The Most Influential Man of the 20th Century

On a recent post I asked the question "The Greatest Man in the 20th Century is Who?" The post revolved around the practice of St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City, where church leaders chose the most influential man of each of the past nineteen centuries and honored them by placing a handmade statue underneath the communion table. Already knowing the men listed for the previous nineteen centuries, we called the church to ask them about their decision regarding the most influential man of the 20th Century. Reverend Harry Pritchett was the 8th Dean of St. John's in New York. He is now at The Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta. Barbara, my assistant, called Dr. Pritchett and disovered him to be a very gracious man who offered the following information.

At the turn of the century, Rev. Pritchett and his church committee chose to depart from listing a single person considered to be the most influential man of the twentieth century and decided instead to name individuals, male or female, whom they felt were the most humanitarian of that century. There was some disagreement on this departure, but eventually the committee came up with four names representing the greatest humanitarians of the 20th Century: Ghandi (advocation of peaceful protest for humanitarian rights), Susan B. Anthony (advocation of women's rights), Martin Luther King Jr.(advocation for peaceful protest for racial equality), and Einstein (for his contribution to technology and his writings).

These four individuals are memoralized like the men chosen for the first through the nineteenth centuries, with a carving near the others. This carving is approximately three to four feet high, just like the previous statues, but is unique in that four individuals are included in the single carving representing the 20th Century instead of each person being given their own figurine. Dr. Pritchett emphasized that the first nineteen individuals named were not necessarily chosen because of their faith, but for their influence in their respective century. Some were Christians, some were not. Of those who were Christians, sometime their influence was not necessarily due to their Christian faith. The same could be said of the four representing the 20th Century.

Many may not agree with Trinity's choice of individuals to represent the previous one hundred years, but nobody can fault the church's desire to recognize great men and women who have given of their lives to make our world a better place.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Divisions Reveal Those Approved For Leadership

For the last twenty-five years I have met every Tuesday morning with a group of men for discipleship purposes. These men come from all walks of life and are very astute in Scriptural matters. One of the men pointed out to us this week that the Bible has something very interesting to say about divisions and disagreements in the church, whether they be doctrinal, political or personal in nature.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19

18. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

19. For there must (dei - "it is necessary") also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. NASV

The last phrase of these two verses gives us the reasons why divisions and disagreements are necessary in the church. " . . . so that those who are approved may become evident among you."

It seems quite clear that the kind of leadership that is approved of God, the kind of leaders that the church should follow, are those who are tolerant of other views, who graciously and lovingly accept people of different persuasions and opinions, and who place charity as the highest value within the church (I Corinthians 13).

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Issue Is Pushing Personal Convictions on All

When Dr. Thomas White spoke in the chapel service of Southwestern Theological Seminary earlier this month, he made several statements that sounded to me as if he believed the Christian's use of any form of birth control was "sin." I wrote a post entitled Personal Opinions Given as Mandates from God where I challenged not Dr. White's personal conviction that birth control is a sin for him (who am I to question a man's conscience), but rather Dr. White's seeming belief that all Southern Baptists should abstain from birth control. Legalism is NOT having personal convictions that exceed the clear teaching of Scripture; legalism is demanding that all others abide by your personal convictions and call those who do not "sinners." Dr. White's comments, which led me to believe he felt all Southern Baptists should follow his personal convictions, included the following (verbatum):

There is an entire industry that is built up on stopping or preventing children. We call it birth control, but we should call it contraception.

When my wife and I were married in 1999, whether it was because of my own selfishness or because of improper information, we were on birth control.

I made the mistake. I’m not standing here telling you anything other than this: I don’t want you to make the mistake.

We need to recognize that children are a blessing from the Lord. I confess to you this morning the reason that I was on - we were on birth control - I didn’t take it, but I was the spiritual leader of my house and it’s my fault that we did; the reason that we did it was my own selfishness. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids in God’s . . . not God’s timing, but my time.

Folks, you are not in control of your destinies, God is! And the sooner that we recognize that we are sinning when we say, “I’m going to control every aspect of my family,” and we’re not giving control to God, we don’t trust Him, we don’t believe that He knows better than we do, we think we know better than God does. And just like I did, some of you are involved in that exact same sin!

Society tells us that children will make a rich man poor, but the Bible tells us that children will make a poor man rich. And that’s the attitude that we need to have. It is the Lord who controls our life. He is God and we are not. He is the one in control, and we are not. If He gives you twelve kids, twelve blessings you have received. If He gives you three kids, three blessings you have received. It is not for us to plan our parenthood, it is for God to be the giver of life.

After I wrote a blog about Dr. White's message, WFAA Television in Dallas sent a copy of my post to Dwight McKissic and asked him to comment. The television reporter, probably desiring sensational ratings, posited that Dr. White believed all birth control was "murder." After the television report aired in the DFW area, Dr. White issued a clarifying statement which said, "I do not believe all birth control is murder."

