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

An SBC Pastor Who Confesses to Getting It

Contrary to what some may believe, I have written Hardball Religion to focus on some important issues we face as a Convention and not to denigrate any individual Southern Baptist. I consider all Southern Baptists my friends, and believe it an honor to cooperate with everyone. Some have falsely believed that there are hard feelings in me against those who tried to involve me in an orchestrated attempt to remove Jerry Rankin, or angst against Dr. Paige Patterson who worked hard to have SBC boards composed of like-minded ideologues, or ill-will towards those IMB trustees who took radical measures to remove me from the board.

There are no such feelings in me at all.

On the contrary, there is a love for all my fellow Southern Baptists, but there remains in me a deep and abiding concern that unless Southern Baptists speak out against a loss of church autonomy, a growing centralized authority within our Convention, and a demand for ideological conformity, then the Southern Baptist Convention we know and love will continue to decline in numbers and effectiveness. We will only thrive as a Convention when we celebrate our differences, love one another enough to cooperate for bigger causes, and refuse to make our ideological differences personal.

A Reviewer of Hard Ball Religion Who Changed His Mind

Scott Bradley sent me an email yesterday and told me I could quote from it if I desired. Scott is a 43 year old Southern Baptist pastor in Missouri. He was a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary from '93 to '96. Scott and his wife Christy had three young kids during Seminary, and so Scott worked full time. He painted at Danny Akin's house a few times and believes Dr. Aiken is one of the greatest men in the SBC. He believes Dr. Paige Patterson has "skin like a rhino and a heart as big as Texas." Scott particularly loved Dr. Patterson's class on the church and got a kick out of his remarks concerning Richard Land's signing of the ECT document. Scott knows just a little about Dr. Keith Eitel, but what he knows of Dr. Eitel is impressive to him.. In short, Scott loved Southeastern and everything that it stood for under Dr. Patterson's leadership and continues to stand for today under the leadership of Dr. Akin, and he has fond feelings for Conservative Resurgence leadership.

Bill Curp, is a man that Scott admires as a hard working impartial, conservative Director of Mission and long-time former Missionary to Africa. Bill Curp, Scott's DOM, was an IMB trustee during my tenure, and Scott wrote and told me that he saw Bill the other day and told him that he was beginning to read Hardball Religion and "Wade Burleson would probably would not be happy with my review."

Scott wrote me yesterday and said that after reading the book he would be announcing his public reversal of his initial thoughts concerning Hard Ball Religion. Scott said that he understood the principles I was advocating, and "stood completely behind them." What is even more interesting is what Scott said next:

If I remain a Southern Baptist I can no longer remain silent. If I run from the SBC I am abandoning the greatest association of local churches that has ever existed, along with many of the most faithful rightly baptized believers in the world. Because you are reading this letter you should have no question about which option I chose. Though we are comparatively a small Southern Baptist church, the money that we give to the cooperative program gives us as loud a voice as the giants in our land. The question of church autonomy, limiting standards to the 2000 BFM, and a disclosure of all things SBC, should be vigorously debated and settled.
Scott went on to write that he had predicted the day would come when "the SBC would struggle with which conservative view is the correct one."

He closes his email to me with an encouraging paragraph, words that confirm to me that at least one Southern Baptist has gotten the message after reading Hard Ball Religion:

One way or another these issues will be settled by the SBC, but (your book) has not discouraged me to leave or quit giving to the CP. To the contrary, it has ignited a fire in me to autonomously cooperate with other gospel preaching Southern Baptist Churches by giving more to the CP and challenging our people to see the world as God’s field that is ripe unto harvest.

Well stated Scott. I look forward to cooperating with you for the Kingdom's sake. The fields are ripe for harvest.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

179 comments:

John Daly said...

Mr. Bradley seems like an intelligent guy. I would imagine he also has some intelligent, dedicated, and good-looking people in his congregation :) Of course I'm only guessing.

Wanda said...

I believe Danny Akin is a rising star in the SBC. He is intelligent, thoughtful, and balanced in his approach to ministry. The Southern Baptist Convention has been going in the wrong direction for decades, and I pray that Dr. Akin and men like him can turn the convention around and set it on the proper course to Jesus Christ!

Ron said...

Wade,

I have ordered your book and hope to read it soon but will have to have someone bring it out here to me. In the meantime I will have to get by with listening to the reviews of others. Scott Bradley’s remarks are encouraging to me. Other books have been written by those who have opposed the CR describing its failures and shortcomings but they have not had much credibility with CR supporters because they were seen as the enemy or out to get even. Since you were a supporter of the CR and were even given a position as an IMB trustee because of your solid theological conservative credentials and support for the CR, I am hoping other supporters of the CR will be greatly influenced by what you have seen and observed from inside the Conservative Resurgence machine. I believe it was your opportunity to see firsthand the true nature of the conservative resurgence and many of its leaders that caused you to change your opinion and move away from your support of the CR. Few others have had that opportunity. The methods, attitudes and actions you have observed at the IMB were all present from the beginning of the CR in 1979. I saw it first hand in Houston in 1979 and in many other instances in my home state of Arkansas and at the IMB. That is why I have never supported the CR.

In a recent blog Dave Miller stated to you, “You once vocally and enthusiastically supported the CR, right? Now, you say you "NEVER would have supported it." That, by the way, is part of my leftward drift thing.” He was implying that because of your lack of support for the CR that implies a leftward drift or a move toward liberalism. That is an example of the way the CR has warped the thinking of even good intelligent people like Dave. In actuality, I believe your lack of support for the CR is a sign of moving to the right or a move to a more orthodox, conservative position. Among a certain segment of our convention there is the concept that the only way to support a theologically conservative convention is to blindly follow the CR and its leaders. I reject that position. It is exactly because I am a theologically conservative Southern Baptist who believes in the inerrancy of the scripture that I oppose the CR.

Wade, as you said earlier, “One of the major premises in the book is that a person should be known as a Christian by how he behaves as much as what he believes.” I cannot support an organization whose leaders say they believe inerrancy but live their lives as though they do not need to obey the clear teaching of the Bible against bearing false witness and other moral teachings. CB, Dave, Louis and others say the CR was about theology not power and control. I believe some of the followers of the CR believe they were fighting against liberalism in our convention but if you look at the results, the CR organization has had little to do with theology and everything to do with power and control. Supporters of the resurgence will say that some innocent people may have been hurt in the battle but it was worth it for the cause. In war when a battle is taking place you may have a small percentage of collateral damage. In the CR war I believe the percent of collateral damage done to innocent people is more like 99% with very few actual liberals being confronted by the CR. Instead they spend their time attacking conservatives like Wade who ask questions they don’t want to answer.

For those of you supporters of the CR who want to label Wade a liberal or a traitor to the cause, I want to issue you a challenge. For 30 years I have observed a parade of trustees at the IMB put in place by the leaders of the CR who have accused our missionaries of liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, and heresy. When I have challenged these trustees such as Ron Wilson, Jerry Corbaley and a few others to prove their charges, they refuse to answer. I have asked other trustees to challenge these trustees to be accountable and prove their charges. None would answer. Wade Burleson is the only trustee I know who has had the courage to publicly state they are wrong when they make these kinds of charges and to ask them to be accountable. Wade said, “I made a vow three years ago that no longer would this Southern Baptist sit idly by while other Southern Baptists were abused by men in powerful positions.” Thirty years ago I made a vow that when I heard others describe another Southern Baptist as a liberal or make some other remark attacking his theology I would challenge that person to prove his statements. In by far the majority of cases I found the charges were false. I challenge all who wish to criticize Wade to have the courage to do the same.
Ron West

Wade Burleson said...

Ron West,

Thanks for an articulate comment. I could not agree more.

Robert said...

Hi Ron,
I will give you two big examples of where Wade is absolutely a liberal in his theology.
1)Having a Heretic in his pulpit is forbidden in Scripture....William P Young.
2)His support of women pastors such as Julie Pennington.

Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva

Bob Cleveland said...

It has always seemed to me that the remedy for faulty theology, ecclesiology, etc etc, is the truth. The real stuff. The Gospel.

"For the boards of trustees are the power of God unto ...."?

I think not.

If the truth of the bible spoken forth does not bring about the hoped-for response, is the answer in some more theology, some other theology, or has it been in manipulation, political expediency, and repression of the truth?

If someone does not respond to the message of salvation, should we try to "lead them down the primrose path" ... manipulate them into agreeing with us? Is it our position to try to "make things happen"?

Or is it to speak the truth, plainly, consistently, pervasively, and unendingly?

Wade Burleson said...

Robert,

My post on Christ's atonement goes up Monday. You will find that you and I are in absolute agreement on the penal, substitutionary, and effectual work of Christ on behalf of His people.

William Paul Young would probably differ with us in our high view of atonement, but he would not differ with us when it comes to love for Jesus Christ and those who trust in him.

I would much rather have William Paul young in the pulpit, with a spirit of love, than someone with whom I agree on the atonement, with a pharisaical, arrogant attitude.

In His Grace,

Wade

Byroniac said...

Robert,

1. Where do you get that from? The only place I can find a pulpit mentioned is in Nehemiah 8:4. And how do you know he is a heretic? Have you talked to him? Have you read the book? (No doubt his theology is flawed if what I have read is true, but there's a difference between a brother in error and an unrepentant heretic, and speaking for myself, I don't know enough yet to know).

2. I've questioned Wade's complementarianism myself (mostly privately). However, it seems a better approach to people like her is, "I love you in the Lord as my sister in Christ, but I think you are wrong because..." And then agree to disagree if you must (and I'd have to disagree with some who comment here on this issue who seem to be wonderful Christian people).

That's what I don't like about fundamentalism (which I'm a part of). We tend to label, categorize, and stereotype, and draw lines in the sand, then disassociate with great fanfare, and do that all before lunch. We should rather just sit down and talk to people and find out what they are like first (not dialogue for the sake of compromise but dialogue for the sake of understanding, introduce correction, and seek possible fellowship if that take place). If we're right, why feel so threatened, or the need to correct so urgently as if somehow we depend on it as well?

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Who appointed you as an IMB Trustee?

Wade Burleson said...

I was vetted by a group of sitting IMB trustees, then one of the IMB trustees gave my name to the Nominating Committee, and then the Nominating Committee called me and asked several questions about our church's CP giving, my missions involvement, and the like, and then the SBC Nominating Committee brought my name to the 2005 Southern Baptist Convention (as well as a host of other names to fill other trustee positions), and as is customary, the SBC accepted in toto the recommendations of the Nominating Committee. Nobody is "appointed." You are nominated and elected - but some like to try to control the nominating process.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"I would much rather have William Paul young in the pulpit, with a spirit of love, than someone with whom I agree on the atonement, with a pharisaical, arrogant attitude."

Wade,

I find this comment most disturbing. A faulty view of the atonement equals eternity in hell. I may agree and sympathize with your views and causes more than some of those within my ministry inner circle, but this is where I must say the line has to be drawn.

I now believe that you wear the title of "conservative" in a different manner which I and many others use it. And so form that relative plane, you should not be offended if someone calls you a liberal.

Again, I am deeply saddened by your comment above. It is consistent wit that which I will always fight against in our efforts to be holy and set apart for Christ.

Kevin

Anonymous said...

Would you like to ever be nominated and elected again?

Robert said...

Wade,
Surely you dont believe that his view of the Atonement is the only thing that Mr Young holds in error. The Shack is riddled with error!
Wade why is your church, I realize it is not "your church", the only SBC church that has had him come and speak. I may be wrong on that but not many exist.

I seriously believe he teaches heresy!
Al Mohler is right and you are wrong on the Shack. That makes you a liberal theologically.

Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva

Tim Marsh said...

Kevin,

"A faulty view of the atonement equals eternity in hell"

Where does that come from? How many Christians, even conservative, can articulate substitutionary atonement?

In fact, Paul emphasized the resurrection, not a theory of atonement in his famous Romans 10:9-13.

Byroniac said...

If Wade is a liberal, then being a liberal ain't half bad. Doctrine is important, but where is the love? No wonder the SBC is in decline.

Anonymous said...

Kevin wrote,
" A faulty view of the atonement equals eternity in hell."

What is a 'correct' view of the atonement?

What would an 'incorrect' view of atonement be, that would condemn the person to eternal hell?

Anonymous said...

Kevin, you have become a
Pharisee. What happend?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Tim Marsh,

I think you would agree that many of our fine folks in the pew hold to good biblical If one denies the fact that Christ died on the cross to pay the debt of sinner's sins, then one cannot have eternal life. Subsequently if one does not hold to the bodily resurrection the same is true.


Love did not save. Christ death did. Not only are we commanded to love God and our neighbors, we are also commanded not to stay biblically illiterate.

We are commanded to know more fully the God that we serve.



Ladies and gents---A fine pastor recently told me that biblical illiteracy has reached critical mass.

Love theology has done this. (Love Theology uses a human understanding of love and emotion as a pretext to all of Scripture and daily life. This is of course wrong.)

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Anon,

Either you have a faulty understanding of what a Pharisee is, or you have a faulty understanding of me.

K

Robert said...

Tim Marsh,
I think the point that Kevin is making is best illustrated in Kendall Adams interview with William Paul Young,follow this link for the transcript.....

http://morebooksandthings.blogspot.com/2009/03/transcript-of-interview.html

Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva

Anonymous said...

"A faulty view of the atonement equals eternity in hell."

Read: Salvation is obtained through a passing grade on a theology exam, apparently graded by Mr. Crowder.

God help us.

John Daly said...

Good theology should result in abundant doxology.

Anonymous said...

The 1963 BFM statement says,
"The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is
JESUS CHRIST."

These words were deleted in the 2000 BFM statement.

Now, in my Book, that has got to be the most LIBERAL STATEMENT ever.
Once Jesus was no longer the central figure of the church, all HELL broke loose.

2KBF&M was a radical document, eliminating the one, true way that the Bible could ever be interpreted: in the light of Jesus Christ.

The whole 'fundamentalist' act was extremely radical, not conservative.

Once, Jesus was 'demoted', the politics took over and the destruction began.

Conservative indeed. Ha !

Robert said...

Amen Kevin,
A excellent read on this is D.A. Carson's the difficult doctrine of love

Robert from Geneva
(my title is being reformed!)

Robert said...

Read: Salvation is obtained through a passing grade on a theology exam, apparently graded by Mr. Crowder.

Why you just made Kevins Point.

Theology is larger then just salvation.
thus the battle cry of the Reformation
Soli Deo Gloria

Wade Burleson said...

Gents,

The atonement saves.

Not your understanding of it.

wade

Robert said...

Wade,
The point in response to Ron West was that allowance of Paul Young to teach an understanding of the atonement that is contrary to what even you believe is in Scripture is !)contrary to Scripture 2)in my mind at least makes you a liberal

So all these to say that is why I do not desire the convention to follow your lead.

To quote John Piper....we must divide from error before we can unite in the truth of Gods Word.

Robert from Geneva

Chris Ryan said...

Kevin,

Have you realized that "a faulty view on the atonement" includes a faulty view on the extent of the atonement? It is a subcategory of the same doctrine. Therefore, if you are correct only Calvinists or only Armenians or only Universalists make it into heaven. The others have a one way ticket to Hell. That is, if your initial premise was correct.

Now, you say that there is no excuse for remaining biblically illiterate. I agree. All this three-point-and-a-poem preaching doesn't help move us past that point, though. BUT where you saved when you finally understood the atonement or were you saved when Christ and you were brought into a right relationship?

I'm not going Bultmann's route and suggesting that truth doesn't matter. But how many of us had great theological understandings when we were saved. I was saved when I was six. At that point I couldn't say or spell substitutionary atonement, much less truly understand it. But I was saved then.

Does a "faulty view of the atonement" include those who add to substitutionary atonement ideas like Christus Victor or the idea of the cross as also being exemplary? They understand substitutionary atonement, but the also understand there to be more going on at the cross than just that. Or if those views are also acceptable, then doesn't one have to believe them in addition to substitutionary atonement to have a correct view of the atonement?

And if not going to Hell is dependant upon my intellectual prowess and understanding, doesn't that make salvation by works?

The implications of your statement are very wide. Perhaps wider than you first realized. You tread on dangerous ground, be careful.

Security word: leven

Christiane said...

Dear Wade,
Thank you for saying this:

"Gents,

The atonement saves.

Not your understanding of it.

wade"

Thank you for the sake of all those who might be 'discounted' because they don't have the 'intellectual gifts' to sort out the complex theologies of the Incarnation-Atonement Mysteries.
These people are God's children, too. God Bless You Wade, L's

P.S. I ordered your book from of all places, the local 'Lifeway' store in our area. I know that they already knew about the book because the lady immediately told me that it would cost $17.00.
She stated that the book would arrive at the store by April 10 at the earliest. I have to be hospitalized for surgery on the
15th, so will have much time to read thoughtfully and give it my full attention. (Unless the morphine pump keeps me asleep, God forbid.) Looks like your book is already doing some good, from today's post. I am not surprised by this at all. God is good.
Love and Prayers, L's

PPS. (sorry) Did attempt a 'review' for you of Anne Rice's new book. I made effort not to do this through the lens of my own faith (Catholic), but found that it was too difficult to express my thoughts in a way more suited for your readers, whom I love. No wish on my part to cause confusion or discord in any way; besides which my review moves me to tears. Don't want that for them either. :)
Sincerely, L's

Pastor Scott said...

