word. Pastor Vaughan acts as if any argument supporting slavery would have to be both ludicrous and incredible.
Enter Basil Manley.
This 19th century Southern Baptist pastor, President, author, and theologian preached a message at First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina in April of 1837 entitled Duties of Masters and Servants. Shawn Ritenour presented a scholarly paper at the Austrian Scholars Conference at Auburn, Alabama in March, 2002. Dr. Ritenour writes of Basil Manley's message:
Allow me now to issue a call for intellectual honesty and consistency among Southern Baptists . . .
(1). Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's used the infallibility of Scripture to justify the institution of slavery and accused anyone who disagreed as liberal.
(2). Some Southern Baptists today use the infallibility of Scripture to justify prohibiting women from teaching men or holding a position of authority over men and accuse anyone who disagrees as "liberal."
Anyone see the consistency?
(1). Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's were not convinced the Scriptures supported the insitution of slavery, but personally supported slavery for personal and cultural reasons and did not harbor animosity toward those on the other side.
(2). Some Southern Baptists today are not convinced the Scripture prohibits women from teaching men or holding positions of "authority" over men, but personally support the prohibition of women pastors for personal, cultural and "confessional" (BFM 2000) reasons, but do not harbor animosity toward those on the other side.
Anyone see the consistency?
I agree with Mr. Vaughn's call for consistency.
What is needed is an intellectual honesty of where we Southern Baptists have been, where we are now, and where we may be in the future. To say we have erred does not compromise one's belief in the sufficiency and infallibility of the Word of God.
We Southern Baptists are people who believe in the inerrant Book - with a history of seemingly errant interpretations.
That is both honest and consistent. And when we have that attitude we won't be quite as smug and uncooperative as we would be without it.
In His Grace,
Wade
In our church, we have women who chair committees, serve as trustees, teach men in Sunday School classes and have had women teach from the pulpit. We do not have women "pastors" or "elders" at our church - for we have chosen to abide by the BFM 2000 confessionally - but unlike others, our church would have never chosen to make that issue a test of Southern Baptist fellowship and cooperation. Though I personally would not lead our church to hire female pastors or elders, we believe in giving freedom in this area to other churches because we see the possibility of interpretive differences regarding I Timothy 3 and we feel deeply that it is ultimately a local church decision.
I have said publicly that I would not personally lead my church to hire a female pastor, would not be a member of a church where the senior pastor was female, and I have no problem personally with the BFM 2000* on this issue. However, I am honest enough to say that my discomfort is personal and cultural — and not Biblical.
Yesterday a Texas Southern Baptist pastor challenged me regarding my comment. Pastor R.L Vaughn's tone was gracious as he wrote in his blog . . .
I certainly respect your feelings of personal and cultural discomfort. I have some things that make me personally uncomfortable as well. But, that being said, if we realize it is just that personal discomfort, don’t we have some obligation to change our comfort zone? Some have made comparisons of the female pastor issue to both slavery and segregation. What if we inserted those into the statement — 'My discomfort (with ending slavery) is personal and cultural — and not Biblical' or 'My discomfort (with integration) is personal and cultural — and not Biblical
Vaughn continues in his post - switching to the third person . . .
Burleson is representative of what some people think on the issue. Others believe that having or not having female pastors is a Biblical rather than a personal & cultural issue. In several blogs I've read online, folks have compared the female pastor issue with past issues like slavery and segregation. Wade Burleson himself made the comparison in the thread from which I am quoting. My point is that one can't have it both ways. If you want to compare keeping women from being pastors to keeping slaves, then perhaps you should react the same way to both. Wouldn't that be consistent? (emphasis mine)
Mr. Vaughn asks a great question. In fact, he goes to the very heart of the issue.
Has there ever been a time that Southern Baptists spoke forcefully, eloquently and passionately in support of the institution of slavery? Have Southern Baptists ever defended slavery from a perspective of trust in, and standing upon, the inerrant and infallible Word of God? Mr. Vaughn acts like this has never happened in the SBC. He implies that anyone who supported slavery -- just as anyone who supported "women pastors" - is doing so based upon "cultural" biases or preferences and is ignoring the clear teaching of God's Word. Pastor Vaughan acts as if any argument supporting slavery would have to be both ludicrous and incredible.
Enter Basil Manley.