I called Dr. White after he issued his statement and told him that I never heard him say "all birth control is murder," so his clarification was not helpful to me. I told him that what I heard him say was all birth control is a sin, because children are a blessing from the Lord, and birth control is simply trying to stop God from giving us blessings. So, I point blank asked Dr. White, "Is all birth control a sin?" He said that in some instances, for example the poor health of a wife, birth control would not be a sin. I then followed up by asking "Dr. White, what if a husband and a wife were in perfect health, and they both believed children were a blessing, but they chose to be on birth control, would that then be a sin?" After a pause, he said, "It is a sin for me, but I can't judge another person's heart in the matter."

I then explained that when I heard his message, I heard him communicate a personal conviction (i.e. "birth control is a sin for me") and follow up with a blanket statement that birth control was a sin for everyone else too. My offense with his sermon was not the fact that he said "all birth control is murder" because I never heard him say that, but rather I felt I heard him saying "all birth control is sin for all Southern Baptists." For him to express a personal conviction and then to seemingly make it a mandate from God for all Southern Baptists was my offense - and the title of my post.

By the way, if one wonders why this is an issue to me, all you have to do is look at the policies at the IMB that were pushed by trustees who have the personal conviction that praying in tongues is not of God, and they demanded all other Southern Baptists give obeisance to their personal convictions. Or, just think about those Southern Baptists who have a personal conviction that drinking a glass of wine or a beer is sin, and then force all other Southern Baptists to acquiesce to their personal convictions by passing policies or resolutions that forbid the drinking of an alcoholic beverage. Or, ponder those Southern Baptists that believe that the qualifications of the baptizer is as important as the character of the one being baptized, and then force all Southern Baptists to be baptized in a Southern Baptist "church." Or, think about those Southern Baptists who have the personal conviction that a woman "teaching" or having "authority" over a man is sin, and then force all institutions in the SBC to conform to their personal views, though the BFM is silent on the matter.

If we let Southern Baptists even THINK they have the ability to force their personal convictions on other Southern Baptists then we give up the principle of cooperation in the Southern Baptist Convention. I will, at all times, speak out. There are a few Southern Baptists who do not like the fact I do not hesitate to call our leaders to give an account for what they say, and so they make me the issue. That's fine. I'm more than happy to be the focal point of the anger of some if it prevents the ripping of the fabric of cooperation in the SBC.

Dr. White says that he did not intend to convey that all birth control is sin, though that is his personal view for himself. I accept that Dr. White has a personal conviction that birth control is sin, and I appreciate his acknowledgement that he may have unintentionally communicated in his message that birth control is a sin for all other Southern Baptists as well. I explained that this is precisely what I heard him say, and in my mind this is the problem in the SBC - personal convictions are being given as mandates from God.

Now, if we could only get other Southern Baptists to say that they unintentionally demanded all other Southern Baptists to comply with their personal convictions when they pushed policies and resolutions that exceeded the clear teaching of Scripture and the BFM then we would be a long way down the road in restoring the cooperative nature of the SBC. To whatever extent I misread or misheard Dr. White's remarks, I do sincerely apologize. To whatever extent, if any, my challenge to Dr. White's remarks caused Dr. White to backtrack from a position of holding Southern Baptists responsible to ultimately conform to his personal convictions, I am grateful. Either way, the chapel incident is another example of how all Southern Baptists should be careful about demanding conformity on matters of personal convictions. Our cooperation should be around the essentials of the gospel. Unity in the essentials, freedom in the non-essentials, and charity in all things - that should be our Southern Baptist motto.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Fear of the Truth Leads to Trumped Up Charges

Last year Swiss lawmakers exonerated Anna Goldi. Anna had been executed by the Swiss government 226 years ago (1782) for allegedly causing a young girl to spit needles and convulse in seizures. The girls father, a man named Mr. Tschodi, accused Ms. Goldi of being a witch and of placing the needles by supernatural means in the bread and milk eaten by his daughter. After being arrested by authorities and enduring repeated torture, Anna Goldi confessed to witchcraft. After the torture ended, however, she withdrew her confession. Yet the damage had been done, and Anna Goldi was beheaded on June 18, 1782 at the age of 42. She became known as the "last witch" in Europe since witch-hunting came to an end after her death.

On September 20, 2007 the Swiss parliament publicly acknowledged Anna Goldi's case as a miscarriage of justice. The official exoneration, which was granted on August 27, 2008, was based on the fact that Anna Goldi was subjected to an illegal trial. The Swiss Parliament revealed that Jakob Tschodi, the man had initially accused Anna Goldi of using sorcery and witchcraft on his daughter, was a powerful Swiss politician at the time and a married man - who had been having an affair with Ms. Goldi. When she threated to make the truth of their relationship public, Mr. Tschodi appealed to his friends well connected friends to arrest, prosecute and convict Anna Goldi on trumped up charges of "witchcraft."

Though over two centuries have passed since Mrs. Goldi's illegal trial, it seems that human nature has not changed. Rather than dealing with the issues at hand in politics and religion, there is the tendency by those in authority to falsely accuse those who wish the truth to be told. In the end, however, hardball tactics never win.