To Anonymous,
You've got it all wrong about the change to the 1963 BFM. To interpret the Bible based on who Jesus is allows a fairy tale Jesus to determine what the Bible means. Not to allow the Bible to determine who Jesus is put you right up there with Joseph Smith, in a manner of speaking

Anonymous said...

Pastor Scot, they discounted the 'words and actions of Jesus in the BIBLE'. Who is able to give an interpretation of Christianity better than the central Figure of our faith: His Words, His Actions?

Who? A group of B.I. 'leaders'?

Look at the carnage in the SBC and tell us the truth.

Robert said...

Wade and L.s
The fact that God saves...not our understanding of the atonement is a fallacy!
No one is arguing against that point!
We do believe in Soli Gratia.
The question is anything other than the penal substitution Scriptural.I would argue NO.

BTW....Do you believe in Soli Gratia L,s?

Robert from Geneva

Pastor Scott said...

Anonymous,
Yeah, that's a problem. You have to be comfortable with what you believe. You then have three choices: 1)Find like-minded believers to fellowship with (A Separatist); 2) Argue all the time with dissenters to your position (A Moron); or 3)Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and just talk fishing (A Friend). You know any good fishing holes?

Steve said...

I just now realized that doctrine is made with a long handle and manufactured by the Louisville Slugger people. That love stuff IS so old fashioned!

Paul Burleson said...

Wade,

Andrew Murry believed the atonement was that which declared salvation to be a general work of Christ for mankind. But he believed it was limited in it's application.

According to his idea the work of the atonement was not for the elect as such but for sinners as sinners. It is the application to a person in time that makes that one the elect. This meaning God chose to apply the atonement because of repentence and faith and that one IS the elect.

I'm sure, without having talked to Paul Young personally, he might agree, if not totally with Andrew Murry, certainly in kind. I've read his book, his website, his thoughts and believe he might be close to Andrew Murry's a view of the atonement. I'll ask him when I see him in a couple of weeks.

I, on the other hand, have a differing view of the atonement. My view is that in His sufferings and death He took on the actual penalty of those who, in the purposes of God, were chosen [the elect] as the elect before the foundation of the world. So I believe His death ACTUALLY purchased salvation for those whom He ultimately woos and wins with the gospel. a number that cannot be numbered out of ever tribe, tongue, and nation on earth. Our job is to take the gospel to all the world and trust the Spirit to do His work.

But I agee with you. I'd rather let an Andrew Murry or a Paul Young speak in my church than someone who agreed with my particular view but was angry and unloving with those who disagreed.

Make no mistake REAL love is NEVER without truth but REAL truth is NEVER in the minds of those who think they have it all and only those who agree with them should be heard.

Men like Walter Martin, [Kingdom of the Cults] Paul Bilheimer, [Don't Waste Your Sorrows] Roy Hession, [Calvary Road] T.W. Hunt [The Mind Of Christ] were some of my friends [in the case of T.W. still is] and graced the pulpits of the churches I pastored. [As you well know] But no one I've mentioned would agree with my view of the atonement nearly as closely as they would Andrew Murry's view.I think Chris said it right above.

In fact, I'm not sure which view of atonement the thief on the cross had. I'll ask HIM one day too.

If someone says I'm making doctrine or the teaching of Truth unimportant they don't have a clue about reality in regards to my position there. But they can ask me one day. Right? :)

Robert said...

Why is that people assume that because we speak the truth that we dont love?
You seem to imply that in your statement byroniac!

Just because I think Wade is a liberal does that make me unloving?

I think we have confused theological fortitude with an unloving spirit!

BTW----this is a excellent loving testimony

http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=3972

Robert from Geneva

Anonymous said...

Ron:

I always enjoy your writing, even when I don't agree with it.

At the risk of us both sounding like broken record players, let me say that all of the supporters of the CR whom I know were supportive of the FMB.

I and others on this blog have said that to you before, but you ignore that and create what I believe is a straw man, saying that the suppporters of the CR were upset with the FMB.

Both the moderates and the conservatives claimed to love the missionaries and missions. Ironically, in the end, it was many moderates who had been saying how much they loved SBC missions, who actually left the SBC missions programs and started a rival missions group to promote in Baptist churches, threatening the funding source of the missionaries whom they said they loved.

But also, as I have said before, the CR concerns were primarily the theological schools and agencies that took positions that most Baptists disagreed with.

You also never seem to acknowledge that or discuss the issue of the theological changes in the SBC schools since the resurgence or the other agencies.

These changes are generally recognized by Baptists and non-Baptists around the country. Christianity Today, the Christian Century, and other periodicals and journals have written abou this.

In your comment, you said, "if you look at the results, the CR organization has had little to do with theology and everything to do with power and control."

Well, let's look at the results:


Southern Seminary - Al Mohler and the faculty there are conservative. Do you think that the changes there are not theological? The seminary under Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. McCall was not nearly as conservative as it is now.

Southeastern Seminary - are you saying that this seminary is not more sound, more conservative under Dr. Drummon, Dr. Patterson and now Dr. Akin than it was under Dr. Lolley? If it is, isn't that theological. Dr. Akin, whom many people on this blog love and trust would fall out of his chair laughing to hear that there have been no theological changes as a result of the CR.

Mid-Western Seminary - Do you believe that Mid-Western was as conservative and theologically sound under Dr. Ferguson and his predecssors than it has been under Dr. Coppinger and Roberts? Don't names such as Ralph Elliott (whom Dr. McCall said he could have protected, if he had stayed at Southern) or Temp Sparkman mean anything?

New Orleans Seminary - Dr. Chuck Kelley will tell you outright that they have no one on the faulty, nor would they have anyone on the faculty, like Frank Stagg, who taught there and then finished his career at Southern. Isn't that a theological change?

Southwestern - obviously the most conservative seminary in the SBC during the CR. I could be wrong, but I believe that Dr. Hemphill and Dr. Patterson have tried to build faculties that are committed to inerrancy. So-called BI issues aside, someone like Malcolm Yarnell, who is on the faculty there now and who also went there as a student in the late 80s, early 90s, would probably be glad to tell you about the changes he has witnessed.

The Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission(f/k/a the Christian Life Commission) - isn't it better that the Christian Life Commission is pro-life under Dr. Land, than a founder and supporter of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, as it was under Dr. Valentine? Isn't that theological, and do you find that significant at all?

Isn't it also preferable that the SBC has gone on record with an accommodationist view on church state matters and supported things such as the Equal Access Act, rather than holding on to the strict separationist view advocated by the BJCPA for many years to the disappointment of Southern Baptists?

I know that these things may not mean that much to you. That's fine if they don't. But to say that the results were not theological is just astoundng.

You mentioned Arkansas. I think I told you that part of my family hails from there. I know a man named Joe Atchison. He was the DOM in NW Arkansas, and he also served as a trustee of the IMB. Joe is a great guy. A lovely Christian man. If you go back to visit Arkansas, it might be good for you guys to meet and visit someday. I think that you will find in Joe they type of person whom I met in droves who supported the CR.

I know that you did not. And still don't.

But it is beyond comprehension to fail to see the theological changes in education that have occured in the SBC as a result of and because of the CR.

I am not at all trying to discount your personal observations. I am sure that stories can be swapped on either side about how someone was mistreated by the other side. I don't discount that. I just don't think it speaks to theology either way.

I will hang up and let you reply if you want to. You don't have to, and if you don't, that's fine. I would not take it as a sign of weakness or that you don't have any ideas. If you do respond, I'll let you know in advance that I won't be replying just because I don't want to go on and on about this forever.

Thanks for serving the way that you do.

Louis

happy gram said...

a spirit of love is often revealed in the writing....


...is "i think you are wrong" different than "you are wrong." ?

Robert said...

HappyGram,

that is a good illustration!

is "i think you are wrong" different than "you are wrong." ?

I would say neither of them represent an unloving spirit. I would urge you not confuse certitude with an unloving spirit.
Being dogmatic does not make one automatically unloving.

BTW...you have made some statements concerning me that came across as very dogmatic dare I say unloving! One time Louis corrected you but in the end you have to answer to God and I move on with my accountability to HIM.

Robert from Geneva

Anonymous said...

Robert I Masters??? I have never met you nor spoken to you but one thing I do know about you is that you are SO full of it.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Gents,

The atonement saves.

Not your understanding of it.

wade"



Ladies and Gentleman, this is an overly simplistic theology which is born out of the baptistic doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved"--A doctrine which has born a Christendom of biblical illiteracy.

Some things said are true, but lack enough information to be effective and life transforming.

One must believe in the sinless life, sacrificial death, and bodily resurrection to be saved. Regeneration is totally an act of the Spirit by Grace. But this grace gives us the ability to believe the afore mentioned. One need be a "professional theologian" to grasp this. One must only be a child of God.


Chris Ryan,

The understanding of the extent of the atonement is important, but not to salvation. It is however helpful in doing good evangelism.



The best thing we can do is to pray that God keeps the lost and the weak Christians away from Emmanuel the weekend Young is speaking. It would be better that they hear NO Gospel than BAD Gospel.

k

Anonymous said...

"In fact, I'm not sure which view of atonement the thief on the cross had. I'll ask HIM one day too." Paul Burleson


Maybe the Good Thief was responding to the Law that God has written on the hearts of ALL mankind: the moral code which would have told the Good Thief that Christ's sufferings were 'unjustly deserved'. This also showed that the Good Thief had compassion for Christ, another 'Person', at a time when his own suffering was extreme. At a time like that, to think about another, would have been apparently something Christ valued greatly. What can be learned, Paul, from the words of the Good Thief and from the words of Christ, that we can apply to our understanding of how Christ saves?

Paul Burleson said...

Anon,

Very little. But He did.

Lydia said...

"Southern Seminary - Al Mohler and the faculty there are conservative. Do you think that the changes there are not theological? The seminary under Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. McCall was not nearly as conservative as it is now. "

ESS is coming out of SBTS. So is patriarchy. And yes, those are 'theological' changes. Just not good ones.

"So-called BI issues aside, someone like Malcolm Yarnell, who is on the faculty there now and who also went there as a student in the late 80s, early 90s, would probably be glad to tell you about the changes he has witnessed."

Yes, like going along with treating Dr. Klouda like dog doo. And the changes in Pecan Manor.

Chris Ryan said...

Kevin,

God uses the simple things to confound the wise. Sometimes the most profound of mysteries are frustratingly simple.

Just remember that.

greg.w.h said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
greg.w.h said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
greg.w.h said...

Kevin wrote:

One must believe in the sinless life, sacrificial death, and bodily resurrection to be saved. Regeneration is totally an act of the Spirit by Grace. But this grace gives us the ability to believe the afore mentioned. One need be a "professional theologian" to grasp this. One must only be a child of God.

I think one should believe in those things, but the whole point of the Hall of Faith in Hebrews is that God accounted faith as righteousness without a specific knowledge of Christ Jesus. You could argue that since the name of Jesus could be transliterated from Greek into Hebrew as "yeshua" and that word probably is translated into English as "God saves", then when the Bible says that you must call upon the name of Jesus to be saved, what you're doing is putting your trust in God to deliver you.

That reminds me of the fairly trite faith example of "trusting" in a chair by sitting on it which is not the same as trusting in the knowledge that chairs can be sat upon.

Is Wade's comment an oversimplification? No. It is faith, not knowledge, that is accounted as righteousness according to Hebrews. And James backs up that by pointing out that it was the ACTIONS that resulted from faith that justified Abraham and Rahab:

James 2(NIV):20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.


Parking these examples alongside the Hall of Faith examples gives a pretty clear picture of people without knowledge of Christ who had faith in God that was fulfilled by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus. In fact, it almost as if the same Holy Spirit inspired both passages as a precise counter-argument to your comment, Kevin, and in support of Wade's.

I'd add this verse from the same James 2 passage:

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

Anyone want to bet on whether demons can pass orals for advanced degrees in theology? Think they're saved? Me neither.

Greg Harvey

p.s. Hopefully third time is a charm on this. DOH!!

greg.w.h said...

Louis wrote:

Both the moderates and the conservatives claimed to love the missionaries and missions. Ironically, in the end, it was many moderates who had been saying how much they loved SBC missions, who actually left the SBC missions programs and started a rival missions group to promote in Baptist churches, threatening the funding source of the missionaries whom they said they loved.

You know, Louis, I wouldn't have expected you to do such a disservice to the actual history. Which came first, for instance, the defunding of Ruschlikon or the resignation of Parks? And when, exactly, do you give the CBF credit for establishing a true, rival missions organization? At it's first appearance (the first thing called a CBF Global Missions effort), or when Parks took over the leadership of their efforts?

Without a point of reference, your comment comes across as moderates lacking integrity because they failed to support the missions they (supposedly) loved. Instead, the history points to an issue of control--Ron West's earlier claim--as the point of departure, not a real theological difference.

Greg Harvey

Thy Peace said...

VTMBottomLine: The Book Is Out
From One Who Wouldn't Play The Game

-----------------------------------
Wade Burleson said...
Dad,

When you get the book, you will see a dedication to "Our Missionaries."

In the acknowledgments, I thank you and Mom specifically. The book could not have been written without your expert help and critiques!

Thanks!!

Wade

26/3/09 9:35 PM
-----------------------------------
Paul Burleson said...
Wade,

You're to be commended for a well written book that reveals some things that must be heard and ultimately changed in our Convention.

I know these past four years have been most unusual for you personally, as the book will show, but you have come through them with an amazing lack of bitterness. I'm sure it's because of those close to you [family, friends and church] being with you the whole journey as your's have been, to which I can attest, but I also know it's because of your strong conviction in the absolute sovereignty and sufficiency of God and your love for Baptist people.

Your faithfulness in "speaking the truth in love" has made us proud and thankful for you.

27/3/09 5:45 AM

-----------------------------------

Paul Burleson said...

Anon,

With regards to your question, seriously, most of what we would see is subjective and things we would have to assume from certain revealed facts.

For example, at first both railed on Him as shown in, I think it is Matt 27. Then the one thief [robber] is broken. Why? We don't know.

It could have been the attitude of Jesus. It could have been the other few times Jesus had spoken pryor to their exchange he heard or saw something. It could have been the sign put above the cross stirring old memories of his childhood religious training about the Messiah assuming there was any. What ever it was the Spirit used I don't know but he was given enlightenment as to something of what Jesus was doing there.

He acknowleded his own guilt. He acknowledged the innocence of Jesus. He cried out in a childlike trust. Jesus responded. He was with Jesus afterward.

Simple, profound, and leaves me personally with the truth that the simplicity of the gospel is the core to true evangelism.

Had he lived and I'd been one of his teaching elders I would have wanted to instruct him in the scriptures [maybe even the views of the atonement] but that is different than simply gossiping the gospel which is what we are commanded to do with outsiders.

I don't know whether this answers your question or not but I wasn't comfortable with what I intended as a funny response but upon reading it myself I saw it as too flippant. That was not my intention I assure you. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Paul Burleson said,
"He (the good thief) acknowledged his own guilt. He acknowledged the innocence of Jesus. He cried out in a childlike trust. Jesus responded. He was with Jesus afterward.

Simple, profound, and leaves me personally with the truth that the simplicity of the gospel is the core to true evangelism."



Paul, I agree with your insight.

All this complexity and insistence on agreement with rigid interpretations of convoluted and murky theories OR ELSE you are "cursed to hell", is way off- base. I find it to be cold-hearted and full of pride.
I much prefer your insight of the simple beauty of the gospels.

I myself fear the cold hearts of the "intellectually correct". I sense in these cold hearts a preparation for the work of Antichrist (whose imitation of Christ must also extend to "correct theology"!
Jesus protect us from the cold darkness of these minds! Anon.

Anonymous said...

Greg:

Ron mentioned concern of liberalism among the missionaries.

My point was that both sides claimed to love the missionaries.

The conservatives were primarily concerned about the seminaries and the other agencies I mentioned.

I do think it is ironic that the moderates were the ones that eventually set up an alternate missions program.

I don't know if you were around then or not, but I remember having lots of discussions with moderates in college and law school who said that the conservative movement was bad because it threatened support to the missionaries. The CP was "the genius of the SBC", and so what if there was liberalism in the seminaries. Trying to deal with it would eventually hurt funding for the missions enterprise. I heard that argument many times.

The moderates pointed to the "independent" missions programs run by men like Adrian Rogers (Bellevue) and Charles Stanley (FBC Atlanta), to show that they were not as committed to SBC missions as they should be, and thus, should not be President of the SBC.

I have never been one to demand that people support programs they don't like. If the moderates did not like Dr. Rankin and any changes at the FMB (which is way before any of the issues that Wade writes about), they were certainly free to start new missions programs.

I just think that it is ironic given their rhetoric during the CR years.

I will readily admit, too, that if the conservative had lost the CR, there is no question that they would have bolted. That is the nature of conservative people, I think. They were fairly up front about that, too.