This 19th century Southern Baptist pastor, President, author, and theologian preached a message at First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina in April of 1837 entitled Duties of Masters and Servants. Shawn Ritenour presented a scholarly paper at the Austrian Scholars Conference at Auburn, Alabama in March, 2002. Dr. Ritenour writes of Basil Manley's message:
Manly’s arguments justifying the institution of slavery (were based) on the Scriptures.
In the sermon 'Duties of Masters and Servants' Manly first presents a Biblical justification for the existence of the institution of slavery and then exposits on the regulations God places on both masters and servants. In doing so, Manly uses as his primary text, Ephesians 6:5-9 which exhorts, “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same
shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” He additionally draws upon an impressive set of passages taken from the entire breadth of Scripture, including verses out of Genesis, Joshua, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Malachi, Matthew, Luke, I Corinthians, Galatians, I Timothy, Titus, James, I Peter, and Philemon.
In defending the institution of slavery by appealing to Scripture, Manly aligned himself with the bulk of Southern Christian thinkers. Many of the arguments put forth by Southern clergy, including Baptists, were rooted in the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture.
Allow me now to issue a call for intellectual honesty and consistency among Southern Baptists . . .
(1). Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's used the infallibility of Scripture to justify the institution of slavery and accused anyone who disagreed as liberal.
(2). Some Southern Baptists today use the infallibility of Scripture to justify prohibiting women from teaching men or holding a position of authority over men and accuse anyone who disagrees as "liberal."
Anyone see the consistency?
(1). Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's were not convinced the Scriptures supported the insitution of slavery, but personally supported slavery for personal and cultural reasons and did not harbor animosity toward those on the other side.
(2). Some Southern Baptists today are not convinced the Scripture prohibits women from teaching men or holding positions of "authority" over men, but personally support the prohibition of women pastors for personal, cultural and "confessional" (BFM 2000) reasons, but do not harbor animosity toward those on the other side.
Anyone see the consistency?
I agree with Mr. Vaughn's call for consistency.
What is needed is an intellectual honesty of where we Southern Baptists have been, where we are now, and where we may be in the future. To say we have erred does not compromise one's belief in the sufficiency and infallibility of the Word of God.
We Southern Baptists are people who believe in the inerrant Book - with a history of seemingly errant interpretations.
That is both honest and consistent. And when we have that attitude we won't be quite as smug and uncooperative as we would be without it.
In His Grace,
Wade
Some Sound Financial Principles This Labor Day
My internet Southern Baptist friend, Art Pierce of Virginia, sent me an article about the second richest man in the world. His name is Warren Buffett and he has donated $31 billion to charity. CNBC intervied Mr. Buffett and America learned several things about this multi-billionaire:
Warren Buffet's advice to young people: "Stay away from credit cards and invest in yourself and remember:
Food for thought on this Labor Day holiday.
In His Grace,
Wade
1. He bought his first share of stock at age 11 and he now regrets that he started too late!
2. He bought a small farm at age 14 with savings from delivering newspapers.
3. He still lives in the same, small 3-bedroom house in midtown Omaha, that he bought after he got married 50 years ago. He says that he has everything he needs in that house. His house does not have a wall or a fence.
4. He drives his own car everywhere and does not have a driver or security people around him.
5. He never travels by private jet, although he owns the world's largest private jet company.
6. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns 63 companies. He writes only one letter each year to the CEOs of these companies, giving them goals for the year. He never holds meetings or calls them on a regular basis. He has given his CEO's only two rules. Rule number 1: Do not lose any of your shareholder's money.
Rule number 2: Do not forget rule number 1.
7. He does not socialize with the high society crowd. His pastime after he gets home is to make himself some popcorn and watch television.
8. Bill Gates, the world's richest man, met him for the first time only 5 years ago. Bill Gates did not think he had anything in common with Warren Buffet. So, he had scheduled his meeting only for half an hour. But when Gates met him, the meeting lasted for ten hours and Bill Gates became a devotee of Warren Buffet.
9. Warren Buffet does not carry a cell phone, nor has a computer on his desk.
Warren Buffet's advice to young people: "Stay away from credit cards and invest in yourself and remember:
A. Money doesn't create man, but it is the man who created money.
B. Live your life as simple as you are.
C. Don't do what others say. Just listen to them, but do what makes you feel good.
D. Don't go on brand name. Wear those things in which you feel comfortable.
E. Don't waste your money on unnecessary things. Spend on those who really are in need.
F. After all, it's your life. Why give others the chance to rule your life?"
Food for thought on this Labor Day holiday.
In His Grace,
Wade
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)