Truth is a lion loosed and is her own defense.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Greatest Man of the 20th Century Is Who?

Located at 1047 Amsterdam Avenue New York, NY is St. John the Divine Cathedral, shown to the left, which claims to be the largest Anglican church in the world. Construction on the Cathedral began with the laying of the cornerstone on December 27, 1892, otherwise known as St. John's Day. The foundation was completed at enormous expense, largely because bedrock was not struck until the excavation had reached 72 feet. For almost nine decades construction continued, often delayed because of world wars, the Great Depression, and other economic burdens for the Anglicans of New York. In 1979, at the dedication of the completed Cathedral of St. John the Divine, Mayor Ed Koch quipped "I am told that some of the great cathedrals took over five hundred years to build. But I would like to remind you that we are only in our first hundred years."

Throughout the century of construction worship services were still held every Sunday. Forty years into the work, sometime during the 1930's, leaders at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine decided to honor the great men of the Christian era. They commissioned an artist to handmake a collection of figurines which they housed for display under the communion table. Each figurine represented the greatest Christian man of each century in the Christian era. The men included were:

. 1st Century – St. Paul
. 2nd Century – Saint Justin the Martyr
. 3rd Century – St. Clement of Alexandria
. 4th Century – Athanasius
. 5th Century – St. Augustine
. 6th Century – St. Benedict
. 7th Century – St. Gregory the Good
. 8th Century - Charles Martel
. 9th Century - Charlemagne
10th Century – King Alfred
11th Century – Godfrey of Bouillon
12th Century – St. Bernard
13th Century – St. Francis of Assisi
14th Century – John Wycliffe
15th Century – Christopher Columbus
16th Century – Archbishop Cramer
17th Century – William Shakespeare
18th Century – George Washington
19th Century – Abraham Lincoln

I was curious as to which person leadership at St. John the Divine considered the greatest man of the 20th Century. My secretary has placed a call to the old cathedral and the receptionist said she was not sure who was chosen, but promised to get back with us shortly with an answer to our query. Until she does, it would be interesting to hear who you believe to be the greatest man of the 20th Century. Some may wonder the definition of the adjective "greatest," but without going into specifics of the criteria for the word, I would simply like you to answer with the name of the first man that comes to mind when you are asked the following:

Who, in your opinion, was the greatest man to live in the 20th Century?"

In His Grace,


Wade

P.S. As you can tell I am working on a new format for this blog. I am categorizing 700 posts and it will take me several weeks to complete the task. I lost most of my links to other blogs and am rebuilding them. If you would like for me to link with your blog, please send me an email with your blog address and I will be happy to link up.

The NFL's Rise Due to an Enid Man With Spurs

The National Football League is big business in the United States and it is difficult for some to comprehend her humble beginnings. Recently I discovered the story of a football player from Enid, Oklahoma who played a significant role in making the National Football League both respectable and viable in her early years. This post is an enjoyable diversion for me from the usual subject matter dealt with on Grace and Truth to You. Even if you don't enjoy football, you will enjoy the story of Steve Owen.

Modern American football came into existence in 1869 when Rutgers and Princeton played a college soccer football game using modified English rugby rules. Over the next several years football would become a vital part of colleges and universities athletic programs around the nation. In 1902 a few football clubs began forming in cities within New York, Ohio and New Jersey. These football clubs used professional players, that is players that the clubs paid to play the game, and "professional" football was born. Within a decade other professional football clubs would be formed, including "The Pine Village Pros" in Indiana, a club that would later entice 1912 double gold Olympic champion Jim Thorpe, pictured to the right, to play for them. But professional football between 1910 and 1920 was in a state of confusion due to three major problems. First, players were demanding - and receiving - rising salaries, which placed club owners in financial jeopardy. Second, professional players continually jumped from one club team to another, usually following the highest per game offer. Finally, clubs were in the habit of using college players who were still enrolled in school which caused conflict on several fronts. It was decided in 1920 that the creation of a professional football league in which all club teams would follow the same rules would solve the problems mentioned above. Two organizational meetings were held in August and September of 1920 in Canton, Ohio, and ten club teams from four states formed what would later be known as the National Football League.

The Game That Turned the Fortunes of the NFL Around

My maternal grandfather, Fred Cherry, began playing football for the University of Oklahoma in 1929. Fred scored a touchdown in the first ever Oklahoma/Texas game to be played in the Cotton Bowl during the state fair of Texas. He would later earn All-Conference honors as a four year letterman, playing at the tight end position for the Sooners. Most people don't realize that college football in the 1920's, the kind played by my grandfather, was considered far superior to the professional football of the day.