The moderates, on the other hand, swore allegiance that withered as soon as they could not control things. Again, I think that's o.k., really. It is just ironic if you lived through the debates of that time.

I see that you really don't take issue with my observations regarding whether the seminaries are more conservative now, or whether ERLC better represents the SBC on issues like abortion and church/state issues than the former CLC or the BJCPA.

By the way, how old are you? I am interested not because it affects your opinions one way or the other, but I am interested in knowing whether I am speaking to someone who actually lived through the CR or participated in it, or read about it after it was over in 1992 or so.

Sometimes I assume things about people's ages and what they might remember or not.

Take care.

Louis

Only By His Grace said...

Kevin,

The controversy of just how much "theological baggage" do we have to carry in order to go to Heaven was being debated when I entered SWBTS in January of 1966. It has been debated for two thousand years and will continue to be argued until the Second Advent.

Here was my theological baggage when I walked into a Baptist church the first time in my life after graduating from high school.

I believed you could lose your salvation; I believed you had to be immersed (baptized) in water to be saved; I believed you had to take the Lord's Supper every Sunday, I believed you had to belong to a church which literally carried the name of Christ on its title; I believed only members of that church denomination would be saved.

I walked into a Baptist church at 7:30 PM on Sunday night a lost sinner and walked out a redeemed child of God at 8:30 PM. Six months later I still believed you could lose your salvation and was not sure of the other positions of which none I hold today.

My point is simple to me: I was not saved by "correct" theology; I was saved by grace through faith that Christ died for my sins, was buried and rose again and I called on Him to be my Lord or Master for the rest of my life (Romans 10:9-10).

I doubt if the Greek Philippian jailor knew much "correct" theology that night when he asked Paul what he must do to be saved nor did his whole household; and I believe there are many more out there that are saved like him who do not have a "correct" view on atonement. Notice that Philippian jailor and his household were baptized that night without this "correct" theology."

If we were honest about the matter, I would venture over eighty percent of Southern Baptist members have no "correct" view of atonement; yet, most are still saved despite that fact the great majority are carnal Christians. In fact, if we knew what most of our members really believed, it would scare us silly.

Phil in Norman.

Thy Peace said...

I would encourage everyone to listen to this sermon of Pastor Wade. I believe in this sermon, the blog of Pastor Wade's meets Emmanuel. This sermon cover all the previous posts both recent and long ago posts. This is almost a nexus that is coming together in one sermon.

If you watch the video, it's titled "The Anointing of the Father", March 22, 2009 - Part 11 of series (1 Jn. 2:26-27). The sermon is from 28:08 to 59:04. You can access the videos from here. If that does not work, try this.

The sermons notes are here: #11. The Anointing of the Father (I John 2:26-27), of the series I John: The Christian and Complete Joy.

This sermon brings lot of things together and you will understand the thinking behind Pastor Wade's motivation about the book he has just written and the struggles he went through. Also, the above service has the best music and singing from Emmanuel.

I believe there is a quiet revolution taking place due to the influence of the internet. Maybe most of the world takes it for granted, but the biggest influence that is taking place in the undercurrents is due to the sharing of internet/web broadcasts of church services and the archived services.

This is a real blessing.

Anonymous said...

Lydia:

But isn't it better to believe in the Trinity and the diety of Christ and to discuss how that plays out, than to not believe in the Trinity and the Diety of Christ at all?

And on male/female issues, isn't it better to affirm that the Word is what should guide us (even though we might disagree on various points), than to hold that the Bible is anitquated and not relevant on the subject at all?

I have never heard that Malcolm Yarnell was involved in Dr. Klouda's hiring, firing etc.? I thought that Dr. P and somebody named Blaising and the Trustees were involved in that.

Also, I have never heard that Dr. Yarnell had anything to do with the home at the seminary. Does he?

These are sincere questions. I have just never heard that about him, and I would be interested to know.

Thanks.

Louis

Chris Ryan said...

Louis,

You wrote, "The moderates, on the other hand, swore allegiance that withered as soon as they could not control things." How very unfair.

That may have been the case for some, but certainly not for all. For many, they swore allegiance to something they were no longer ALLOWED to support. Take the General Convention of Missouri, for instance. It tried to form in connection to the SBC. The SBC rejected them because there was already a convention in place.

They got creative and now send the check through the Texas convention because the SBC Executive Board isn't stupid enough to reject a check of that size. But the relevant point is that they wanted to support the SBC missions program and were turned away.

Anonymous said...

I'll take a crack at the "how much theological error can a person have, and still believe enough to be saved?"

Answer: No way to know exactly where that line is, IMO.

If we talk hypotheticals, I can take a shot (assuming it's not heretical to do that anyway).

If we talk from a definitional standpoint, I am not even guessing.

I have heard from some people who don't believe in the Virgin Birth (e.g. liberal Baptists) that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is not important because, "I trusted Jesus when I was 6, and I did not know or understand the doctrine of the Virgin Birth."

That, with all due respect, is not an answer.

Well, why don't we just say that there are many doctrines that are an essential part of the Christian faith. (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the substitutionary atonement). And we are called to teach them.

We would be derelict not to teach them if we believe the witness of the Bible. Also, they are essential for our understanding of who Jesus is.

Let's also say that God saves people by grace through faith in Christ etc.

None of us can define how refined a person's knowledge must be.

We all grow in knowledge after we are saved, but we need some knowledge to be saved in the first place, unless we believe in some sort of universalism. (I am not venturing in on the infants and mentally incapable questions at this point, except to say that God is just and will handle that in His way).

So, salvation can be extended to all. The Gospel has a defined content. Faith is necessary. God is gracious and God is sovereign.

Our obigation to teach the truth is not reduced by the fact or how God saves and what level of knowledge is required.

And, how God saves children or someone who is new to the faith is a different question from the status of people who reject essential Christian doctrines.

That's about the best I can do.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Chris:

You are right.

Not all moderates reduced their support of SBC missions. I am talking about the ones who actually did.

But do the contributions from the Texas convention go to SBC missions, or SBC missions AND CBF and other missions created by the moderates?

I have not followed Missouri carefully, but have the moderates in that state that send their contributions to Texas resticted their contributions to the IMB, or do they go to the CBF and other non-IMB missions?

And why couldn't moderate churches in Missouri do what we do? Send contributions directly to the EC in Nashville and the IMB? That would avoid the whole state convention issue altogether.

The EC of the SBC takes our gifts directly. They don't have to go through the state.

The Missiouri churches, I suspect, want to support some moderate missions in addition to the SBC. Again, if they want to do that, they have every right. That's what I was referring to.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Chris:

The Missiouri churches could also give all their missions money to Lottie Moon, couldn't they?

Louis

Anonymous said...

Scott's congregation wouldn't have to give very much money to the CP to OUT-GIVE some of the megachurches in the SBC. It is NOT equal sacrifice in many cases when it comes to the CP in the SBC--but what we could do if it were!

Come on, big churches and big church pastors--become FULL PARTNERS with the rest of us and give like we do: sacrificially to the joint-enterprise for the sake of souls, not the sake of mortgages on half-empty auditoriums!


David

Anonymous said...

Also "vetted," one year after arriving in Missouri, to serve as a member of the MBC board of trustees. Theologically-conservative BUT politically-moderate, and voted with the board majority which also was politically-moderate/theologically-conservative (there was no one BUT theologically-conservative trustees on the board) in 2001 to grant a severance package to the executive director (and would have also given him the Baptist Building for all that was done to him by Fundamentalists there; wise long-time convention staff members had seen the handwriting on the wall with the Fundamentalist movement and exited earlier). Afterward, referred to as theologically-moderate, and later as theologically-liberal, by the present MBC newspaper staff who never phoned/visited to ask personally; until then, I didn't know I was (lol; I wasn't and isn't!).

Sad days then--and now, almost a decade later; but right won then, and maybe will now.


David

happy gram said...

louis, i can still love someone who i perceive as bitter and angry. perhaps i erred in thinking you were "old" (all of this in reference to older posts/comments). and because i am simply a "lowly pew-sitter" i don't have much to offer. however, i am learning a lot and i guess i am drawn more to those whose dialogue is laced with humility and sensitivity rather than sarcasm and hubris.

Anonymous said...

David, right will win.
After the fundamentalists have done enough harm to enough people, Southern Baptists will 'wake up' and look at 'the fruit' of this unChristian group.

The fundamentalists used fear, coercion, politics, and name-calling to undermine decent Christian people. The goal? Power. Money.

Right will win. Always does.
Takes a while sometimes. The fundamentalists can't hide all the harm they've done: there's too much of it.

Lydia said...

"But isn't it better to believe in the Trinity and the diety of Christ and to discuss how that plays out, than to not believe in the Trinity and the Diety of Christ at all?"

Louis, You can't believe in the full diety of the Lord of Hosts, Jesus Christ by teaching that He is subordinate to God pre and post incarnation.

You can give lip service that you do believe in His deity but then what is taught about it in detail negates those very words.

Jesus is God
The Holy Spirit is God
God is God

What do you make of John 5:18? See, the Pharisees understood this perfectly, even in His incarnation. But SBTS doesn't.

This is not about something 'playing out'. It is the essence of what we believe. This doctrine has serious implications for how we view His sacrifice on the Cross.

Lydia said...

"I have never heard that Malcolm Yarnell was involved in Dr. Klouda's hiring, firing etc.? I thought that Dr. P and somebody named Blaising and the Trustees were involved in that."

That is the perfect Levite priest answer. He just walked around the beaten woman. Never said a word. It was not his problem or his business, was it?

Thy Peace said...

ABPNews: Opinion: What marriage is -- and what it isn't by Benjamin Cole

Chris Ryan said...

Louis,

You missed what I said: nobody would take their check. They can't send it directly to the EC or the IMB because everybody knows the trouble they will get in if they accept money from "the enemy." So they send the check to Texas with orders that it does to the SBC only. When Texas sends in their check to the SBC it includes the amount sent by Missouri. Then everybody takes the check because they would get in trouble for rejecting a check of that size.

I'm sure that part of the General Convention of Missouri's budget goes towards CBF. But there are a great many churches who sympathized with the General Convention who would lot leave the Missouri Baptist Convention until they had devised a way to still support the SBC cooperative program.

Tim Marsh said...

In regards to the atonement, I will be interested to see what Pastor Wade writes, but I have always liked what my late professor at Beeson, Dr. Lewis Drummond said. He acknowledged that their are many interpretations of the atonement that acted as facets in a diamond. However, he said that subsitutionary atonement was the base of the diamond.

Fisher Humphreys noted at least 15 different interpretations of the work of Christ on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead found in the New Testament.

I think that Chris Ryan alluded to the Christus Victor, that Christ's death and resurrection defeated evil. Another would be the work of Christ understood as a "New Exodus" which I am still a little leary of.

All this to say, is that I would be careful arguing for only one interepretation of the atonement at the expense of others.

One final note, Paul calls us to trust Christ, not the doctrine of what Christ's death accomplished. As Tom Wright pointed out, "It is not faith in justification by faith that saves, but faith in Jesus that saves."

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Phil in Norman,

I liked your comment the best so I will respond to it. Thus, nothing do I have to say to the rest of the bull horns. :)

Allow me first to lay out a few of my theological presuppositions:

1. Faith alone is the means by which the regenerate soul can believe and is wholly the working of God by His grace alone imparted to us.

2. There cannot be salvation without the Word of God (The Bible) through reading, preaching, or proclaimation of its truths by the saints. The spirit takes this information from the mind and places it within the hearts of the hearer (those whom the Father has given the Son)as the knowledge of truth.

3. Some elect are incapible of formulating a thought process in their minds such that they could develop a theological premise upon which to base their salvation (i.e. description of the atonement). I beleive the process of grace works the same with those individuals as the regeneration is on a spiritual level and not mental. But I still beleive those individuals must be exposed to the Gospel. Obviously a special grace must apply to elect infants and unborn fetus's who die.

4. It is thus impossible for a regenerate person to deny the substitutionary atonement, knowing thier sins condemn them, knowing their need of salvific grace (an agent of saving power) and reject the atonement of Christ as that full payment. Indeed anything else would rely on the works all or in part of the one needing the saving.

5. One may be incapible of expressing this idea in words, but the heart knows the the spirit's call and the spirit's call on the elect is always effective.

6. Finally, in my saying, "a faulty view of the atonement condemns one to hell" is to say that one is capible of formulating the idea mentally but not spiritually. They are dead in thier tresspasses and sins if they reject Christ as the only way.

7. The thief on the cross has been used and abused more times than I can count. To pull that out and apply it something today is like a text (Lk23:42) without a context...

8. The stupid thing about this whole thread is no one on here has denied Substitutionary atonement.

lol

Now I shall cover my ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA LA...


K

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"One final note, Paul calls us to trust Christ, not the doctrine of what Christ's death accomplished."

Ok, Osteen says for you to trust Christ to get a better life. I have heard sermons advocating trusting Christ to escape hell.

I submit that only knowing the TRUE Christ and all that He is and does for us results in salvation.

I have no issue with your facet theory--as long as Substitutionary Atonement is at the rock's core.

"The problem with making Christ the criterion by which the Scriptures are interpreted is that we will always see the Word through the lense of what we want Christ to be for us. When the Holy Spirit is the criterion, Christ is then illuminated to be what HE REALLY IS to us."

I put that in quotes because it is the most brilliant thing I have said all day. :)

Anonymous said...

Kevin, do you believe in the Trinity ?

Do you believe in a Christocentric faith?

What is the mission of the Holy Spirit, but to point to Christ?

Anonymous said...

The focus of Holy Scripture is Christ. All else is commentary.

Anonymous said...

Happy Gram:

Did I miss something?

Did I address you unwittingly? I would be happy to dialogue with you.

It looks like you are responding to me, but I am trying to find out about what.

You seem like a nice person. I haven't said anything to you, but would be glad to talk if you want to.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Chris:

I respect you, but I think that you are guessing here.

I believe, but am not sure, that you are correct that the Nashville might not receive a check from this other MO. convention. But doesn't Nashville accept checks from the BGCT?

I am sure that if a church sends a check directly to Nashville, they would accept it. Nashville prefers to go through the states to keep the national/state relationship happy, but they do take checks directly from churches. Our church does it all the time, and Nashville doesn't ask what else we give to or whether we give to the state, etc.

Churches don't have to give this way, but they can.

I would be really interested in hearing about a Baptist church that sent money directly to the EC, and the EC would not accept it.

Let me know if you know the circumstances of any such churches.

Louis

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Kevin, do you believe in the Trinity ?"

Yes, but it cannot be explained in a sentence or two. The whole of Scripture must be used to define it.

"Do you believe in a Christocentric faith?"

The Covenant of Redemption provides a unique role to each person of the trinity. The central role is that of the Second Person. The incarnation is indeed central to the redemptive plan. But one cannot consider the role of the Father and the Spirit any less important. Christ is the physicalness of God and therefore He is the person of the Godhead to whom we most identify. The answer to your question is yes, but likely not with the same umph which you place behind your yes.

"What is the mission of the Holy Spirit, but to point to Christ?"

And when He does not point a person to Christ, the atonement is ineffective for that person.

Anonymous said...

Lydia:

I know that you disagree with the decision of the Trustees not to renew Dr. Klouda's contract and/or not to give her tenure. I understand completely your position on that.

I mentioned Dr. Yarnell as an example of theological changes at SWBTS, not Dr. Klouda's contract or tenure.

You brought up Dr. Klouda's departure as if Dr. Yarnell had something to do with that.

I now understand that you are mad at Dr. Yarnell for not doing something about Dr. Klouda.

Again, that was not the point I made. Also, it seems that by logical extension you may be mad at the entire SWBTS faculty, and perhaps all of the SBC seminary presidents and faculties for not doing something about Dr. Klouda.

That's just not the point I was trying to make.

My understanding is that the profs at our SBC seminaries affirm the BFM on the Trinity. I understand that they believe Jesus is fully God, fully man, and part of the Trinity. I have read your criticism of a couple of profs at SBTS for what you claim, despite their affirmation of the BFM and the Abstract of Principles, is heretical.

I respect you, but disagree with your position.

The position that I referenced is the claim that Jesus was not virgin born, that he was never part of the godhead in any way, and that the church added that claim (which Jesus himself did not make) to bolster Jesus' credibility.

Louis

Anonymous said...

LENTEN REFLECTION

the Orthodox Hymn:
"Proceed, O Angelic Powers"


God shall come forth from Teman, and the holy one from the mountain overshadowed by the forest!

Proceed, O Angelic Powers!
Go to Bethlehem.
Prepare the manger,
for the Word comes to be born.

Wisdom proceeds from the mouth of the Most High.
Receive, O Church of God, the announcement of salvation;
Enter into the joy of the Virgin Mother!
Let us sing with gladness,
O peoples:
Blessed is He who comes:
O our God, glory to Thee!


From the womb before the morning star have I begotten Thee.

All creation, celebrate the feast with joy!
Rejoice with us, you heavens!
The Creator is born from the Virgin in the cave;
a young child comes in the fullness of time.
Let us cry out to Him:
Blessed art Thou, our newborn God: Glory to Thee!