Until 1930 most Americans questioned the quality of the professional game, claiming the college "amateurs" played with more intensity than the teams in the ten year old National Football League. It was widely believed that college players could defeat the best professional football team in America. However in 1930 a game was played to change America's perception of the National Football League. In December of 1930 the New York Giants played a team of Notre Dame All Stars at the Polo Grounds in New York to raise money for the unemployed of New York City. The stock market crash of 1928 had plunged the country into depression, and the National Football League felt a charity game with some "amatuer" all-stars from Notre Dame would help raise money for those who lost their jobs in the Big Apple, but it would also raise the profile of the NFL. Nobody expected the Giants to win. Notre Dame coach Knute Rockne reassembled his Four Horsemen along with the stars of his 1930 Notre Dame College Championship squad and told them to score early, then defend the goal against the pofessionals. Rockne himself, like much of the public, thought little of pro football and expected an easy win. But from the beginning it was a one way contest. The Giants would win 22 - 0 with Giants running back Benny Friedman scoring two touchdowns and Giant quarterback Hap Moran passing for another. Notre Dame failed to score because of the bruising, brutal line play of New York, anchored by tackle Steve Owen of Enid, Oklahoma. When it was all over, Coach Rockne told his team, "That was the greatest football machine I ever saw. I am glad none of you got hurt." The game raised over $100,000 for the homeless of New York, and it is the game that is often credited with establishing the legitimacy of the National Football League and professional football in general.

Steve Owen Becomes Head Coach of the New York Giants

After the roaring success of the Giants win over the powerful Notre Dame all-stars, Giants owner Tim Mara hired Steve Owen, his now famous lineman, as coach of the Giants. Steve would coach the New York Giants for the next twenty-three seasons, coaching some of the greatest New York Giant players to ever play the game, including Frank Gifford, Emlen Tunnell (the first African-American NFL player to be voted into the Hall of Fame) and Gene "Choo Choo" Roberts. Coach Steve Owen's 150 career victories for the New York Giants will probably never be broken. His New York Giants went to the NFL title game eight times during his tenure, and Coach Owen was voted into the Canton NFL Hall of Fame by his peers. Steven Owen died in May 17, 1964 at the age of sixty-six. He is probably the most successful professional football player, in terms of reputation and wins, to ever come from Oklahoma - not to mention Enid.

Yet, when Steve Owen is mentioned to people - even people from Oklahoma - most football fans think you are referring to Steve Owens, former Oklahoma Sooner and Heisman Trophy winner of the 1969. Unfortunately, not too many people understand the signficant role Steve Owen played in the tender early years of the NFL and the rise of the NFL's popularity among the American people.

The Funny Story Steve Owen Tells On Himself

There is a little known story about Steve Owen that made me laugh out loud when I read it. Steve grew up on a farm about fifteen miles outside of town. The summer of 1914, the year Steve was to enter high school, Steve saw for the first time in his life kids playing "football." In those early years, player equipment was a little different than today. Leather "helmets" only with no face masks, a very light shirt with sewn in shoulder supports (not pads), and breeches were all the players wore. I will close this post by letting you read the words of Steve Owen himself as reported in the December 31, 1945 edition of the Washington Post:

"I'm a-galloping along a country road one day, all dressed up in my cowboy boots and Stetson when all of a sudden I'm seeing a lot of kids all mixed up in the darndedst fight I ever did see. I whoa'd up, and got off my horse and moved into the pasture and asked a man what all the fighting was about. He says it waren't no fight. He says they were playing football.

"He shows me a football and asks me if I ever seen one before and I told him no, cause I handn't. I seen him looking at me close. I'm 15 years old but I'm weighing 200 pounds even then, and he asks me where I live. I tell him I live 15 miles up in the counry and then he's real interested and he says I look like I could play football for his high school. Then he shoved the ball in my hand.

"'WHAT DO YOU WANT ME to do with this thing?' I asked him, and he says 'You take this ball and start running for those goal posts and then I'll tell you some more.'

"So he has all those other kids lined up and I start running, and it ain't no trouble for me to take that ball 60 yards and put it underneath the goal posts. Those other kids are falling all over themselves trying to get out of my way. Don't forget I'm a 200-pounder, even then.

"It's just a breeze for me to carry that football and I bring it back to the coach and say 'Did I do all right?'

"He says yes, I did pretty good, but he wasn't quite satisfied. He says, 'I want to see you do that all over again, and this time take your spurs off.'"

Only in Oklahoma.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Personal Opinions Given as Mandates from God

This morning, in response to a question asked by one of this blog's readers regarding legalism in the SBC, I spent forty minutes listening to a message preached by Dr. Thomas White at the October 7, 2008 chapel service of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Two years ago, in October of 2006, Dr. White was elected by SWBTS trustees as the new SWBTS Vice President of Student Affairs. At 33, he was the youngest administrator ever elected to such a position at the seminary. Dr. White received his education, both his Master of Divinity and Doctor of Philosophy, at Southeastern Theological Seminary while under the tutelage of Paige Patterson. Dr. White is considered by his superiors to be one of the bright, young leaders of tomorrow for the SBC.

I have met Dr. White just one time. He introduced himself to me in San Antonio prior to the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention. He was extremely polite and had sought me out after the Sunday morning service at Castle Hills Baptist Church, a service we both had attended to hear Dr. Frank Page preach. I have nothing but positive things to say about him, his personal charm, and his ability to communicate his views.

The message he preached at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, however, precisely illustrates the trouble we are having in the Southern Baptist Convention. We have SBC leaders, including seminary professors like Dr. White, Southern Baptist agency Presidents, SBC trustees and other leaders who are preaching personal opinions as if they were mandates from God. This type of legalism will destroy not only the fabric of cooperation upon which our Convention was built, it will ultimately destroy the powerful message of the gospel because tertiary matters are elevated to a primary status of debate within the SBC, and people who disagree are excluded.

I listened to Dr. White's message from beginning to end. I would like to say I was shocked by what I heard, but frankly, my experiences these past three years have taken the edge of surprise off. One of our SBC missionaries who had been overseas for several years emailed me his concerns about what he heard Dr. White say in the message. The missionary confessed to me both shock and sadness. He wondered if Dr. White represents the direction our Convention is headed. I honestly believe that unless other conservative Southern Baptists besides myself begin to speak out and participate in Convention matters, Dr. White's opinions will shortly become mandated for the entire Convention.

The message he preached was about birth control. Can you imagine a policy requiring SBC missionaries swearing that they do not believe in birth control before they are appointed to the mission field? If you think that sounds far fetched, I simply remind you of other "doctrinal" policies being passed by Southern Baptist trustees infatuated with pushing their personal opinions on all others. Read carefully what Dr. White is saying about birth control and those who use it. The transcript begins at the 19:10 minute mark of the message.

"Behold children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward . . . Blessed is the man whose quiver is full” (Psalms 127:3,5a).

There is perhaps nothing in America that we have misunderstood as much as the fact that children are a blessing from the Lord. It says right here - “Behold children are a heritage from the Lord: the fruit of the womb a reward.” Think about what we do in our society, though, to undermine this one principle that’s taught here in Scripture. There is an entire industry that is built up on stopping or preventing children. We call it birth control, but we should call it contraception. We do not want to conceive and so we attempt to stop (it). In fact, we do this in so many different ways. We have sex education to teach our kids know how to do it properly. The newest survey was upset because the rising amount of people not on contraception had grown to seven percent rather than five percent. Think about those statistics. The nation is upset because seven percent of our population is not using contraception. We have the pill. We have the patch. We even have rods you can stick in your arm now that lasts for three years. We have all of these things built up to prevent children from being formed or born . . .

I’m not here this morning to go off on you, I‘m here to tell you something because I’ve made the mistake. When my wife and I were married in 1999, whether it was because of my own selfishness or because of improper information, we were on birth control. Birth control, they tell you, is not abortive in nature. But birth control has three functions. I won’t go into detail of those three functions because I don’t know how many kids we have (here), but the third function in that birth control is to prevent implantation on the uterine wall. And if it reaches that third function, that third function does not take effect until the seventh day. The seventh day is seven days too long, and its murder of a life. When the egg and the sperm meet, you have life. If you ask theologians they’re going to tell you that the egg and the sperm meet when the souls implanted. There’s no other time to say that God creates the soul and puts it in than that point in time. And so at that point you have life. You have at the moment of conception life, and yet the third aspect of birth control is to say that life cannot implant on to the wall as it normally would, and so that life is going to be flushed down, and that my friends is wrong.

I made the mistake. I’m not standing here telling you anything other than this: I don’t want you to make the mistake because of lack of knowledge. I want you to know that the third form of birth control known as the pill, that third form that it has is wrong – it is not correct according to Scripture.

Now I learned. We stopped. I also learned this: It was in 1956 that the pill was created by the person who founded Planned Parenthood. It was in 1976 that the definition was changed. And the definition was changed to say that life began not when fertilization took place, but that life did not begin until implantation on the uterine wall took place. That change in definition allows the doctors to tell you that the pill has no abortive feature. That change in definition allows them to print in their literature the pill is not abortive in any way. And so it markets and sells better to our nation. It eases our conscience. But the truth of the matter is our consciences do not need to be eased, we need to recognize that children are a blessing from the Lord. I confess to you this morning the reason that I was on - we were on birth control - I didn’t take it, but I was the spiritual leader of my house and it’s my fault that we did; the reason that we did it was my own selfishness. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids in God’s . . . not God’s timing, but my time. I didn’t want kids while I was in my M.Div. program where I was going to have another mouth to feed and it was going to inconvenience my ability to finish my course work and maybe move on and do a Ph.D. and all these type things. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids my way, my time, the way I wanted to do it so I could plan my family out. Folks, you are not in control of your destinies, God is! And the sooner that we recognize that we are sinning when we say, “I’m going to control every aspect of my family,” and we’re not giving control to God, we don’t trust Him, we don’t believe that He knows better than we do, we think we know better than God does. And just like I did, some of you are involved in that exact same sin!