The waters saw Thee, O God,
the waters saw Thee
and were afraid.

Proceed, O Angelic Powers!

Advance from Bethlehem to the courses of the Jordan!
Come forth, O John;
forsake the wilderness!
Prepare to rejoice, O river.
Let all the earth exult,
for Christ comes to purify the sins of Adam in His compassion.


The sea saw it and fled,
Jordan was turned back.
O my Jesus,
Thou art Thyself the radiant Light,
Who hast enlightened all mankind.
Thou wast baptized in the streams of Jordan,
O Light, one in essence
with the Father of Lights!
In Thee all creation shines brightly,
and cries to Thee:
Blessed is our God made manifest! Glory to Thee!


From the ages to the ages, Amen.

Chris Ryan said...

Louis,

I'm not guessing. I've grown up in the middle of this. I've talked with many people on both sides. Pastors, laymen, and denominational leaders.

There is a very marked difference between the conventions in Texas and in Missouri. In Texas, the Fundamentalists split away from the General Convention, but were the minority. The SBC recognizes two conventions in Texas. The first is the majority, older General Convention whose check is so large they would be foolish to send it back. The second is the Fundamentalist Convention which they recognized because it was doctrinally in line with where the CR wanted the entire state to go.

In Missouri, there are two conventions. Only one is officially recognized by the SBC. The older convention was successfully converted to Fundamentalism. The new-formed convention of Conservative-moderates applied to be recognized by the SBC. The SBC denied them because they already recognized a legitimate state convention.

In Texas, the "good boys" left and got recognition. It Missouri, the "enemies" left and were rejected. Do you see the hypocrisy in the reason the SBC gave for not recognizing the BGCM? The SBC already recognized a convention in Texas, too. But it was really about who was forced away from the table.

So, yes, Nashville takes money from BGCT. But the BGCT existed before the controversy and therein all tales are told.

And I won't say which churches, but I do know of churches who sent their money directly to Nashville, around all State Conventions, and had it returned. They were General Convention members who were bypassing the convention. They found out there was no need to try. I'm sure that in certain states, nobody asks who else your church contributes to (I can't remember where you have said you are from). But when the check comes from a Missouri address, they check. Pretty pathetic, huh?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"The Christian faith affirms that there is one and only one God, eternally existing and fully expressed in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each member of the Godhead is equally God, each is eternally God, and each is fully God-not three gods but three Persons of the one Godhead. Each Person is equal in essence as each possesses fully and simultaneously the identically same, eternal divine nature, yet each is also an eternal and distinct personal expression of that one and undivided divine nature."


This is the first paragraph to Dr. Bruce Ware's thesis on ESS. Anyone who calls this heresy is a theological wimp and just needs good ol' fashion spankin'. Seems some on here should actually read the positions of others before condemning their brothers in Christ.


God love you L's, your are a wonderful person and great addition to this blog, but I am going to add to your "pray the Psalms" directive (I have been taking your advice) and suggest some on here pray through Galatian, Ephesians, and Romans. (Praying through the Institutes can't hurt either.) :)


Kevin

Chris Ryan said...

Kevin,

You and I both know that someone can say all the right words and still be totally wrong.

So he passed a litmus test in his first paragraph. whoop de doo. How does the rest hold up? One correct premise does not a solid argument make.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-13-No-2/Equal-in-Essence-Distinct-in-Roles



Check it for yourself Yoda!

:)

Anonymous said...

"In a June sermon at Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas, Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Seminary, included an argument for “eternal submission” of Christ in a list of 10 reasons “why we should affirm that God designed there to be male headship” in the family.

“If it’s true that in the Trinity itself -- in the eternal relationships of Father, Son and Spirit -- there is authority and submission, and the Son eternally submits to the will of the Father,” Ware said in the sermon. “If that’s true, then this follows: It is as Godlike to submit to rightful authority with joy and gladness as it is Godlike to exert wise and beneficial rightful authority.”

At another point, Ware also said one reason men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband’s God-given authority.

At the Trinity debate, Ware, incoming president of the Evangelical Theological Society, said the three persons of the Trinity possess the same divine essence or nature but are different in role.


KEVIN, READ THIS:

“The Father is the Father eternally, the Son is the Son eternally, and among the differences is authority and submission in relational structure between those two members of the Trinity,” he said.

Wayne Grudem, Ware’s partner in presenting the submission side of the debate, said the very names "Father" and "Son" imply a hierarchy of authority and submission. Former president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and now a professor at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona, Grudem added that by sending the Son, the Father revealed his headship in the relationship."

happy gram said...

louis/robert: man, this is the second time i've confused the authors of comments made toward me. sorry,it was ROBERT who responded to my comment. i think i'll just keep quiet from here on out and continue to enjoy the fray as an observer. i do not consider myself a baptist but have attended a baptist church for 10 years. my desire is to learn more about the nature of God, how He works in my life, how suffering in our lives brings us closer to Christ and how to help others in our community and around the world who are less fortunate and need to hear the Good News. i might have an opinion about the role of women in the church, private prayer language etc. and i feel fortunate to follow wade's blog as these issues are argued/debated with each side believing it is absolutely RIGHT...which makes it even more confusing to me. the debates are fascinating - i guess it is difficult for some to disagree and do it in a civil manner (i am not referring to anyone in particular :)). i don't know if anyone else "stalks" this blog as i do just because it is interesting and because one really can learn from it - but for someone like me, who KNOWS much of what is discussed is over my head, it also reveals the character of the commenters who are pastors and spiritual leaders in their churches and communities. and sometimes, it just leaves me shaking my head.

and right now i'm shaking my head because kansas just lost and my bracket is looking pretty bad.

blessings!

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Anon,

I agree with the Ware and Grudem statements in their entirety.

I even agree with this:

"At another point, Ware also said one reason men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband’s God-given authority."

Because sin begets sin does not make either any less sinful. It should also be noted that this is NOT always the case—Ware notes it is but ONE reason. Husbands who abuse their wives are terrible humans and deserve the very depths of hell reserved for the dragon himself. That being said, and understanding in part, the psychology behind dysfunctional relationships as they relate to a biblical understanding of marital covenants and sinful human nature, you would never hear me make that same comment from a pulpit, but academic discussion is a different dog.

Chris Ryan said...

Kevin,

Psychology??

Are you admitting that the discipline can be helpful?

Anonymous said...

So Kevin, you beleive in eternal submission of Jesus to the Father?

Lydia said...

"I know that you disagree with the decision of the Trustees not to renew Dr. Klouda's contract and/or not to give her tenure. I understand completely your position on that."

Is that all they did? It was simply a matter of not renewing her contract and happens all the time, right? Oh, and they gave her another job, too. Permanent job, right?

Louis, you have made it quite clear here you are always on the side of the powerful. We understand that, we really do.

"You brought up Dr. Klouda's departure as if Dr. Yarnell had something to do with that."

You are right, of course, he probably agreed with that action. I am sure he has the FREEDOM to speak out against the actions of Patterson, if he wanted to, After all, it is an academic institution and the faculty are considered adults, right?

"I now understand that you are mad at Dr. Yarnell for not doing something about Dr. Klouda."

Not mad at all. I think you are the one who is angry. Why are you so mad, Louis?

"Again, that was not the point I made. Also, it seems that by logical extension you may be mad at the entire SWBTS faculty, and perhaps all of the SBC seminary presidents and faculties for not doing something about Dr. Klouda."

Not mad at all, just curious about it. I am wondering if any felt they could speak up. Or perhaps those who would have liked to speak out for Dr. Klouda felt their mortgage paymenst were more important.

I guess I am wondering why you don't think it is a shame she was left with no health insurance for her husband's heart problem. That does not seem to concern you in the least. Not the pragmatic Louis.

"My understanding is that the profs at our SBC seminaries affirm the BFM on the Trinity. I understand that they believe Jesus is fully God, fully man, and part of the Trinity. I have read your criticism of a couple of profs at SBTS for what you claim, despite their affirmation of the BFM and the Abstract of Principles, is heretical."

Louis, you have to be kidding. How many churches have doctrinal statements that are doctrinally correct but that is rarely what they really teach?

Even Rick Warren does it. He says it is not about YOU then his whole book is about....YOU.

You missed MY point earlier. Of course they say they believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. It is what they teach AFTER they say that --that negates it.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

No, Nada, Nein, Never!



I was using the word to describe the relational dynamic which is observable by man, but healed by the power of the Holy Spirit. Our diagnosis comes from Scripture alone which is sufficient for all things. The "discipline" is a farce. Mental sickness is a result of sin. Christ died for sinners. Sinners must first receive the free gift of grace and the new life which accompanies it. Then the power to live a Christ-like life is with the believer for He has "blessed with all Spiritual blessings in the heavenly places."



K

Lydia said...

"This is the first paragraph to Dr. Bruce Ware's thesis on ESS. Anyone who calls this heresy is a theological wimp and just needs good ol' fashion spankin'. Seems some on here should actually read the positions of others before condemning their brothers in Christ."

What about the rest of the thesis?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"So Kevin, you beleive in eternal submission of Jesus to the Father?"


ya think???


:)

Anonymous said...

Is the Trinity a biblical teaching anyway? If not, why get into it?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"What about the rest of the thesis?"


Ah hun, we have totally addressed this miles back.

You see, I find it hilarious that no one has actually read Ware's position. Instead, the whole debate from the prosecution can be summed up in the line, "you be dissin' my Jesus!" When that and the Arian argument could not be further from the truth.


I wonder as I wonder, if Wade has even read Ware's position. Ok, ok calm down----I am quite certain he has...


K

PS: so tell of me is the Word Verification: tenabl


:)

Lydia said...

"The Christian faith affirms that there is one and only one God, eternally existing and fully expressed in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each member of the Godhead is equally God, each is eternally God, and each is fully God-not three gods but three Persons of the one Godhead. Each Person is equal in essence as each possesses fully and simultaneously the identically same, eternal divine nature, yet each is also an eternal and distinct personal expression of that one and undivided divine nature."

Just another point: Ware makes the 'roles' lesser within the Trinity and that negates the whole equality in power and essence point. Personally, I think Ware does a bait and switch with what he teaches.... Using big academic terms, of course.

Kevin, I would love to see you do an analysis of Cheryl Schatz's Trinity DVD and point out where she is wrong. She focuses on what Ware teaches.

Lydia said...

"You see, I find it hilarious that no one has actually read Ware's position. Instead, the whole debate from the prosecution can be summed up in the line, "you be dissin' my Jesus!" When that and the Arian argument could not be further from the truth."

Kevin, I have hard him speak (even in person) many times. On this subject, too.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

With deep respect Lydia, this:

"Ware makes the 'roles' lesser within the Trinity and that negates the whole equality in power and essence point. "


is not true. Equality is entirely commensurate with an authority/submission character of roles. If this is a dichotomy then the very 3=1 nature of the trinity should be called into question as well.

The only reason anyone has an issue with the doctrine of ESS is that they are afraid that women will then have to submit to the divinely appointed authority of men. (see 1 Cor. 11:3)

Lydia said...

The only reason anyone has an issue with the doctrine of ESS is that they are afraid that women will then have to submit to the divinely appointed authority of men. (see 1 Cor. 11:3)

Sat Mar 28, 01:58:00 AM 2009

So, that would make you God and the women Jesus?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

In Person????

No way! :-O



Guess what...(don't tell no one)









I got to shake his hand 3 years ago after he spoke at a biblical discernment conference. I even asked him a question but he sorta brushed it off as it was off topic hehe go figure. :)

Anonymous said...

"Equality is entirely commensurate with an authority/submission character of roles."

Bull.

Does God submit to Himself?

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Does God submit to Himself?"

Ok, I'll buy it if you can prove it.

It seems to me that your understanding of God does not include 3 distinct persons. I hpe you are not an SBC employee. :)

Lydia said...

In Person????

No way! :-O



Guess what...(don't tell no one)









I got to shake his hand 3 years ago after he spoke at a biblical discernment conference. I even asked him a question but he sorta brushed it off as it was off topic hehe go figure. :)

Sat Mar 28, 02:02:00 AM 2009

Follow Christ, Kevin, not man. He is not an idol.

BTW: I am about 7 inches taller than he is. Quite Awkward especially considering his views on women and their 'roles'. I could be his protecter. :o)

debbiekaufman said...

Robert: Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant
1Co 13:5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
1Co 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
1Co 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1Co 13:8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.


You put your question next to this passage and you be your own judge. I know I fall short too many times.

Anonymous said...

I have been around some church wives that may not have careers but just tear down their husbands and don't dignify them..this is what submission means....to respond favorably. It has nothing to do with being a doormat or slave and it also does not mean a woman can't have expertise. What about Joni Tada? I rarely hear the outrage against the "male" word of faith heretics and yet her works have been noted and remarked on by theologians. I wish the camel swallowing stop on this issue.

Anonymous said...

I know....What if the husband deserves it...she may need to bring someone in to intervene and point out the issues...

Anonymous said...

He didn't say he idolized him Lydia. He simply was pointing out that he had met him, just like you said you had. He could have asked you about "idolizing" him also.

I think what Kevin is trying to say somewhat nicely is what I will say bluntly.

It would be impossible for a Christian man that wholly submits to Christ to have a biblical marriage with you because no way, no how are you ever going to be submissive to some low down male even in a God honoring, Christ-filled life and marriage together.

Even if that man is your husband.

Work on your own attitude and then worry about all those bad, bad men.

Anonymous said...

some of "christian counseling" is to help him see what a jerk he's being...amazing how he can "hear" when someone besides his wife says the same thing...

Ron said...

Louis,

Sorry to be so late responding. I too enjoy dialoging with you. Except for your over use of the word moderate you are always rational and polite. I posted my comments right before going to bed which was probably about the time most people reading this blog are waking up therefore I am usually out of sync with the comments. I will respond to as much of you post as I can.

You say all the supporters of the CR you know were also supporters of the FMB. You must not have known Charles Stanley, Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith, Jimmy Draper and several other SBC presidents under the CR regime. None of them were strong supporters of the FMB before the CR gained control and have mostly not been strong supporters since. Jimmy Draper once told me and several other missionaries that if Winfred Moore defeated Charles Stanley, his church would decrease their support for the CP and our missionaries. That told me his support for the CR was much stronger than his support for our missionaries. I could also name many trustees and other leaders of the CR who were not supporters of the FMB and had a preconceived notion that we were a liberal organization. My test of supporting the FMB would be if they were willing to speak out and defend our missionaries when we were attacked and slandered by leaders of the CR. I have found few pastors willing to do that. I do not consider that a straw man whatever that means.

I disagree with your statement that the CR concerns were primarily with the theological schools and agencies that took positions that most Baptists disagreed with. The FMB and SWBTS did not take positions that most Baptists disagreed with but that did not protect them from being attacked and slandered. The reason for that is the CR was interested in control and not theology.

You said I never seem to acknowledge that or discuss the issue of the theological changes in the SBC schools since the resurgence or the other agencies. That is not true. I often talk about the changes at the schools and agencies. Some have been good and some bad. I will discuss them further below.

I am more than happy to look at the results and believe they prove my point. I won’t say much about the institutions I have not had personal contact with.

I think there were problems at Southern Seminary and would support changes that would make it more conservative. I think Paul Simmons should have been fired and wonder why he wasn’t by the CR trustees. I am concerned with the leadership there now. That would include Al Mohler and Russell Moore. I think Mohler’s handling of the Paul Debusman affair and Moore’s writing both are good examples of why I believe the CR is about power and control and not theology.

I only knew one professor at SEBTS before the CR takeover. That was George Braswell who retired from Southeastern as Distinguished Professor of Missions and World Religions in 2004, and was named a Distinguished Professor Emeritus. When Charles Stanley was SBC president he said that no professor at SEBTS believed the first 11 chapters of Genesis were true. If he spoke the truth, then why did Drummond, Patterson and Akin allow a professor who didn’t believe the Bible was true to continue to teach until retirement. Were they liberals?? The fact is the Stanley was making a broad statement that was untrue. I am sure that Braswell was not the only conservative at SEBTS before the CR takeover. I am also concerned about the ethical issues of Danny Akin’s firing of CB Scott and others over the automobile issue. I think that is another case where keeping power and control were more important to them than the theological implications of their actions.

As far as Mid-Western and Ralph Elliot, what Duke McCall actually was said that if Elliot was at Southern he would have still been a Southern Professor while McCall was president. By that he meant he would never have written that book and said the things he said if he stayed at Southern. McCall also said that he would not defend Elliot’s book and that there were defects in it. That being said I think McCall is too kind to Elliot. I don’t think Elliot is a very good scholar and his theology is too liberal for a Southern Baptist seminary. I don’t know enough first had about Temp Sparkman to comment. I find it interesting that you mentioned Mark Coppenger who was fired at least partly because he fired one of Paige Patterson’s friends. I have known Mark since our college days at Ouachita. I consider him a friend although he may not consider me as such today.

I don’t know enough about New Orleans Seminary to comment.

I do know something about Southwestern. It is the best example yet of why the CR is about control and power and not theology. When I was at SWBTS our professors included such theological conservatives as Roy Fish, Rush Bush, Curtis Vaughn, Jack Gray and many others. I believe the faculty was probably more theologically conservative and stronger academically then than now. In 1987 the SBC peace committee studied SWBTS under Russell Dilday’s leadership and found no theological problems. Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines and Charles Stanley were on that committee. If they had fault with Dilday’s leadership they could have brought it up then and given Dilday a chance to defend himself and the seminary in an open debate for all to see and judge. Instead they waited and worked through their representative, Ollin Collins, and other trustees to go into Dilday’s office while he was in chapel and lock him out and fire him. This is typical of the cowardly way that leaders of the CR like to work. I suppose that Rogers, Vines and Stanley preferred to cooperate with a man of Collins integrity than someone like Dilday. Hemphill and Patterson are not building a faculty committed to inerrancy. They are building one committed to the CR and that is why Hemphill was forced out as president. He wouldn’t fire people fast enough. I recommended one of my national co-workers go to SWBTS a few years ago to get his Ph.D. before returning to our country to teach at our seminary. After being there two years, he had to transfer because Patterson had run off so many professors there was no one qualified to guide his dissertation. I don’t have to ask Yarnell about the changes at Southwestern to know that it is probably less theologically conservative now than when I was there in the 70s and 80s and the changes were all about power and control. Southwestern has become a piggy bank for Patterson and his family and friends.

I don’t support Foy Valentine and agree he should not have used his position to support his pro abortion agenda. I am more interested in what took the place of the Christian Life Commission and the BJCPA under Richard Land and CR control. I more in agreement with the BJCPA position on church state separation than with Land and the ERLC. In fact I believe the BJCPA was more involved in passing the Equal Access Act than was the ERLC under Land’s leadership. Do you remember Curtis Caine the CR supporter who was placed on the Christian Life Commission by the CR under Land’s leadership. He stated in an open meeting of the Christian Life Commission that apartheid was a good thing in South Africa and that Martin Luther King was a fraud and a communist. Caine’s own pastor told me Caine was a racist John Birch Society member whose own church would not give him a leadership position. And yet the CR leaders chose to put him on the SBC entity that speaks for Southern Baptist on the issue of race. He was reappointed to the committee for another term after making those remarks because the CR is all about power and control and not theology.

I do know a little bit about Arkansas. I am glad you know Joe Atchison. He is a perfect example of why the CR is about power and control and not theology. I met Joe back in the 80s when he invited me to speak to the pastors of NW Arkansas association. After a not very successful career as a pastor, Joe got appointed DOM for the Northwest Association in Arkansas. He actually used the position to be a full time political operator for the CR and did little DOM work. He used to send out mass mailings to Arkansas pastors attacking leadership of the Arkansas convention on his DOM stationary. For several years he had almost complete control over who was appointed to serve as a trustee from Arkansas. The SBC presidents ignored our state executive directors’ and presidents’ recommendations and allowed Joe to name the committee on committee members for Arkansas. That is why next to Texas, Arkansas has probably had the most radical obstructive trustees in our convention. In 1989 Joe and Ronnie Floyd started a political campaign to take over control of the Arkansas Baptist state convention. They had a network of pastors in each association and district leaders to direct them. They sent out mass mailings naming the moderate/liberals who were the enemy. These moderate/liberals included Mike Huckabee and Randel Everett as well as other theological conservatives. Thankfully the theological conservatives in Arkansas recognized that Atchison’s organization was only after power and control and defeated their effort by a 2 to 1 margin. Arkansas was already a theologically conservative state. In the 90s he once sent out a mass mailing claiming that there was a group trying to take over the state convention that denied the deity of Christ, worshiped Christ-Sophia, wanted to ordain gays and lesbians, and supported homosexuality and abortion. The only way to keep this from happening was to support his political candidates. When asked for names of these theological liberals trying to take over the state, he could not name them because they did not exist. I am sure you know that his son David was the one who took Martin Bradley’s place as recording secretary of the SBC. I have already pointed out to you the dishonest charges against Bradley that Paul Pressler used and that even though Bradley was a conservative and doing a good job the CR people put in Joe’ s son in as reward for being a loyal CR supporter. It is only in an organization that power and control are more important that theology that would allow Joe Atchison the influence has had.

Louis, you asked someone earlier how old they were and if they had been there in the early days of the CR. I would also like to ask if you went to an SB college or seminary and if you have ever worked for an SB entity and had to deal with the trustee appointed by the CR. I have done all of this. I think your opinions have probably been formed because of your church and possibly your pastor’s influence. If that is all I had to go on, I might think in the way you do about the CR. I believe if you had experienced firsthand the CR and its corruption the way Wade has for the last 3 years and I have for the last 30 years you might share some of my opinions.

I know your in-laws are former missionaries. I apologize but I can’t remember if they are alive or not. If they are, I would encourage you to ask them if 30 years of CR control has been good for the IMB and if they agree with the way the trustees have treated our missionaries.

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone could think the CR was about theology only and not power and control.
Ron West

Thy Peace said...

"Southwestern has become a piggy bank for Patterson and his family and friends."

I do not know anything of PP, other than what I read here. Clearly he is part of a church seminary.

Look at a different situation in Philadelphia. This is the case of State Senator Vincent Fumo. Philadelphia politics is really bad. He too used non-profit funds as a piggy bank. And he got busted by two women from the FBI.

Philly Inquirer: Vicent Fumo - Guilty on all counts

SPECIAL REPORT: BUILDING THE CASE - How the feds got Fumo

It was early in the investigation, but already the FBI was getting on Vince Fumo's nerves.

In a typically blunt e-mail, he wrote to a top aide in 2004 that a delicate part of his anatomy had just been "busted by my 2 friendly female FBI agents."

Then he cursed them.

His aide replied: "I do not like those people. Long live the realm of Fumo-world! :-)"

Now former State Sen. Fumo stands convicted of scores of counts of corruption in a $4 million fraud, his aide has lost his job, and Fumo-world is a smoking ruin.

Relentlessly civil, but also downright relentless, FBI Agents Vicki Humphreys and Kathleen T. McAfee scrutinized Home Depot receipts and analyzed American Express card bills, tallied up toll slips and tracked down yacht captains, all to build a case that everyone told them they could never construct.

They were joined by Assistant U.S. Attorneys John J. Pease and Robert A. Zauzmer. It was Pease who took Mensa member Fumo apart on cross-examination. Zauzmer was the unflappable strategist whose methodically searing closing argument sealed Fumo's fate.

While Monday's verdict turned out to be a resounding triumph for the government, McAfee, 54, and Humphreys, 40, say the case looks like a slam dunk only in retrospect.

"No one cooperated with us easily," McAfee said. "Not one person."

Over and over, she said, witnesses told them, "You'll never get him."

Said Humphreys: "This was an uphill climb."

In an interview last week, Pease, 41, and Zauzmer, 48, said that during the investigation they had to overcome an ongoing cover-up and a fierce counterattack from one of Philadelphia's most formidable defense lawyers, Richard A. Sprague.

The overarching problem, they all agreed, was that Fumo's confederates were reluctant to turn against him out of fear, loyalty, or a simple desire to protect their sizable paychecks.

"It was a tough investigation because of the obstacles, the difficulty of piercing the Fumo inner circle," Pease said.

By the time they were done, the feds had marshaled as prosecution witnesses a wronged former Fumo girlfriend, his estranged son-in-law, his state-paid private eye, and his tax-evading political consultant.

In a final twist, Sprague, who had a falling-out with Fumo, also testified for the prosecution.

Much of this came together in a rush at the end. Before that, the FBI and prosecutors labored for years, not months, to build the case. The investigators knew that if they were going to take on one of the most powerful Democratic politicians in the state, the evidence had to be irrefutable.

For the investigators, it was an often tedious process of putting together a paper case - a chain of evidence based on invoices and checks, on e-mails and memos, until finally they had the makings of a sweeping federal indictment.

John Roberts, the head of the FBI's public-corruption squad in Philadelphia, said the agents' "tenacity, dedication and perseverance" had shaped a powerful case out of very difficult material.

Wade Burleson said...

Louis,

Keep asking Ron West questions.

His answers are some of the best I've read on the internet.

Finally, I know you admire Joe Atchison. I must tell you in terms of anger, cold and calloused stares, and outright rudeness, Joe Atchison ranked at the top of the IMB trustees in terms of his treatment me and others who disagreed with him. Ron's answers to you now gives me an understanding of his unChristian behavior - he was "defending" the CR in his mind.

Grace,

Wade

Thy Peace said...

"It would be impossible for a Christian man that wholly submits to Christ to have a biblical marriage with you because no way, no how are you ever going to be submissive to some low down male even in a God honoring, Christ-filled life and marriage together.

Even if that man is your husband.

Work on your own attitude and then worry about all those bad, bad men."


Wow!

Any sane person on this earth, would gladly embrace Lydia's questioning, her insight and her challenging. From my perspective, her words are carefully weighed and they are not cast loosely.

Lydia said...

It would be impossible for a Christian man that wholly submits to Christ to have a biblical marriage with you because no way, no how are you ever going to be submissive to some low down male even in a God honoring, Christ-filled life and marriage together.

Even if that man is your husband.

Work on your own attitude and then worry about all those bad, bad men.

Sat Mar 28, 07:02:00 AM 2009

Nice try, anon. But you do not understand biblical submission, for one thing. And the other problem you have that you do not seem to understand that one can actually disagree and question the teaching of some of our leaders. The Bereans did and Paul commended them.

My husband likes can do women who think for themselves. And he hires them, too. He is certainly not threatened by them, like so many men commenting here.

He believes that iron sharpens iron. He would be bored out of his mind with the type of wife that Bruce Ware teaches women to be.

Lydia said...

Thy Peace,

Many Christians believe that women should be Martha's.

Anonymous said...

Ron,
Note what not is being said...Dilday was a Mason...why does this point seem tp escape these arguments when talking about corruption in the SBC. It explains so much of the collusion.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Thy Peace,

Your juxtaposition of the "piggy bank" comment and the Fumo case would seem to suggest that you believe there is a possibility of financial impropriety at Pecan Manor. I am going to suggest that while Patterson's BoT's might have authorized a few too many "perks" for such a time as this, that the Patterson’s are no wise free to raid the Southwestern treasury for their personal gain and that an implication of illegal activity is totally without warrant. One can debate the moral issue all day long but resorting to more is not completely tactful.




Some have suggested that Kenneth Hemphill may have not been radical enough for the powers-that-were at SWBTS and that his reforms were neither swift enough nor widespread enough. However that played out is insignificant to me but the following lines from the following book by Hemphill is all I need to place him in the "Not My Favorite Theologian" list.

The Book: "Growing an Evangelistic Sunday School"

Authors: Ken Hemphill and R. Wayne Jones

Publisher: Broadman Press (1989)
*******************
Page: 107

Line: "The Bible must be the textbook of the Sunday School, and leaders should be expected to teach the Bible for results."

My Response: Most Disturbing
********************
Page: 152

Line: "This critical desire for the good life is perhaps the greatest avenue that the Christian avenue has for introducing the unsaved to Jesus Christ."

My Response: So you are suggesting we play on their fears Dr. Ken? Perhaps not.


Perhaps never.

K

Paul Burleson said...

Lydia,

Your words about your huband..."My husband likes can do women who think for themselves. And he hires them, too. He is certainly not threatened by them, like so many men commenting here"...Are words that expresses this husband's thoughts toward his wife of fifty years this coming May 28th.

[Except for the hiring part since I'm not in the business of hiring anyone. Were that the case add that too. :]

Wade Burleson said...

Kevin Crowder:

You wrote: I agree with the Ware and Grudem statements in their entirety.

I even agree with this:

"At another point, Ware also said one reason men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband’s God-given authority."


Gee whiz Kevin. :) You may think you are on safe ground affirming the statement above, but let me offer that from this pastor's perspective, you are totally off base, unscriptural, and on very, very dangerous ground. And, I don't believe it is intentional at all! I know you love the Lord and His Word - as do Grudem and Ware - but one must be careful accepting a proposition simply because of WHO offered it instead of the merits of the proposition itself.

But the real reason you are on shaky ground is because you have raised the ire of really intelligent, biblically minded, Christ loving women like Linda and this woman - who I can assure you can defend her position quite well against either Grudem or Ware.

Lydia said...

I agree with the Ware and Grudem statements in their entirety.

I even agree with this:

"At another point, Ware also said one reason men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband’s God-given authority."

Because sin begets sin does not make either any less sinful. It should also be noted that this is NOT always the case—Ware notes it is but ONE reason. Husbands who abuse their wives are terrible humans and deserve the very depths of hell reserved for the dragon himself. That being said, and understanding in part, the psychology behind dysfunctional relationships as they relate to a biblical understanding of marital covenants and sinful human nature, you would never hear me make that same comment from a pulpit, but academic discussion is a different dog.

Sat Mar 28, 01:18:00 AM 2009

Kevin, it is quite telling that you say you would never make the statement from a pulpit. Ware did. So why not make it from there if you believe it to be true.

Could it be because you might lose your job if you did? But if you have intergrity, you need to let your congregation know you agree with that statement. Women who may come to you for counseling have a right to know what you believe. Be transparent.

Pastor Scott said...

I am amazed at how some people use this site to simply run their mouth and promote their agenda. I feel like I'm back in seminary listening to some students ask questions, not with the intent of receiving an answer but to simply let others know what they know. Slow ears and quick mouths will lead you farther away from truth than you perceive the SBC to be.

debbiekaufman said...

The only reason anyone has an issue with the doctrine of ESS is that they are afraid that women will then have to submit to the divinely appointed authority of men. (see 1 Cor. 11:3)

The reason I have a problem with ESS is that it lessens who Christ is. It places Him lower than He is. He is God.

Ephesians 1:19-22: What is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet.

As for being afraid to be under men's authority, reading your comments the word fear does't come to my mind. :)

debbiekaufman said...

that should be doesn't come to my mind. :) A lot of words do but fear isn't among them.

RKSOKC66 said...

Listening into the civil discussion between Ron and Lewis really illuminates the CR in terms of how it was "on the ground" not just at some abstract level.

Ron and Lewis are both articulate and insightful. But yet they bring a totally different set of experiences to the table to buttress their view.

I thought by reading books by Dr. Dilday and Judge Pressler I was getting the a fairly complete story for each perspective. But there are evidently still quite a lot of gaps in the "historical record" of the CR.

If I was a literary agent for Smyth and Helwys, I'd be signing both Ron and Lewis and giving them an advance on their books about their view of the CR -- what happened and what are the ongoing repercussions.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

An open letter to Mary Burleson,

I have every confidence that your son is correct in saying that you could defend your position against Drs. Ware and Grudem on the subject of the relational commonalities and differences of men and women both from a biblical and experiential stance.

I also know that your son has been a champion of the doctrines of the priesthood of all believers and soul competency. As such I feel completely safe expressing my views or affirming the views of others on this space. That said I still detest violent behavior. I recently allowed myself to be cornered in my office by an "off his rocker" board member and was quite willing to take it in the jaw for the sake of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit intervened; I resigned my pastorate as the rest of the board set in silence. I submitted to the will of the church, or in this case 2/3 of the board. But I did not compromise my convictions. But I also immediately removed myself as shepherd of a flock who did not desire to be shepherded thereby defusing a volatile situation for the sake of my ministry and for the healing of that church and their future, should the Lord allow them one.

Now I am not suggesting that this is a perfect or close analogy for a woman in an abusive relationship. My pastoral advice to a woman abused will NEVER be to go home from the moment she enters my office. You and others reading this have my word. I believe however that divorce should never be a knee-jerk reaction. I believe the Body of Christ should rise to the occasion and take in such a woman until the matter is resolved and that first the men of the church confront the abuser(immediately) before he is turned over to the legal authorities (law breaking always has legal consequences--Paul is not in opposition to this).

Now to the crux of your complaint with me. Few theologians and pastors are willing to express the results and consequences of the unbiblical roles which some exhibit in unhealthy relationships. Obviously sin is the issue. Equality before the Lord is never compromised with a suggestion of distinct roles within the marriage. We are all, if we believe, equally justified before the Lord. But we are called to different roles and tasks.

Men and women are simply wired differently. I have no doubt you know this. Men need to be affirmed by their wives just as wives need the affirmation of their husbands. But this can and does look differently from couple to couple and person to person. Some men ‘act out’ as they have been taught when they are demeaned, put down, and feel trapped or cornered. And let’s face it, some women simply do not respect their husbands. Maybe he stares at other women or leaves the toilet seat up, or never does laundry. She reacts, and yells, and nags...why? Because she is the woman and feels she has no other recourse. She MUST be heard. Men hate this. Every guy on here would rather grind their nails on a rock than here their mother or wife harp over and over about the same thing day in and day out. Now I know what you are thinking, stupid is as stupid does...and you would be right...many men are stupid. Some however love their wife enough to do only those things which please her and make her happy thus building up the love in the relationship. Other men walk away, and then come back...and this time the rock becomes the wife, and the fingernails begin to grind. So she gets a beating and runs to her pastor. Some pastor might tell her that she should not have been nagging so much as to excite him to anger. But what kind of relationship is that?

The problem here is you cannot guide a woman to other ways of getting through to her husband (other than yelling and demeaning and nagging) after he has beat her. It is nothing short of pastoral stupidity. At that point new rules apply.

The council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood seeks to provide education and resources for men and women who desire to serve God in the confines of their biblical roles within the marriage. Women who marry irrational men must learn ways to approach their husbands in a manner which glorifies the Lord. Through example, prayer, and perseverance, the Lord can create and build happy and successful marriages.

2 exceptions, one of which I have mentioned is the pastoral advice given AFTER domestic violence, and in the case where abuse is incited by alcohol or other toxic substances. Neither of these circumstances should be taken lightly nor be given a second chance by manner of sending the woman back home. I am also committed to always, without question, report domestic violence and child abuse whether required by my State or not.

I hope this might in some way give you an idea of where my heart is on the matter.

In Christ,

Kevin M. Crowder

Thy Peace said...

"But I also immediately removed myself as shepherd of a flock ..."

I am sorry to hear about this, Kevin. I pray to God that you find another Pastorate. I can now understand why you appeared little grumpy couple or more posts ago.

Thanks for your earlier comment about my comparing PP, piggy bank and Fumo case. You are quite correct.

Anonymous said...

Kevin, are you still going to go to seminary?

Thy Peace said...

Breakfast with Fred > Daily Fenelon > Come Out of Yourself

As long as you live by your old nature you will be open to all of the injustices of men. Your temper will get you into fights, your passions will clash with your neighbors, your desires will be like tender spots open to your enemies' arrows. Everything will be against you-attacking you from all sides. If you live at the mercy of a crowd of greedy and hungry desires, then you will never find peace. You will never be satisfied because everything will bother you. You will be like an invalid who has been bedridden for many years-anywhere you are touched you will feel pain. Your self-love is terribly touchy. No matter how slightly it is insulted, it screams, "Murderer." Add to this all the insensitivity of others, their disgust at your weakness (and your disgust at theirs), and you have the children of Adam forever tormenting each other.

The only hope is to come out of yourself. Lose all your self-interest. Only then can you enjoy the true peace reserved for "men of good will." Such people have no other will but God's. If you come to such a place, then what can harm you? You will no longer be attacked through your hopes or fears. You may be worried, inconvenienced, or distressed, but you can rest in Him. Love the hand that disciplines you. Find peace in all things, even in going to the cross. Be happy with what you have. Wish for nothing more. Surrender to God and find true peace.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Kevin, are you still going to go to seminary?"

Yes, as of right now anyway. I am registered full time at covenant Seminary in STL for this Summer, next fall and Spring. But honestly, I am a bit tired of school at the moment. I have been having thoughts of seeking a pastorate in Alaska and doing Southern Seminary online. I was shocked at the number of SBC churches in Alaska that are pastorless. I am presently finishing a few projects in preparation to graduate in 4 weeks. Lots of prayer will get me to the next step. Of that I am confident.

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

For KEVIN

from Psalm 27

4
" One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after:

that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life,
to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord
and to inquire in his temple.

5
For he will hide me in his shelter
in the day of trouble;
he will conceal me under the cover of his tent;
he will lift me high upon a rock.

6
And now my head shall be lifted up"

Only By His Grace said...

Thy-Peace,
I love you in the Lord, but I really hope that comments do not chase the secular political rabbit you threw out there in answer to Ron's comment.

Louis needs to respond to his comment for Ron's experience is much my experience. He has stated the case against the CR about as clearly as I have seen anyone state it. I was there, too.

I was a pastor for twenty years in the Golden Triangle (Denton, Dallas and Ft. Worth), very close friends with Bill Lucas, George Baines, Oscar Thomson and Gerald Williamson. I was nine years at Southside where Gerald was my DOM, eight years in the Ft. Worth area where Dr. Lucas was my DOM. four years at First Baptist Springtown and four years at FBC Watauga which is surrounded by Ft Worth, Keller, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, Smithfield and Haltom City. I was, also, very close friends with Olan Collins. Olin became a puppet of
Birchman Avenue and North Richland Hills about the time I left the Ft. Worth area (1982) and when Harvest Baptist Church started exploding. My church was eight blocks from Harvest (FBC Watauga). Olin is a good man who got caught up in the success of an exploding church that took his eyes off the Lord.

Phil in Norman

Only By His Grace said...

Kevin,

I would hope that all our hearts go out to you praying that God gives you His peace beyond understanding and making ourselves available to you in other ways.

I would hate to tell you how many young godly and God-called staff persons I have seen left as road kill on our pilgramge through this land of sorrow and tears, and the road kill there because some older and should be more mature lay person shot them dead with their carnal church power with those who knew better watching as they kept quiet doing nothing.

I Thess 5:24.

Phil in Norman.

Only By His Grace said...

Kevin,
Sorry, I mispelled pilgrimage; only excuse is arthritis of the brain; I hope not of the soul.

Phil

Lydia said...

"The council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood seeks to provide education and resources for men and women who desire to serve God in the confines of their biblical roles within the marriage. Women who marry irrational men must learn ways to approach their husbands in a manner which glorifies the Lord. Through example, prayer, and perseverance, the Lord can create and build happy and successful marriages."

You need to go volunteer in a spouse abuse shelter. Notice you are making it soley the wife's responsibility. This is what most comp teaching does.

Paige and Dorothy Patterson are involved with CBMW and we know their view of abused wives. We also know Ware's and Moore's view which is a call for more patriarchy because as Moore said, comps are wimps.

Quite frankly, CBMW is the worst place to go.

"Roles" are parts in plays.

Would you kindly show me specific roles outlined for all women and or wives in the NT that are not biological?

BTW: I am sorry to hear about your situation so soon after your ordination. You did the right thing to resign.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Phil,

I of course covet your prayers and the prayers of others. I am indeed in a time of deep prayer and reflection as to the will of my Father in heaven. (I would love to be cloistered away for a year with the Benedictine Monks praying, reading, and making cheese. :) But that would not be healthy for me for more than a month. I have very thick skin, and only seek to learn and grow from this experience, recognizing my own mistakes in my 1st pastorate of 14.5 months. But I would ask that you focus your prayers on a friend of mine who is an associate pastor at a church in Kentucky. He is struggling in his desire to minister on a micro level as his Senior Pastor wants him make broad changes in his specific ministry which would be seeker friendly and fast-growth oriented. His pastor told him the other day that he feels he would be better pastoring a small country church. My friend's heart was broken. This pastor is climbing the SBC ladder not unlike the ways many of you describe the "old guard" did.

My experience thus far, despite what many of you see in my theology, has proven to me that I could never "tote the party line."

k

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia of Thyatira,

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this:

"Would you kindly show me specific roles outlined for all women and or wives in the NT that are not biological?"

The role the woman plays in the confines of marriage is anything which honors and glorifies the Lord. Certainly childbearing and aspectd of nurturing are inherent, but lift up and supporting thier husbands should be a natural outpouring of love. Just as our love for Christ dictates our obedience to Him. Other aspects of the roles likely come from biblical examples and or directives to all believers. In that regard I am not an expert having never seriously contemplated a comprehensive list.


Also, are you sure Russell Moore called Complementarians wimps? He is a Complementarian.


k

greg.w.h said...

Louis:

My comments have had adequate age clues. And I'm old enough to sign my first AND last name.

Greg Harvey

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

I see you did read what I wrote, but I was so very emotional when I wrote it, that I replaced it with a Psalm. :)

In the Book of St. Mark, we are told that it is good to come away and rest for a while.

Some quiet place where you can immerse yourself in Christ's healing and seek peace to recover from the difficulties you have experienced, is what I recommend for you.
There are many such places that offer a quiet setting to be with the Lord. My thoughts and prayers are with you, Kevin. I did mean it when I said that I hurt for you like you were my own son.

All I know is that the Benedictines would offer a place of peace for a while for a Christian brother. They do that.
Love and prayers, L's

Lydia said...

"The role the woman plays in the confines of marriage is anything which honors and glorifies the Lord. Certainly childbearing and aspectd of nurturing are inherent, but lift up and supporting thier husbands should be a natural outpouring of love. Just as our love for Christ dictates our obedience to Him. Other aspects of the roles likely come from biblical examples and or directives to all believers. In that regard I am not an expert having never seriously contemplated a comprehensive list."

Nurturing is not limited to women in scripture. Are you saying that husbands are not to lift and support their wives? Just how one way does it have to be?

Just be careful when you speak of specific 'roles' outside of the obvious biological ones. All the 'one anothers' apply to all believers. And Eph 5:21 applies to all believers whether husband, wife or single within the Body of Christ.

"lso, are you sure Russell Moore called Complementarians wimps? He is a Complementarian."

Yes, in an article for the Henry Institute:http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf

I am a lot taller than him, too. And yes, I have seen him in person many times.

Here is one of Moore's definitions of 'feminism':

“Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” Moore said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism — and our foremothers, too.”

And here’s the link: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22161

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia,

"Nurturing is not limited to women in scripture. Are you saying that husbands are not to lift and support their wives? Just how one way does it have to be?"

2 things:

1. You never asked me about the roles of men.
2. At times I chose my words wisely to cover myself. You will notice I said (though with a typo) "aspects of nurturing" thus leaving open the idea that there are aspects of nurturing that can and should be done by the father if one is available.

As to Moore's criticism of men today of the Complementarian persuasion: with the context of the article/talk to the ETS, I totally agree through observing these "wimps" from my early childhood in a Landmark Baptist Church to the modern liberalized Conservative male.

Also, Moore is not defining feminism as a blanket definition; he is explaining that the Conservative Complementarian in the pew today would have been considered to be plagued by feminism by our forefathers and foremothers. Is that just a reactionary response? I don't know, but certainly some relativity is in play as to terminology. The fact however remains--Many men who beat their chests and demand power, would rather sit back and let the women do all the work.

i.e. WIMPS!!!!!


:)

Anonymous said...

Lydia:

Thanks for the follow up. That did help me understand your perspective and your response to me.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Chris:

Thanks for the info. That is indeed silly.

I think that the EC should take a check from any church that wants to send one.

I feel that way about conventions, too, without some direction from a vote at the convention.

It made sense to me that the convention not accept funds from the CBF. I think that the CBF initially sent money to some agencies, but not others. I was a trustee at the time at a small agency, and we were asked by the EC (I think) about taking money from the CBF. We sent back a note saying that we would do whatever the convention wanted us to do. Since I think the CBF was trying to form at this time and draw churches away from the SBC funding, I thought it was not a good plan for some SBC agencies to accept funding while others were not getting any funding.

The disparate treatment of the alternate MO. convention and the BGCT is not consistent. I did not know that the EC did that. Thanks for letting me know.

Has the EC ever adopted a rule or policy that says why they do this?

I know that there was quite a brouhaha in MO, but I did not follow it closely.

Thanks for your excellent response. I have definitely learned something from you.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Greg:

Please don't read an insult when none is intended. I cannot pick up your age from the clues.

Thanks.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Wade:

Just read Ron's response. You are right. It is well written and deserves a reply.

It's ashamed that we meet people in different places and contexts. Another place and another time, and you guys would be friends.

Louis

Lydia said...

"Also, Moore is not defining feminism as a blanket definition; he is explaining that the Conservative Complementarian in the pew today would have been considered to be plagued by feminism by our forefathers and foremothers."

Did you see his example in the article (Henry INstitute)?

I would cut and paste but it is a PDF. He basically was lamenting that a wife told her husband he needed to get away and go to the Promise Keepers weekend.

Moore claims she was being his mother and it was not her place to do that.

I also said it was ONE defintion of feminism from Moore. What is feministic about mutual submission and consensus in marriage? That is what Moore is saying is feminism.

What is the comp view? Unilateral decision making? One way submission ignoring Eph 5:21? My way or the highway?

If Moores wife suggests he get away from it all with some Christian brothers for the weekend she is acting like his mom and not a submissive wife who should not dare suggest things she thinks would be good for her husband? That is a feminist?

Kevin, right now I am feeling empathy for you and don't want to come down too hard but you are either ignoring what these guys are writing or you are in agreement with it.

How can you say the conservative complementarian in the pew today would be considered to be plagued by feminism by our forefathers?

That is just not true. Want to know why? Becasue our forefathers believed that women were not equal to men at all. In any way shape or form. They were no threat either spiritually or with the civil laws. They were inferior to men in all respects. Women had no where to go if abused. No rights and no opportunties unless they were born wealthy.

So, a foremother could tell her forefather husband to get away for the weekend and not be considered a feminist. Just a caring wife.

CBMW has rewritten the rules now that women are 'equal' before the law.

Now, this is where CBMW has a problem. They cannot say women are unequal so they make up roles and rules that they say are biblical. So women have become 'equal' but unequal in 'role'.Role being a made up word that has nothing to do with abiding in Christ.

I still want to see the list of roles for women only in the scriptures. Everyone keeps talking about them but no one will give me much of anything except a few verses in Titus 2.

Lydia said...

"Thanks for the follow up. That did help me understand your perspective and your response to me."

Thanks, Louis. I understand your perspective, too. :o)

BTW: I am anxiously awaiting your worldly spin on the investigative reports and subpeonas.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia,

We have I believe reached an impasse due to the limitations of blogging. I definitely agree with Moore, and I assure you, a wife shipping her husband off to PK's is hardly going to help him. Husband and wife sitting down with the word of God might help. The man taking up his orb or responsibility might help.


Lastly, the word "submitting" in verse 21 is a participle and must be taken with vv.15-20 as complete literary package. Building a theology on one verse is prooftexting. vv. 15-21 must then be expounded on with the rest of chapter 5. But all of it needs to be looked at in light of Ephesians 1-3.

I detest prooftexting. That is why I rarely quote Scripture online. Theological concepts must indeed be built on Scripture, but on the whole of Scripture.

Baptists do not teach the proper techniques to read and study Scripture. Reformed theology is making strides in bringing some Baptists back to biblical literacy. Before that the last real theological movement was that of historical criticism born out of Germany, Europe, and at the turn of the century, Princeton Seminary, and then on to other institutions which began to liberalize to a neo-orthodoxy which perverted Christianity in America in the first three quarters of the 20th century. Thank the Lord I was not born till 1975. :)

k

Mary Burleson said...

Response to Open Letter:
Kevin, Thank you for taking the time to write and explain to me your thinking. I appreciate that.

I think we do disagree about roles for men and women, specifically husbands and wives. I think that mutual respect would cover all the scripture that people use to say that roles are being addressed, much the same way that Jesus' two laws of love cover all the "rules" for Christian living. It's a heart matter, not a performance issue.

I had a counselor tell me one time that if a couple comes to him expressing that the problem is the wife is not being submissive, he knows immediately that the husband is the one who has the problem. I thought that very telling. This same counselor made the comment that if the husband was taught and practiced loving his wife as Christ loved the church that the wife's submission had yet to be the presenting problem, at least in his years of practice.

This is probably one of those scriptural interpretations that will have both sides argued without many changing their minds. I've been on both sides of this issue and think that my current interpretation is consistent with the whole of scripture. I do respect your thoughts and opinions, and thank you again for taking the time to write.

It's my hope and prayer that your recent experience with that church family will enrich your understanding and spur you to growth and not have a negative impact on your life.
Mary Burleson

Christiane said...

Some thoughts:

A too great abjection of oneself, which would be an excess of humility or submissiveness can lead to serious sin in another person.

This might easily serve only to pamper pride in others, by unworthy flattery, which would set up a condition for their sins of tyranny, arbitrariness, and arrogance.

That kind of 'submissiveness' is unhealthy for the person doing it because it is a perversion of humility; and it is unhealthy for the individual who insists on the abjection of another human being for purposes of arrogant or tyrannical treatment, possible even leading to forms of abuse.

Such extremes of behavior cannot be what God intended at all because the dignity of persons involved in this type of interaction is seriously compromised.
Christians are called to observe the human dignity of ALL persons, without exception.

Perhaps we could look at marital love as a mutual honoring of one spouse for another and both honoring the Lord Christ.
That way, there are no issues with 'who's in control', because the married couple both follow Him. Love, L's

Chris Ryan said...

Louis,

I know of no official statement or policy beyond the original: that there was already a convention of good-standing in the state.

I understand the state and national conventions not accepting money directly from the CBF. But, like you, I don't understand not accepting money from churches because the church desires to support both organizations.

And I am always happy to provide information (as long as I have any). I'm sure there is a lot of things I could learn about Baptist-things in your part of the world if the topic ever came up.

Lydia said...

"Lastly, the word "submitting" in verse 21 is a participle and must be taken with vv.15-20 as complete literary package. Building a theology on one verse is prooftexting. vv. 15-21 must then be expounded on with the rest of chapter 5. But all of it needs to be looked at in light of Ephesians 1-3."

I couldn't agree more. We all know submit is not even in verse 22 but was added by the translators. It is about ALL believers submitting to one another in love and gives examples. Which is why I am always amazed that comps leave vs 21 one out. Proof texting, perhaps? :o)

BTW: That passage is not about authority. It is about love and how we mutually submit to one another. If you can figure out a way to sacrifice daily and that not include submission to your future wife, let me know how that works.

If you agree with Moore, we have nothing else to discuss. I agree that Promise Keepers is not a good thing to spend time on. But that was NOT the point, was it? She was a bad child (wife) for suggesting something she thought would be good for her daddy (husband). That was feministic in Moore's view. That was Moore's point and you know it.

Anonymous said...

Ron:

Great response. I have learned some things that I did not know, and appreciate very much your context and the reasons for your positions.

I use "moderate" simply because it was a term that side of the CR selected and preferred to be called. I am not using it as a put down. I know that you do not like the term.

You are exactly correct about the conservatives and their feelings for whether they were going to stay in the convention had the CR not succeeded. I believe that I said that in my response - that the conservatives were pretty clear in saying that they would pull out of the convention if CR failed, and that would mean a reduction to support to the FMB.

Why I said it is ironic, is that the moderates talked as if they would never leave or divide their support of the FMB. They never made statements (that the conservatives did) that if the CR won, that they would leave. That is what makes it ironic. Please note that I have not said that what they did was wrong or immoral. I truly believe that people should not be bullied or intimidated into supporting anything. It is just ironic.

My point was that the FMB was not the flashpoint for the CR. I went to lots of conservative meetings in the day. I heard lots of speeches. I went to freshman religion class at a Baptist college. At no time did I ever hear any conservative complain about the liberal missionaries and how we needed to change the convention because of them. ALL of the speeches that I heard addressed the schools.

I did not follow the Paul Dubesman issue carefully. I did follow Dr. Mohler's early years at Southern. He was very young when he arrived (younger than the average age of the students). He faced vehement opposition from many fronts.

I think that Dr. Mohler, Dr. Drummond, Dr. P and Dr. Akin have been judicious in how they have handled faculties. I don't think that there were the wholesale firings that they said would occur if the CR was successful. It does not surprise me if in some instances, professors who were careful were allowed to sale into the sunset, so to speak than be fired. But I am just guessing on this.

I don't know anything about the firing of CB Scott and the automobile thing.

I will not even try to dissect Dr. McCall's statement about Dr. Elliott. I'll just accept that you know more about this.

I would take no issue with your description of the conservatism of SWBTS before the CR. Those profs that you mentioned were all great, from everything that I have heard. My former brother in law attended SWBTS in the late 80s, early 90s. He did not see a lot of liberalism on the faculty, but did see some in some students.

I heard complaints about Dr. Dilday's leadership from some people, but it was a personality thing. I believe that Dr. Dilday and Dr. Parks did not endear themselves to conservatives when they supported openly Winfred Moore over Charles Stanley. That was unusual for agency heads to get into the SBC politics as openly like that. (though I will note that has been done since, to my disappointment. But the issues are very different now).

I don't know the person that you mentioned related to the BJCPA. I was in law school in the mid 80s, and followed the Equal Access Act. I really believe that was a Reagan-Bush era initiative, that the CLC supported. The CLC was much more friendly to Reagan and Bush and their Supreme Court appointments than was the BJCPA. I seem to remember James Dunn, in particular, making some very disparaging remarks of Ronald Reagan during his entire 8 years in office.

One area where I give Dr. Valentine and the CLC compliments is on the race issue. I do believe that Dr. Land is very committed to that, as well.

My in-laws served in South America from 1965 to about 1992. They returned because my mother in law had Parkinson's disease. My father in law is a much beloved missionary, by his fellow missionaries and by the people in the country he served. My mother in law passed away in 2000.

When my then girlfriend/fiancé told my father in law about me when we first started dating and how I was involved in the CR, he was very concerned in 1985 or so. His first comment was that the CR was being led by a judge who was not a Baptist, but a Presbyterian (a common claim at the time). Most of his news came from the people at the FMB, most of whom were not in favor of the CR. He and his wife attended the convention where the Peace Committee report was adopted. I think that convention and the report made an impression on him, and that helped dispel some of the rumors he had heard. I think that as the years went by, his initial concerns declined. When he and his wife moved back to the states, first Birmingham and then Memphis, he learned more about the CR. He and his wife did not attend Bellevue in Memphis, but they and a couple of other missionaries came to believe that much of what the negative stories they heard about the CR, and Dr. Rogers, were not true, and the he felt comfortable with the changes the CR was trying to achieve. Not all of the retired missionaries friends feel the same way, however. (I am speaking for him, however, so this may not be accurate. He would do a better job speaking for himself). He was very disappointed in Dr. Parks’ participation with the CBF, but he liked Dr. Parks very much.

I am almost 48. I went 2 years to a local Baptist college. I had a great experience in many ways there. Good relationships with faculty and students. Won the “Freshman of the Year” award which is given by the faculty. The downside was the religion department at the school. It was neo-orthodox for the most part. I did well in the classes. One of my favorite profs was my philosophy prof, which was part of the religion department. He is very neo-orthodox in his beliefs. Interestingly, I still see him. I am an avid runner, and on some of my 5:30 a.m. runs, see him walking his dogs. We always speak, but we each know that we see things differently. Also, his child is getting a Ph.D. from a local university. She is now an adjunct prof at the Baptist college (now former Baptist college). We have students from that college at our church. She is known as an advocate for normalizing homosexual behavior in the church and society as a whole.

The college had a lot of commuter students who attended solely because of the academic programs and not at all because of the religious affiliation. They were required to take one class in NT and one class in OT. It was so disappointing to see these students, many of whom were not believers, be told the first week of class that the Bible was a book written by men who were trying to understand what God was doing in their midst. In Genesis, the writers had a tribal view of a cruel God, but man’s view of God evolved over time, so that by the NT, man’s picture of God was put forth in Jesus’ teachings. Genesis was not at all to be seen as historically accurate. Also, the NT contained a lot of things that were added by Jesus’ followers to make their case about Jesus. Jesus was not born of a Virgin, never claimed to be God etc. These things were added later. All of the miracles were either questioned or denied.

All of my religion profs (I think) were educated at Southern circa 1960 to 1970 or so.

My disappointment with the religion department caused me to decide to leave the school and finish at an independent religious school. I majored in Ancient History and Biblical Studies. It was during this time that I felt the Lord leading me toward law school.

You asked if my pastor had an influence on me. He did. I was raised at a very liberal Presbyterian church here in town. When I was 16, I started attending a Baptist church. My pastor held a very high view of scripture and was very astute when it came to theology. I was at that church from 16 to 20.

But the biggest influence in my thinking on the Baptist situation were the 2 years that I had at the Baptist college, and hearing Paul Pressler speak when I was visiting a church in another town as a freshman.

I happened to visit the church while visiting my grandmother, and Judge Pressler happened to be the speaker. He talked about his growing up in Texas, his years at Phillips Exeter and Princeton and with Baptist churches in the Northeast. He also talked about the Bible study that he and his wife had for over 20 years on Friday nights for teenagers in Houston, and how so many of them complained when they graduated from high school and then went to Baptist colleges and got a strong dose of either liberal or neo-orthodox theology. I was in the middle of it at Baptist college, and as I listened to Judge Pressler, it seemed that his experience and the experiences of the teens he worked with paralleled what I was experiencing. So, I would credit that experience and my involvement that followed as being the most influential.

As I reflect on what you have written, it is hard for me to comment on some of the things that you mentioned because I have no knowledge of them.

The point that we are wrestling with is the motivation for the CR. For me, and for the many people that I met during the CR, there is no doubt that the motivation was theological. And there is no doubt that there have been intentional theological changes at all of the seminaries.

I have no doubt that to institute change that power is exercised. Whether that power is exercised wisely or abusively is important, and I do not discount the abuse of power.

But ascribing a motive to a person, especially a group of people that involves thousands or even millions, beyond their stated concerns is an uncertain thing. That is the problem that I have with people claiming that the CR was about power. It ignores, in many cases, the genuine theological concerns these people had, and it assigns a motive to people which is not something I feel comfortable doing, especially with large groups.

But in saying this, I do not minimize or ignore the things that you experienced or express concern about. Nor do I mean to try and make you agree with me.

Ron, I have said this before, and I will say it again. Despite our differences on the motivation and effect of the CR, I respect you and your work. No one would be doing the things that you are doing if you did not love the Lord. Also, I believe, having read your posts that you are conservative and believe in inerrancy. I have no doubt that we can work together as we move forward. But I would not want to work in the business of theological education, church planting, missions etc. with people like my former profs. I liked them personally, and they liked me. But the differences theologically are too great for me to ignore.

And based on my experiences and knowing and meeting many people who attended the conventions from 1979 to 1992 or so, they had the same concerns. At least that’s what came of their mouths and prayers, and that’s what seemed to animate them.

Also, let me say (and I am not at all trying to be condescending here) that I understand that religious battles and being disappointed by religious people, especially those carrying on what they claim is a purifying movement, can be among the most hurtful experiences in life. I truly hope that no matter what experiences and disappointments that you may have experienced that has not robbed you of any joy in your work. I do not detect that it has, but I hope that it never does.

I do hope that we get to meet someday. Are you going to Louisville? Let me know, and I will try to look you up. I am making a list of people whom I want to meet this year.

Take care.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Phil in O.K.:

Thanks for the plug. Look forward to more of your writing.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Lydia:

I think that I already addressed that on this and the FBC Jax WD sites. I see that Wade has a new post. I will check it out, and will let you know what I think.

See you.

Louis

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia,

Verse 22 needs a verb. Submit is the contextual verb that fits. Translators did not add it, the verb is implied.

However, since I agree with Rev. Dr. Vice President Dean Pastor Moore, then I will humbly submit to your request for no further discussion.

But can I at least claim victory for the discussion today? it would boost my ego and allow me to fulfill my role of authoritarianistic headship over my domain (which is but a few hundred square feet in Sullivan, MO at the moment. :) Maybe I need to get a dog. lol


For His Glory,


Kevin

Lydia said...

"Verse 22 needs a verb. Submit is the contextual verb that fits. Translators did not add it, the verb is implied."

Duh. If it is implied then why the need to add it?

And while we are on the subject, why the mysterious chapter breaks after vs 21 in some translations? I think we both know the answer to that. Just getting you to admit it would be nice. Maybe another time. :o)

"However, since I agree with Rev. Dr. Vice President Dean Pastor Moore, then I will humbly submit to your request for no further discussion."

His titles don't impress me like they do you. But thanks.

"But can I at least claim victory for the discussion today? it would boost my ego and allow me to fulfill my role of authoritarianistic headship over my domain (which is but a few hundred square feet in Sullivan, MO at the moment. :) Maybe I need to get a dog. lol"

Just this once because you almost took one in the chin and had your whole life altered. But it had better NOT have been over the women question or ESS or....I win. (wink)

On a serious note, no matter how misguided you are on some doctrinal issues or how maddening you can be, I am still praying for your wisdom in this situation. I mean that.

Anonymous said...

We are all praying for you, Kev

debbiekaufman said...

One thing that cannot be argued even if one does believe in submission. It is voluntary according to those who teach complementarianism, therefore if a wife does not submit in the way Kevin describes, it should not be considered sin and should be accepted from those such as Kevin without malice or being told that the woman is sinning by not accepting a hierarchical marriage.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia,

You are exhausting and I am relentless, this just might kill us both...

Verse 21 I think we can agree must be considered when exegeting 15-20. If must also be considered when exegeting vv. 22 ff. Verse 21 is clearly (or not so) the dividing line between Paul's general to specific statements.


btw, I don't want a charity win. I want a real win. I am gonna give this one to ya on the promise that...


I'll be back. :)

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Deb,

I find your answer to be partially correct. Allow to me to make the necessary adjustments to bring it to perfection.

First of all the I did not give a picture of what submission looks like. We find that example in the Godhead. ;)

Secondly, if indeed submission is biblical in the manner which you suggest, then to not voluntarily be in a state of submission would indeed be a sin. Where I think you and I agree is that it is not the husbands job to bring the wife into submission. He must love her and treat her with respect--as a jewel with brilliant glory.


k



word ver: buter

Rex Ray said...

Kevin Crowder,
If we are to learn from your experience, if you want us to back you up, if you want us to set in ‘judgment’ of how you were treated, you’ll have to be like Wade and give more facts than:

“I recently allowed myself to be cornered in my office by an ‘off his rocker’ board member and was quite willing to take it in the jaw for the sake of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit intervened; I resigned my pastorate as the rest of the board sat in silence. I submitted to the will of the church, or in this case 2/3 of the board. But I did not compromise my convictions. But I also immediately removed myself as shepherd of a flock who did not desire to be shepherded thereby defusing a volatile situation for the sake of my ministry and for the healing of that church and their future, should the Lord allow them one.”

1. Why did you say, “…should the Lord allow them one.”

That could interpret as: ‘Without me as their shepherd, they won’t be able to function as a church.’

2. “I did not compromise my convictions.”

Did the board ask you to do something ‘sinful’? Did they ask you to stop being a CEO, change the music, or demand a certain color of rug?

3. “…removed myself as shepherd of a flock who did not desire to be shepherded.”

That looks like the main problem: the board had the backing of the congregation that did not like the way you were a shepherd. Were you a trained fundamentalists like Patterson and Criswell that the pastor is to be the ruler of the church? Maybe you had seminary 101: ‘A pastor is a shepherd leader that dictates…’
[Webster—dictator…one who dictates.]


4. “The Holy Spirit intervened.”

Oh that takes the cake! That goes back 2000 years of claiming the Holy Spirit is on your side like James saying, “It was the Holy Spirit’s decision--and ours—to put no greater burden on you than these necessary things;” (Acts 15:28 Holman)

Did you resign from a church that accepts the BFM 1963 which says “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ”? I noticed you spoke against it. Were you trying to get them to accept the BFM 2000?

I guess I’ve done too much speculating, but those lines you left were pretty far apart.

Kevin, I hope you take this as an old guy like me looking for truth because only truth will light the path in days to come.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Rex,

I will not discuss further the specific circumstances. It is not helpful to the Kingdom, my ministry, or the church I pastored. It was an internal conflict. It is not meant to be a learning experience for you. I told the story as sort of an analogy which was as I admitted not perfect. Additionally, I felt it faithful at some point to be transparent to this community that I was not longer a pastor and since Ms. Burleson had indicated that my position was not commensurate with good pastoral theology (I am putting words in here mouth here) that this was indeed the time. As a caveat though here, I would like to express my opinion that the piety and holiness of one's pastor is also to be the piety and holiness of the flock. Yet we can note that God does give sanctifying grace as He determines is best for Him will.

Rex,

I am disappointed that you did not email me in private first to get answers to your itching ears. I would have likely given you more information had you asked in that manner. But at this point I will offer to you my best analysis in four words:

Family Owned and Operated.

I understand the present climate of hostility towards pastors. I am not PP trained nor even seminary trained. The Lord has given me a group of men who act as mentors from the Seeker-Sensitive flavor all the way to the starchy Reformed Types. I love them all. I do not agree with each of them on every point, but I am confident that they each have something to add to my "upbringing" in this calling to which I have been called by His grace.

You are free to do your own research into my past. But do it for the right reasons. I have fully documented the accounts from my perspective and have sought council from my mentors. I am confident that the Lord was in the final outcome and that I had done all that I had been called to do at this church. I will also add that the Board consisted of 3 men and the core body was 16. I have learned alot, I will do things differently as the Lord directs next time. But I would not go back and change a thing from the last 14.5 months save pray more.

God allowed me to see a side of the SBC that many in medium to mega sized churches never see. Rex, Wade exposes corruption at the highest levels. I am praying for direction on how to expose corruption on the other side. 60+% of the SBC's 44,000 churches run under 50 each week and a large number of them never baptized a soul last year. Many who did, did so in a pathetic, cross disgracing emotional laden alter call. (not that all alter calls are bad.)

Ed Stetzer believes the answer is planting churches and letting those 60+% die the slow death that they want as they sit in their creaky pew reminiscing about the good old days.

I believe however that we have a duty to reform the churches that have been ruined by Landmarkism. May this cultic philosophy die with those who hold it.

Lastly to the BFM. I do not affirm the 25 or 63. I agree it needed changed. I will affirm the basic tenants of the 2000 with a list of reservation which I detailed at my ordination council. I find the 2000 to be a sloppy fix. The church I pastored has no clue the differences, no clue as to what the BFM really is, and they would support whatever the SBC sent them in the mail. In other words they have no opinion. I was faithful to my Convention and placed LifeWay's BFM2000 booklet in each welcome packet and disbursed copies to anyone who wanted one. I would have welcomed any and all debate over the 2000 versus the 63 but these folks were not concerned with that sort of stuff. That was never an issue. Nor was carpet, etc.

All your assumption were wrong Rex. It was wrong of you to speculate in such a manner.
Lastly, Rex, I assure you the HS did intervene. You are, if you are my brother, wrong for making light of this. I did not claim HS power over these people. I said the HS stopped this man from hitting me. I am confident of this. He did not do it for me. I could have taken it. It would have left a deep scar on the church that would have been next to irreparable. God will bring healing to this. I never expected to be at Delhi for more than 18 months. This was my first pastorate. I now know the right question to ask TO the next pastor’s search committee.

Off to church.

K

Ron said...

Louis,

Thanks again for your good response. I am sorry for your experience at a Baptist college. I haven’t experienced that. I hope you won’t judge all Southern Baptist colleges or seminaries by your one experience. I am glad to know your background and can better understand how your opinions were formed. By looking at your age, it seems that you did not have any experience in SBC life before the CR takeover and most of your understanding of the situation in the convention came from attending conservative meetings as you described them. I would like to give some suggestions of ways to broaden your understanding of the CR and the SBC. J.I. Packer wrote a book several years ago called Power Religion. There is a chapter called Carnal Conservatism that I believe is an excellent description of the CR and it leaders. You mentioned attending a meeting where Paul Pressler spoke many years ago and that had an influence on you. I think I have already mentioned instances where his description of events is less than true. I suggest you read a book by John Baugh called The Battle for Baptist Integrity. He has known Paul Pressler since long before the CR started and has some good insights into his character and honesty. Even if you don’t read those two books I want to challenge you to read Russell Dilday’s book titled Columns. If you can read that book and still support the CR, I will be surprised. I am reminded of Pastor Bradley who changed his opinion of some things after reading Wade’s book. It will also give you some understanding of the failures of the trustee appointment process under the CR.

I am aware of that there were theological difficulties in the SBC prior to 1979 and they needed to be addressed. I think there are probably more theological problems today but they are of a different sort. I do not think they were as extensive as the CR folks claim and I think they have spent most of their time attacking people who are more conservative theologically than they are.

I have not even mentioned the 4 trustee or committee chairmen who were considered leaders of the CR and were put in the positions by the CR and we know now were living in adultery at the time they were serving. Each one, including one at the IMB, was serving at a crucial time and did irreparable harm to the entity they were suppose to be serving. In each case they were applauded and encouraged by the CR leaders. At best you could say the leaders of the CR had poor spiritual discernment or you could say that since God would not have led them to place these men in their positions that it was Satan. And then you have men like IMB and NAMB trustee Ron Wilson, whom Paul Pressler describes as a hero of the resurgence. His own state Convention would not seat him one year because he had dishonestly slandered a missionary. I think that shows the caliber of person Paul Pressler and the CR leaders respect.

My background is different than yours. I am at least a 5th generation Southern Baptist on several lines of my genealogy. I have many SB pastors and deacons in my family tree. I was raised in a very conservative Southern Baptist Church and all my pastors have been conservative. My mother was WMU chairman and my father was deacon chairman in our church. I was in RAs, I went to RA camp and state youth camp and heard missionaries and evangelists speak often. I knew by the time I was 12 years old God was calling me as a missionary. I am probably a little naïve and trusting when it comes to Southern Baptists. Before I was an adult, I didn’t know that pastors who did not support our missionaries and the FMB like Charles Stanley and many of the SBC presidents under the CR existed. I have not had one day that I didn’t thank God for allowing me to serve as a missionary with the IMB and represent Southern Baptists in the land where I live. One of the greatest blessings I have had is serving alongside some of God’s greatest servants, my fellow missionaries. That is why I get defensive when leaders of the CR make careless and untrue charges against us and why I am disappointed to see how little Southern Baptists care and how little respect for the truth there is under the CR leadership. That is why based on my experience the CR is about power and control and theology is just used as an excuse to attack people who stand in your way.

I will not be in the US at SBC convention time this year. I am getting close to retirement however and plan to attend regularly after I retire. I hope to be able to speak up at the convention for truth and hope that I can see our beloved convention return its strong Bible based beliefs.
Ron West

Lydia said...

"I don't want a charity win. I want a real win"

My husband often says this when we are playing backgammon. :o)

"Verse 21 I think we can agree must be considered when exegeting 15-20. If must also be considered when exegeting vv. 22 ff. Verse 21 is clearly (or not so) the dividing line between Paul's general to specific statements."

Verse 21 is the over-arching principle for all believers and vs 22+, are examples. You cannot separate it. I go back to the fact that this is a letter. Take out the verses and chapter breaks and read it like the letter is was. There was no punctuation in the Greek. Just like you cannot separate 1 Corin 13 as a picture of love which does not want it's own way.

"First of all the I did not give a picture of what submission looks like. We find that example in the Godhead. ;)"

Exactly, since the Trinity is completely equal in power and authority. Except for the incarnation where He GAVE UP His Glory to become a Man. He was not ordered to do this, Kevin.

Otherwise, I it sounds like you are trying to teach that husbands are the 'god' in the relationship and women are the Incarnate Jesus. Surely this is not what you think although it is the natural outcome of what Ware teaches.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Lydia,

I think you and others are trying to make the Warian analogy on the basis of God's incommunicable attributes. Everything that Ware has taught is based on the communicable attributes of God (the indicative) and applies this to what the Bible says we should do in light of Christ (the imparative).

"the Trinity is completely equal in power and authority"

and I would add essence. But not in role.

Equality alongside role differences are difficult for some to grasp. Yet Christ said equality with the Father was not a thing to be grasped.

Lydia said...

Equality alongside role differences are difficult for some to grasp. Yet Christ said equality with the Father was not a thing to be grasped.

Sun Mar 29, 03:32:00 PM 2009

During the Incarnation, Kevin.

Note the context:

He MADE Himself nothing. He 'humbled' Himself. How could He do that?

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

BTW: I would love to see you do an analysis of Cheryl Schatz' Trinity DVD and show us her errors. She welcomes that sort of thing.

For one thing, you talk of 'roles' but she shows where the 'roles' of the Trinity are many times interchangable. For example, she shows scripture where Jesus says He will raise Himself from the dead. Another that says the Holy Spirit will raise Him from the dead and of course, the Father will raise Him for the dead.

There are many other examples but the 'role' differentiation meaning unequal in 'role' or eternal (past and future outside the Incarnation) submission are refuted.

The problem is that your hero's need ESS to support their worldly hierarchical structures. Another problem is that they cannot prove authority/submission pre-fall without Reading INTO the creation account. So their doctrine is one of post fall sin, teaching folks to live out the consequences of sin.

Lydia said...

"I think you and others are trying to make the Warian analogy on the basis of God's incommunicable attributes. Everything that Ware has taught is based on the communicable attributes of God (the indicative) and applies this to what the Bible says we should do in light of Christ (the imparative)."

Ware is the one that maps ESS to human relationships based on 1 Corin 3:11!

This mapping can only result in mere men being thought of as a 'god' figure and women being a Jesus figure in our earthly relationships.

It really is alarming. Such arrogance. They really do go to great lengths to not only humanize God but elevate themselves above Christ.

John Fariss said...

Dear Kevin,

I was sorry to read that you are no longer pastoring the church. The fact that you and I have disagreed more often than we have agreed is immaterial. Over these past months, I have observed your growth in wisdom, spiritual, and emotional maturity--and yes, that does come out even in the limited interaction of a blog such as this.

If you are anything like me, you have revisited the issue(es) several, perhaps many, times over, and tried to determine where the relationship between you and the board/congregation/whomever went wrong. There is some value in that. I have never witnessed, counseled in, or been part of a relationship that sufered that there was not "blame enough to go around" on all parties involved. Even when "it" was mostly person number one's fault,there is always something that number two did which aggreviated the situation, or could have done better. The best way to minimize future problems with other boards/congregations/whatever is to candidately look at your own actions and responsibility in the situation. Having said that however, I would encourage you not to dwell upon it. You have been hurt, and your need is for healing, not for recriminations, and especially not for justifications.

Of course I know nothing of the situation, other than what you said here. I certainly do not know upon who the bulk of responsibility falls (and please do not hear me blaming you in the previous paragraph--I am not). There are dysfunctional and even toxic congregations (in all denominations, and across all lines of theology--as a Jewish Rabbi once told me, "The names change, but the stories remain the same."). I have some knowledge of this, having pastored four churches of varying dysfunctionionalism. Consultants rate these troubled churches on a scale of 1 to 5, where a 1 is "normal" disagreements and arguments, and a 5 is where fistfights are breaking out. The first church I pastored had a lawesuit pending against it which they concealed from me until I had been on the field 3 or 4 months, as well as other personal conflicts, and was probably a 2 or 3 on that scale. The last one I pastored was at a 4 or 4.5 (per the consultant I brought in), and God, in His great mercy, allowed me to change my ministry focus before they gave me a second heart attack. I was only the second minister there since the 1960s (and this includes pastors and ministers of music, youth, administration, and seniors) who was neither fired nor asked to leave--and it was just a matter of time. In such churches, you have members who are great folks and good Christians individually, but have never bound together as a coherent group; and you have others ranging all the way up to those who think God takes clues from them. There is a good bit of literature out there about such congregations, which can help you deal with the aftermath. I encourage you to decide if the church you served (or the deacons, the board, etc.) fits into this category; and as you close out your ministry there, determine what is the best way to heal both yourself and them. The last thing you do will be what they remember you most for, and if that is a good thing, a healing thing, a positive thing, not only will they be stronger for it (in the ways God desires), but so will you. And then--it almost always has to be afterwards, as there is rarely time before you leave--strieve to totally and completely forgive them. Only then, as I have learned, can you be completely healed.

If you want to talk about it (no judgment), just talk, just to have someone listen, feel free to contact me either at pastor-john@comcast.net or at 301-645-7889 or at 240-682-1217.

John Fariss

Christiane said...

Hi KEVIN,

It's me, L's

When you mentioned 'Family-Owned And Operated' concerning your former pastorate, I understand.

About fifteen years ago, I assumed the responsibility of driving my mother's sister-in-law (my Aunt Katie) to her church, because she could not drive, and used a walker and was VERY FRAIL and aged. But she LOVED her church SO much and she so wanted to go, that the family tried to help her keep her membership. So, for about six months, before her death, I drove her to her church and sat with her. (I also had to go to Mass at my own church much earlier in the morning.)

To make a long story short, the church was a family enterprise: one family had established the building and hired a 'Church of Christ' minister.

I was immediately impressed with the minister and his wife, both wonderful people, plus the minister looked a lot like my brother. He and his wife also sang, while he played the guitar, the most beautiful Christian hymns. It was very moving.

But then something happened.

The family who 'ran the church' were not pleased that the church membership was not 'growing'. They blamed this wonderful man and they took a vote and he was asked to resign, which he did.

I didn't know something like that could happen.

My aunt Katie cried and was badly upset. Well, they hired another minister, and he was very dynamic and loud and shouted a lot, and membership increased, I heard.
But Kevin, he wasn't a humble person in the way the other pastor had been. I felt really bad about what I had seen happen. Not long after, my poor aunt had to go in to nursing home and she passed away within a few months.

I still think about the young pastor and his family that were 'sent away'. It was more than sad.

I'm praying for you, Kevin.
Love, L's

Christiane said...

Dear JOHN FARISS,

GOD BLESS YOU ! Love, L's

Anonymous said...

Tonight I witnessed something at my church I want to share here. At a business meeting, the personnel committee gave a report on their recommendations for our Children's minister. See, she is fighting cancer, her second round, and has been off for 3 mos in chemo.

The personnel committee recommended we pay whatever disability does not pay (Guidestone?) to keep her salary the same and make sure she has health insurance. We also have members doing her job while she is fighting this. Some members also bought her a laptop so she can work from home when she is feeling well enough. There was no discussion except total agreement. All voted Amen.

That is a church.

Yet, I heard recently that a well known SBC para church organization laid off some long time women (one had cancer) but the top dogs did not even take a cut.

Anonymous said...

Dear 'All voted Amen.'

So moving.
That is what 'church' is all about.
When one hurts, the others respond.
THANK YOU.

Rex Ray said...

Kevin Crowder,
Thank you for what reply you gave, but it didn’t leave me much wiser did it? It’s been said:

1. Wise men learn from the mistakes of others.

2. Most learn from their own. (“I will do things differently as the Lord directs next time.”)

3. But fools learn from neither. (But I would not go back and change a thing from the last 14.5 months save pray more.”)

You said, “I now know the right question to ask TO the next pastor’s search committee”, but you said you would not discuss specific circumstances as it would not help the Kingdom.

If you have learned something that might help future would be pastors know what to ask wouldn’t that help the Kingdom?

You said, “I am disappointed that you did not email me in private first to get answers to your itching ears.”

Today, I read a lot of your blog for the first time. I was impressed with the subject matter and comments. I notice more than once others told you that you should stop having a sharp tongue. (My paraphrase.)

For example what did you accomplish by saying “your itching ears”? With your future schooling, I believe you would benefit greatly by learning from the book “How to win friends and influence people”.

In the first place, whatever anyone writes on the blog is open season. You are not so special that people have to email you about what you write. Likewise telling me ‘I was free to do research into your past’ shows the same attitude.

You replied, “I said the HS stopped this man from hitting me.”

No. You wrote: “The Holy Spirit intervened; I resigned my pastorate as the rest of the board sat in silence.”

I wrongly assumed you were claiming the Holy Spirit intervened for you to resign, but saying He stopped the man from hitting you; now that really puts the Lord on your side doesn’t it?

Looking back at what your wrote: “…allowed myself to be cornered…” [no place to run] Sounds like you resigned to keep the man from hitting you. And saying the Holy Spirit stopped him is downright funny.

Kevin, you wrote, “…willing to take it in the jaw for the sake of the Gospel.” Let me ask what you would have done if you had asked a deacon to repeat the time of our mission trip departure with those going standing around.

The deacon had talked softly because he had a sore throat. He grabbed my ears and I tried to jerk away but he had a strong grip. I stood over a minute with my ears hurting while he ragged on me that my poor hearing required him to talk louder which hurt his throat. I wanted to hit him, but thought what the kids were seeing was bad enough, so I never said a word.

Another time he was marking sheetrock with a straight edge, and then cutting the pencil mark.

I told him it would be faster if he used the straight edge to guide the knife. He wadded my shirt up with his fists and shoved me back over and over while in a rage; yelling how I was always telling people what to do. People that saw, said two deacons almost had a fight.

This month, a yelling deacon ragged on me in a bylaws meeting because I wanted our BGCT church to specify the BFM 1963.

In the same meeting, a regional missionary said if I didn’t like change, I should leave. I thought of Paul when he said, “No man stood for me.”

No Kevin, some of our long time families are not sitting in their creaky pews reminiscing about the good old days because they’ve departed saying our church is not what it used to be.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
You quoted part of John 4:35: “The fields are ripe for harvest.”

Bible translators must have not been farmers, or they would have stayed with King James:

“…look on the fields: for they are white already to harvest.”

The footnote of the NLT says ‘ripe’ means ‘white’ in Greek.

‘White’ gives an important message from Jesus. In recent years the IMB has heeded his message and that is:

Most wheat is harvested when its color is brown, but when it turns ‘white’ it will fall to the ground in three days.

PS The verification word was 'raydrop'...what does that mean? :)

Pastor Scott said...

Wade, Thank you for the opportunity to review "Hardball Religion", your new book. I must respectfully decline to publish it. I wanted to say that here because I highly recommend that your book be purchased. It took a lot of courage to do what you did, much more than it does to comment in blog where people cannot see your eyes. Any wolf can do that. Though the SBC is a worthy cause, at this time it is a diversion to my work. The things that I say are far too controversial for both sides and I will not expend my energy unless the Lord persuades me to do so. Keep up the great and noble task before you.

Pastor Scott

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Get'em Rex....Pray it out of him!



:)

Kevin M. Crowder said...

I actually meant "pry" it out of him, but "pray" might actually work better. :)

DT Boy said...

I have been reading Wade's blog for a while now and as the opportunity has presented itself I have shared some of thoughts what is said here. Today is one of those days.

As I have read the comments left here I cannot help but wonder about how much time has been wasted when it comes to the sharing of the Gospel. I am not saying that having a strong theology is unimportant but I do wonder if perhaps we spend too much time with developing our personal theologies and not enough time sharing the Gospel with the lost.

I am not saying that anyone here falls into that category but in all honesty I feel as though some here do. It is just a gut level feeling and I have no way to "prove" it. I would hope that everyone takes some time to examine their own hearts before God and see what He has to say.

Just some thoughts of a NAMB Missionary. :)

DT Boy said...

I have been reading Wade's blog for a while now and as the opportunity has presented itself I have shared some of thoughts what is said here. Today is one of those days.

As I have read the comments left here I cannot help but wonder about how much time has been wasted when it comes to the sharing of the Gospel. I am not saying that having a strong theology is unimportant but I do wonder if perhaps we spend too much time with developing our personal theologies and not enough time sharing the Gospel with the lost.

I am not saying that anyone here falls into that category but in all honesty I feel as though some here do. It is just a gut level feeling and I have no way to "prove" it. I would hope that everyone takes some time to examine their own hearts before God and see what He has to say.

Just some thoughts of a NAMB Missionary. :)

Anonymous said...

Filling our heads with 'theories' is not as productive as emptying our heart so that God may speak to them.

Pride is a strange thing.

It makes us feel 'superior' to others.

The Word teaches us to be servants of those in need of the Lord and His love.

You are right, Missionary.
Christ is the Lord.
That is what we know for sure.

Pastor Scott said...

At the request of some friends, I have published my review of "Hardball Religion" on my new site.