I thought you could control it. I thought as soon as we made the decision to come off, we would have kids immediately. It wasn’t that way. My wife and I have never had natural children. We were married in 1999. The Lord is the giver of life. It’s not us. I’ll tell you more about that story later.

It continues on here after it says, “Children are a heritage from the Lord and the fruit of reward.” It says in verse four: “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” Now I tried to think who in the world around here would have a quiver full, and Dean Nichols came to mind. Dean, how many kids do you have? Three? Four? Five? Six? Seven? Now you can’t afford seven kids. Eight kids? Nine kids? Nine? Or Ten? Nine?

Do you have a quiver I could borrow? (A quiver with arrows is brought to the stage – laughter). How about that? Anybody needs a quiver you just go see Dean Nichols, he’ll take care of you. Now this is an interesting thing. “Blessed is the man whose quiver is full.” Nine kids? And he’s still alive, how about that? (Laughter) You see we joke, but this is the attitude that this verse is against. It’s my attitude too. I think about ten kids running around the house and I think to myself, “O Lord, is that really a blessing?”

That’s what His word says, “Children are a blessing . . .”

(Dr. Thomas White then goes on to explain the characteristics of an arrow and how they compare to our children. He describes how a warrior prepares an arrow by bending and curing the wood, and how that compares to parents training their kids. Dr. White then speaks of the sin of pushing kids off to daycare, public schools or youth groups, when it is our primary responsibility to train our kids, just as the biblical warrior would construct his arrows).

Society tells us that children will make a rich man poor, but the Bible tells us that children will make a poor man rich. And that’s the attitude that we need to have. It is the Lord who controls our life. He is God and we are not. He is the one in control, and we are not. If He gives you twelve kids, twelve blessings you have received. If He gives you three kids, three blessings you have received. It is not for us to plan our parenthood, it is for God to be the giver of life.

(Dr. White closes his message with a story of how he and his wife adopted a child in 2005 and a challenge to "let God be God" and acknowledge that we are not God by refusing to use birth control).

There are three sobering judgements I would like to make about Dr. White's message:

(1). When SBC seminary professors, SBC agency Presidents, and other SBC leaders preach their personal opinions as if they were mandates from God, then anyone who ever dares disagree or dissent is considered a sinner, or even worse, a liberal who denies the Scripture. This attitude by the legalists causes the pool of Southern Baptists deemed qualified to serve in leadership or cooperative missions ministry to shrink. This legalism also destroys the cooperative Southern Baptist ministry, and it is for this reason that these kinds of legalists must not be allowed to control the Convention. By the way, Dean Nichols, the man illustrated as having a 'quiver full' of kids is head of security of SWBTS and the husband of Mary Nichols, one of the International Mission Board trustees and member of the IMB trustee caucus who forced through other personal opinions as "doctrinal" policies that exceed both Scripture and the Baptist Faith and Message.

(2). Dr. White seems to be unfamiliar with the teaching of our Baptist forefathers on this issue of the creation of the soul. The claim that "all" theologians hold to his view that the soul is created by God at conception is a claim either built on misperception or misunderstanding.

(3). Here's hoping that our preachers are being taught the primacy of the gospel at our SBC seminaries and not the primacy of birth control. What changes lives is not the claim that Christians taking birth control are sinners, but the claim that God sent His Son to die in the stead of sinners.

Thy Peace (one of this blog's readers and commentors), you asked me for an illustration of legalism in the SBC.

I hope this post helps you understand why I write what I write.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Legalism Is A Cancer on Both Ends of the Scale

This past Saturday at the O-Club before the Oklahoma University vs. Kansas University football game I ran into a former Southern Baptist minister, his wife, and two children. They told me that they had recently moved back to the Norman area after having served at a Southern Baptist church out of state. They have left the ministry temporarily, experiencing symptoms of a burnout due to the treatment they had received at the two previous Southern Baptist Churches where they had served. They are now attending a non-denominational church and, at least according to the wife, will have a hard time stepping foot back into a traditional Southern Baptist church because of the hurts they've experienced. When I asked them to be specific, they spelled it out for me in terms that made perfect sense.

Their battle in the churches where they ministered was with legalism. People in the SBC church had an image, or a standard, of what this couple should be as a family, minister, and friends. This standard was not the character qualities of Scripture, but one of their own creation. This Southern Baptist couple did not meet that standard, and the hurt, pain and rejection was more than they could bear, and so they have temporarily left the ministry. Then, in recounting to me the story, the husband made an interesting statement to me:

"I was saved from my sin and discipled to be a legalist myself. When I began to discover what it means to know Christ and the freedom of loving others where they are in their walk with Christ, I began to throw off the bondage of legalism. What that means is I started accepting people where they were in their journey. My confidence in the work of Christ in my heart, and in their hearts, increased. I realized that God was a far more abler Shepherd of His people than I. Yet, an interesting thing began to happen. The more I began to reject my former legalism, the more descipable I became to the legalists."

When I asked him about attending a Southern Baptist Church in the Norman area, he mentioned several churches they had visited across the theological spectrum in the area and then made an observation that caused me later to reflect on its profundity. He said,

"Legalism is not a problem of just the far right. It is as much a problem in those who pride themselves in theological liberalism. The spirit of legalism in its purest form is your rejection of people who do not meet your standard."

I do believe the cancer that eats away at cooperative ministry among Christians, whether it be at the local church level or the national denominational level, is the spirit of legalism. Would that God give us the grace to accept one another in the various ways He has created and gifted us to be a part of His body, and refrain from demanding everyone be like us.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

The Smile of Providence Is All Around: Just Look

Don't Just Sit There in Church: Do Something

Bob Cleveland is my kind of Southern Baptist. Bob is seventy years young, having spent fifty years in the property and casualty insurance business in Alabama. Bob and his wife Peggy have raised two boys, Brian (48) and Brad (45), pictured here with their father, who each now have families of their own.

Bob is a teacher and leader at his local Southern Baptist Church. He also has a blog called Eagles' Rest. Bob made a decision a few years ago to be involved in the Southern Baptist Convention - not just on the local level, but at the national level. He has spoken to the Southern Baptist Convention from the floor of the Convention in each of the last three years, including providing one of the clearest articulations for why the Southern Baptist Convention should adopt the Garner Motion. His persuasive reasoning led our Convention to pass the Garner Motion by an overwhelming majority vote. It is because of people like Bob that the Southern Baptist Convention is now turning toward more of a cooperative attitude and away from an isolationist, separatist spirit that has characterized our Convention actions these last ten years.

Bob recently wrote me to explain why he decided to become involved in the Southern Baptist Convention and the necessary politics that go along with involvment at the national level of the SBC. His email should be mandatory reading for every Southern Baptist who is concerned about our future. I print it here with his permission:

I read a story nearly 50 years ago in Reader's Digest that I think you may find interesting. It explains a lot of things, one of which is why I speak up (even though I am, by nature, shy and insecure).

They ran a test, in NYC as I recall. The premise was that it would be helpful for people to be able to share their fears, vices, etc, anonymously in a group, without fear of reprisal, but just to know that others didn't think them weird etc. The format was to call volunteers in and give them a number and show them to a soundproof booth with mic & earphones. Then they would, in turn,by the numbersm share what it was that concerned them. They had groups stated from two people to ten people.

#1 was always a guy who'd had a gambling problem and got terribly in debt and had a heart attack. He'd recovered; the doctor said the next one would be fatal. The guy then said he'd gotten out of debt and settled down but had gotten back into debt, stole from his employer, was sick the auditors would catch him, hed' been having chest pains lately... then he starts screaming and they hear a thud. Then silence.

Now .... the kicker was that there was only ever ONE guy (at a time) in the experiment. Some of them thought they were in a group of two, some three, some four, etc on up to ten. Here's what they found out:

When a guy thinks he's in a group of two .. him and #1 .. he ALWAYS comes out of the booth yelling for someone to help guy #1

When he thinks he's in a group of three, him, #1, and someone else, he comes out of the booth one out of FOUR times.

When he thinks he's in a group of four or more, he NEVER comes out of the booth.

That's why more people will volunteer in a small group than in a big one. Why it takes longer to get a second in a meeting of 1000 then in a meeting of five.

And why ONE guy is carrying the visible load in raising the issues that are threatening to destroy the SBC.

There are, if course, what CB calls "baloney-eating boot-strappers" who will always defend the status quo powers. Others are intimidated by rank and power, etc.

In my case, I have known the thing about group response for so many years, it's second nature to get involved as I do. Knowing what I know, I cannot now hide in anonynimity. Even if I'd far rather do that. I had a chat with your father about that a couple years ago, in fact.

Thanks Bob.

May your tribe increase.


Wade

Semi-Arianism Masquerading as Orthodoxy: A Baptist Scholar on the Trinity Weighs in On "Eternal Subordination"

Contrary to the views of a handful of Baptist Identity bloggers, Southern Baptist blogs can be a source of beneficial debate within the Southern Baptist Convention. Evidence is in the the following email, sent to me after the writer read Growing Semi-Arianism in the SBC The email is from Dr. Curtis Freeman, Director of the Baptist House of Studies, Duke Divinity School, Durham, North Carolina. His words, profound and direct, need no commentary from me.

October 8, 2008

Dear Wade:


Thank you for taking up this issue of the Trinity. Getting a Trinitarian conversation going among Baptists is more important than one might first expect given that most Baptists these days are, and for some time have been, functionally Unitarians. For example, in The Baptist Hymnal (1991) out of 666 hymns only 20 are Trinitarian (a ratio of 1:33), but 268 of these 666 hymns are Christological (a ratio of 1:2.5). Baptist worship in the South clearly tilts toward Unitarianism of the Second Person (i.e., a faith in Jesus alone to the near exclusion of the Father and the Spirit), just as on occasions in the past it has leaned in the direction of Unitarianism of the First Person (i.e. a faith in the Father alone with a subordinate role for the Son and the Spirit). To put the matter pointedly, most Baptists are Unitarians that simply have not yet gotten around to denying the Trinity. Non-Trinitarian faith is not necessarily anti-Trinitarian, yet it is reason for concern nonetheless.

All this may seem counter intuitive, but it's true. I often tell incoming students at Duke that they will hear the Trinity invoked more in the first week than in their entire life in Baptist churches. They later surprisingly tell me that they thought I was exaggerating at first, but after a week they came to see that I may have underplayed the way in which our community draws from the life of the Trinity in prayer, worship, study, and living. It has thus become one of my life goals to help the wider Baptist family retrieve a faith and practice grounded in the life of the Triune God in whom we live, and move, and have our very being. To the end that your conversation has served to raise that awareness I am grateful.

However, like you, I am concerned about embracing a Trinitarian doctrine that is not well grounded or tested. For several years now this new doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son (ESS) has been surfacing among Baptists and other evangelicals. As I've read some of the replies on your blog and other blogs criticizing you, I've encountered the very odd claim that ESS is the historic doctrine of orthodoxy. A simple fact check of the history of the doctrine of the Trinity will reveal that ESS is not a historic doctrine at all, but a very new one. Nor is it part of the received wisdom of the Christian tradition, but in fact is a matter of contemporary speculation. Doctrines do change, and sometimes innovations are received as wisdom. But ESS has yet to be tested and proved by any but a very small and unrepresentative group. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t belong to Baptists or Evangelicals. It is the faith shared by all Christians. And until ESS has been tested by the whole Church, it seems prudent to wait.

One of the major concerns about ESS is the supposed distinction between functional and ontological subordination. While it is true that the incarnate Son in his earthly life was submissive to the Father, the suggestion that this subordination extends to his eternal exalted state is worrisome. As Kevin Giles has argued, very persuasively I think, this appears to be a new iteration of Arianism. To be fair to the proponents of ESS, they are not Arians in one important respect: they believe in the Son’s eternal generation (the aspect or Origen’s thought appropriated in the Creed of the Council of Nicaea, “eternally begotten of the Father”), but they also believe in his eternal subordination (the aspect of Origen’s thought not appropriated by the Nicene defenders of homoousios). I suppose that makes them only semi-Arians. [Thanks to my friend and colleague Steve Harmon for this qualification.] The burden of proof, however, is on those proposing this new doctrine of ESS to show that it is not a new form of an old heresy. I’ve yet to be convinced. Until this is worked out it seems wise to wait until this new doctrine of ESS has been thoroughly examined and tested.

Beyond the question of the orthodoxy of ESS, which is still very much in question, I am suspicious of the not so subtle political agenda of ESS which is attracted to Trinitarian theology, not as an account of the life in which we live and move and have our being, but as an argument that underwrites complementarian views. I am just as suspicious of those who use Trinitarian doctrine to support the complementarian social agenda as those who engage in social Trinitarian speculations to underwrite feminist convictions. Miroslav Volf, one of our best Free Church theologians on the Trinity, has called for caution in the use of such speculative Trinitarian theology which can easily be co-opted by ideologies of the right and the left. His cautionary word seems wise regarding ESS. I am suspicious that the real energy behind this new ESS doctrine is really a thinly veiled attempt to elevate complementarianism to de fide orthodoxy, so that complementarian gender relations are set forth as the only acceptable model for Christians and that egalitarianism is heresy equivalent to denying the Trinity. This utilitarian use of Trinitarian doctrine is (in my opinion) based on dubious scholarship and bad theology.

I share the goal of helping our wider Baptist family retrieve the wisdom of the vast storehouse of orthodoxy. As bad as functional Unitarianism is, however, the possible embrace of a semi-Arianism masquerading as orthodoxy used for political ends may be even worse.

Yours in a common faith,


Curtis


Curtis W. Freeman
Research Professor of Theology
Director of the Baptist House of Studies
Duke Divinity School
Box 90966
Durham, NC 27708-0966

The one sentence from Dr. Curtis Freeman's email that succinctly states the point I am making about the rise of eternal subordination in the Southern Baptist Convention is this one:

I am suspicious that the real energy behind this new ESS doctrine is really a thinly veiled attempt to elevate complementarianism to de fide orthodoxy, so that complementarian gender relations are set forth as the only acceptable model for Christians and that egalitarianism is heresy equivalent to denying the Trinity.

I shall allow Dr. Al Mohler's own words to frame Dr. Freeman's sentence above:

"The misjudgment of true Fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines. Thus, third-order issues are raised to a first-order importance, and Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided."

Amen, Dr. Mohler. When the "role" of women vs. men is set on an equal plane with the doctrine of the Trinity, then we Christians are wrongly and harmfully divided. May we resist any and all attempts to manipulate our understanding of the Trinity to justify our Biblical understanding of gender.

For further study on the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, read Dr. Freeman's God in Three Persons: Baptist Unitarianism and the Trinity

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson