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

To Break the Chains of Bondage Requires an Understanding of the Real Problem

Over the course of the past four years I have written a few posts about significant leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention, including Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, Al Mohler and others. Recently I spoke at a funeral where a friend of Dr. Patterson's told me he was asked by Paige himself, "Why does Wade Burleson dislike me so much?" This gentleman suggested to me that if I would just spend a little time with Dr. Patterson I would find him a very pleasant person.

I was genuinely puzzled. Anyone who knows me understands that I can get along with anyone personally, and I truly enjoy people of all stripes. Ironically, I've written and phoned Dr. Patterson a handful of times over the years inviting him to lunch (on my dime), but have not had my messages returned. I even drove to Fort Worth to personally meet with him two years ago, but was told his schedule was too busy. I left another handwritten note asking him call me on my personal cell, but he never called. Of course, Dr. Patterson is a busy man, and its his perogative to not call me or meet with me. But since Dr. Patterson feels the freedom to speculate to others regarding my feelings toward him, I thought I would take this opportunity to offer a gentle correction.

I like Dr. Patterson. I think he is a man of integrity. In fact, I admire the way he lives his life based upon what he believes. I know the testimony of hundreds of people is that Dr. Patterson is personal, affable, self-deprecating, and generous. He is a brother in Christ, and I look forward to eternal fellowship with him in heaven. If there is a problem with Dr. Patterson, it is NOT a lack of personality, winsomeness or integrity--it is the radical, Fundamentalist ideology that leads to separation, a lack of cooperation, and a strident "you are wrong and will answer to God" attitude. It's an ideology that hampers a willingness to share a cup of coffee with someone who disagrees.

An Illustration of Ideological Decisions

When Dr. Patterson fired Sheri Klouda from her Hebrew teaching position at Southwestern, it was ideology that drove him. He truly wishes to be "right before God," and he believes a woman teaching Hebrew to "preacher boys" brings God's judgment upon the seminary. The problem with Dr. Patterson is not his character; the problem is his non-biblical, archaic, Old Covenant ideology regarding women. Paige Patterson views women in a completely opposite manner than Jesus views women. That doesn't mean Paige is a bad guy; it just means his ideology is warped. I admire the fact he lives consistent with his ideology, but it would be disturbing to me if Southern Baptists didn't challenge his ideology as the antithesis of the New Covenant. But my feelings about Dr. Patterson's ideology would NEVER preclude me from sharing a meal with him, or having fellowship with him. I love him for who he is, and that love is not thwarted by his interpretive errors regarding women. I am currently writing a forward to Jon Zens new book What's With Paul and Women? Unlocking the Cultural Background on I Timothy 2. Zen's book is a brilliant display of sound exegesis by a conservative inerrantist who understands the equality of men and women in the New Covenant, and it is written as a corrective to conservative evangelicals (like Dr. Patterson) who err in their views of women. The real problem in the SBC is not divergent views on tertiary issues; it is the unwillingness to fellowship brothers in Christ who disagree.

I recently received a call from a pastor of a Southern Baptist church where a couple of members are really upset. This married couple holds to a similar ideology to that of Dr. Patterson. They believe the Lord's Supper is being served in an inappropriate manner in their church--it is not a closed Lord's Supper at the church (for church members only), and it is not being served by "ordained" men only (people receive it by coming forward and taking the bread and wine from the table)--and this couple wants to correct the problem in order for their church to be "right with God." Further, this husband and wife is deeply disturbed that the Children's Pastor (a female) is baptizing converts upon their profession of faith in Jesus Christ. The only ones that should be "baptizing," in their minds, are those men with "ordination" credentials from a Southern Baptist church. Their Landmark ideology, prominent among Fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention, is leading them to draw a line in the sand. They wish to either remove current church leadership who view these matters differently than them or change the existing church bylaws to reflect their own ideology. Ironically, the spokesperson for this couple before the pastors was the wife (not the husband), so like many Fundamentalists I've met in the SBC, there is an espousing of an ideology that is not abided by in reality.

But I'm sure this couple is a wonderful, winsome couple. I also am quite confident they are a brother and sister in Christ. The issue that is causing the problem in their church is not one of personality, but one of ideology. Again, that's the problem right now in the SBC. Someone might ask, "Then what is the appropriate ideology for Southern Baptists in this day and age." I will let Jesus Christ answer:

"A new commandment that I give to you, that you love one another, eve as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).

If your love for any particular ideology blocks your ability to love another follower of Jesus Christ who disagrees with it, then your ideology is faulty. If you cannot sit down and fellowship with someone who disagrees with you, share a supper with them, and love them in spite of their differing views on tertiery matters, then your ideology is not the ideology of Christ. If you cannot cooperate with people who believe the Bible, but believe you to be in error when it comes to the Lord's Supper, the status of women in the New Covenant, and other tertiery matters, then you need to realize your ideology is hindering you from fulfilling the New Covenant commandment of Christ. Every other grace that God gives is insignificant to the grace of loving His people. Love never fails; it endures forever.

The problem in our SBC churches is not the lack of integrity or character of its people; the problem is an ideology that does not allow you to return phone calls and sit down at supper with those who disagree with you.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

145 comments:

Steven Stark said...

A good conversation is always important.

"If your love for any particular ideology blocks your ability to love another follower of Jesus Christ who disagrees with it, then your ideology is faulty."

I like this idea, but I hope it extends far beyond the scope of Christians only. My favorite description of growing spirituality is "an ever-expanding circle". It's the goal anyway!

Wade Burleson said...

Would not disagree Steven.

Until, however, we can get Southern Baptists to love other Southern Baptists, it will be difficult to look beyond our little tight circle.

Smile.

Steven Stark said...

A very good point.

Even in our circle of family and friends, the notion of common courtesy can be lost.

I think some people are afraid to sit down with those they disagree with. I wonder if they are afraid, deep down, that their worldview will be challenged and that they might have to change their mind on something. Of course, it is true that being compelled to change your mind can be devastating to the psyche. It is, at the least, a lot of work.

Conversely, I know others who see the chance to talk with others of different views as a fascinating opportunity.

Wade Burleson said...

John Stott once said, "To me the essence of being a radical is being willing to subject one's inherited traditions and conventions to biblical scrutiny" To which Bill White adds "It may be that much of what we call Christian would have to be thrown out in the light of Biblical re-education ... Let's approach Scripture with an open mind and heart and discover what God has called us to in the way of re-education and renewal."

And finally, Jon Zens writes: "Let's face it -- we all struggle to let go of old things learned in order to give away to new things unveiled."

Christiane said...

Wade wrote this:

" If your love for any particular ideology blocks your ability to love another follower of Jesus Christ who disagrees with it, then your ideology is faulty "

I think sometimes that the sin of pride affects our ability to share our own experience of Christ with one another.

There are the holy moments when we are permitted to witness the humble sharing of a believer's deeply-held vision of Christ which is transforming and illuminating their life.

And, at those moments, something wonderful may occur. 'Deep calls to deep'. The Voice of the Spirit is enabled to speak through the humble and thankful believer, witnessing to our own spirit of the Lord Christ, in a way that helps us to know Him as they know Him. And He becomes our bond.

What can and does prevent that from happening is when a person, filled with pride, attempts to enclose Christ within a doctrine, as though the doctrine was somehow a substitute for the real experiencing of Christ in that person's life.

It's not the same, you know.
A doctrinal argument is not going to be a replacement for a witness of the Christ a person knows as the One who is the Shelter of their soul.

Doctrinal arguments were never meant to bond together or to separate Christians from one another.
It is by the work of the Holy Spirit that we are bound together by Christ's love.
There are no man-made doctrinal differences that have the power to break apart the Body of Christ.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
This was printed in the Baptist Standard ten years ago, but maybe it’s on topic.

Lost love June 16, 2000
___Should a ‘think tank’ replace the Holy Spirit in teaching Scripture? Priesthood of each Christian is Baptist belief. They are making cobwebs that snare trusting people. We need to vote the spiders out of office.

___They twist Scripture that makes husband and wife a beautiful partnership into a pecking order. Now they say, “Scripture cannot be set against Scripture.” Does that mean other Scripture cannot be used to prove their interpretation wrong? That road leads to a pope.

___Those that make ‘inerrancy’ their God will scream with Jim Richards (11-18-98) “Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent.”

Sounds like their refusal to know truth has erased any love for their brother and they’d like an Inquisition to deal with heretics.
___Rex Ray___Grand Prairie

Steve said...

I love the growth of the Christian faith around the world, and do not care how it looks as long as it is truly based on Jesus and the sinner coming to God. But some people want every church or house group coming together to look like a Landmarkist church in the middle of Arkansas.

To enforce that way of thinking, they them presume to tell some devoted and qualified Southern Baptists that they can't be a missionary because their church or baptism or inner thoughts aren't Landmarkist enough.

The dear couple in Wade's post would perhaps be tickled to see the ways Landmark churches around this stretch of country avoid looking like fools to outsiders by scheduling The Lord's Supper services at odd times just to avoid having to explain away the inexcusable.

Ed Goodman said...

I agree, Wade. It's not ONLY sins of commission that break fellowship with, but also sins of omission. Alienation of other people, even under the guise of "biblical truth," is sinful under the latter category. If Jesus ate with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors, I would say we all better wise up and learn to love one another. If we can't, how can we ever love our enemies?

Thy Peace said...

Amen.

JR. said...

Thanks for this post, Wade.

I have interacted with brothers and sisters who are Fundamentalist/Landmarkist in their theology, and who - like Ray suggested - have moved to the place where the Other must be a heretic.

What can we do when our disagreement with our brothers and sisters gets to the point that they are calling us heretics and demanding we be removed from our leadership positions?

Wade Burleson said...

JR,

In my opinion you must continue, unabated, to show how your views are biblical, consistent, and Christ-honoring. There are also occasions where you must point out to them where there views are extra-biblical, separatist and isolationist, and honoring of an institution (the church) rather than a Person.

In time, people will begin to see the error of the Landmarkers. But it requires a steady, consistent chorus of grace views from those who oppose their ideology (but not them as people).

Wade

Widely Interested said...

Wade,

I agree with the spirt of your post. I probably would disagree in many places with your theology but would never exclude you for whatever you may believe.

However, we are still left with the practical problem of practice.

If 60% of a congregation wants an open communion and 40% wants a closed communion, in the Baptist way, the church can vote and decide how it is going to be. But how are those 40% going to be faithful to their perspective? We may think they are wrong and we may try to convince them, but if they remain unpersuaded, they certainly have their right to their own belief and conscience.

Certainly, I would not exclude them if they wanted to remain in fellowship, but if I were one of them, I would certainly continue to have a problem with the conflict with my belief and the practice of the church that I attended.

It seems inevitable, even if it is friendly and without anyone excluding anyone else, that this group would want to form their own congregation that would follow their view of the Lord's Supper. It would also seem to me that it could be encumbent upon their point of view to close their communion in order for them to be faithful to their beliefs.

It seems that those that want openness cannot claim "absolute truth" for their view any more than those who want a closed communion.

Do you have a suggestion for those 40%?

Kristen said...

Wade, these are nice sentiments-- but when hate is being tolerated in the name of unity, what responsibility do we have to stand up for love?

I hate the sin-- yes, it's a sin-- of oppression, and doctrines that not only tolerate, but lift up, the oppressor. I believe the old doctrines that said African-Americans were lesser beings, and that justified segregation, to be unholy, and I do not think I could sit down amicably with someone who still believed in segregation, and eat a pleasant meal, without mentioning the subject! Neither do I think I could sit down and eat a pleasant meal with someone who seriously wronged, injured and oppressed women, and taught others to do the same. I would feel compelled to speak up at the meal against it-- and the pleasantness of that meal would be over.

I'm afraid I feel just as strongly about this, as those on the other side would feel I'm an uppity feminist who needs to repent, accept my "place," and be silent.

There are many women I talk to on a regular basis who used to be Christians, or thought about being Christians, and ended up turning from the faith because they cannot believe that a God who would subordinate women and raise up men to rule them, could also be a just, impartial, loving God. Indignation rises in my heart even as I write these words. Paul said, back in the days when female subordination was the cultural norm, that wives should submit to their husbands so that the gospel would not be hindered. But what's hindering it now? Doctrines like Patterson's! How can I do anything but denounce them as hard as I can? And I'm afraid that just wouldn't make for a pleasant meal with the man. I'm too angry to be pleasant. Sorry.

Alan Paul said...

I think Kristen (and this coming from a man who has a hard time doing this as well) there is a time and a place for standing up for the oppressed. The dinner table, in my opinion, is not the place to do that. If we cannot get along with those (other Christians) whom we disagree with on something simple as dinner, then we are in violation of scriptures that speak to love and unity and we are engaging in hate and bitterness. A meal does not mean we agree. A meal means we are building a relationship and a friendship in which we can honestly and forthrightly debate any issues we disagree on and then remain friends afterward. Nothing but separation has ever resulted from anger and bitterness.

Wade Burleson said...

Widely Interested,

If the ability of the %40 percent was affected by open communion, then they probably should leave the church--with a good spirit and a kind word to toward those from whom they are separating.

However, when we are talking about a Convention built on cooperation, composed of all kinds of churches, we should NEVER make the standard of missions and evangelistic cooperation EITHER closed OR modified open communion. We should cooperate around the essentials.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Kristen,

I thought the horrible, unjustified treatment of the Klouda family (firing Dr. Klouda), particularly during the time when Pinky was undergoing heart troubles, was unconscionable behavior by the administration of SWBTS. But, it would not have prevented me from sharing a meal with them, and in Christian grace, telling them face to face what I thought of their conduct.

In fact, that is precisely what I did.

Smile.

wade

Wade Burleson said...

Alan Paul,

Good thoughts.

Wade

Lydia said...

"I think he is a man of integrity. In fact, I admire the way he lives his life based upon what he believes. I know the testimony of hundreds of people is that Dr. Patterson is personal, affable, self-deprecating, and generous. He is a brother in Christ, and I look forward to eternal fellowship with him in heaven. If there is a problem with Dr. Patterson, it is NOT a lack of personality, winsomeness or integrity--it is the radical, Fundamentalist ideology that leads to separation, a lack of cooperation, and a strident "you are wrong and will answer to God" attitude. It's an ideology that hampers a willingness to share a cup of coffee with someone who disagrees."


We disagree about the integrity part since his road to "correct doctrine" is littered with bodies thrown under the bus over the past 30 years. We can start anywhere but how about Gilyard's victims who were rebuffed and the METHOD of firing Klouda. Never mind the much earlier stuff and all the shenanigans inbetween.

How is that integrity? I just do not get it. Is this one of those cases where telling the truth is not loving so we pretend the 'motives' were pure even though the methods were sinful?

Kristen said...

Wade, good for you. I'm glad you did!

Alan, I hear what you're saying. I hope someday I will get to the point where I could eat a meal with Dr. Patterson and be nice-- but I'm not sure I could do it at this point. Being a woman myself makes it harder-- I feel that Patterson views me as a lesser being, no matter how much he may insist otherwise.

And Lydia makes a very good point. What about the people who have been hurt? We must be sure we are not denying their pain or sweeping it under the carpet.

JR. said...

Thank you all for this discussion; I'm finding it very helpful.

Shouldn't this question be grounded in the nature of God?

By that I mean that - while we were his enemies, God not only shared table with us but creatively and compassionately gave himself to us.

What would our interactions with the Christian Other look like if this is our model? No doubt it would cost us dearly, but I think all of us can share scars that have cost us far too much already.

I know I'm an idealist, but I have to believe that firmly modeling Triune Love is the way to win the day.

And I know that's far easier said than done.

But as long as we're acting out of pain, fear or spite, we're modeling our enemies, not loving them as we're commanded to.

Michael Ruffin said...

Wade, is the Southern Baptist Convention truly built on cooperation?

I think it used to be.

I'm not sure that it is now.

CB Scott said...

Would it not be interesting to see Wade, Paige, Ben and cb sit down at a meal together?.....

Or,...Wade, Ben and cb sit down at a meal together?.....Or,....Wade and cb sit down at a meal together?.......Or,.......Wade and Ben sit down at a meal together?

What about this one; Would it not be interesting to see: Wade, Ben, Marty, Art and cb sit down at a meal together? Now that would be interesting.

My, how things have changed in the last four years.

Wade Burleson said...

CB,

As I recall, I paid for your dinner in Atlanta when you met Ben and me at the Carter center--but that was just a couple of years ago. Smile.

Narry a thing has changed with me! Come to Enid and I'll buy it again.

I keep in regular touch with Ben, emailing and texting him often. I also hear from Marty regularly.

I don't hear from you, but I would be thrilled to buy all three of you dinner, again!

Blessings,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Michael Ruffin,

The SBC is going through some change. Ask me again in a year the same question and I think I'll be able to answer it.

:)

Wade Burleson said...

Lydia,

I think those who have read what I have written about Klouda, Gilyard, and other issues would never hesitate to say I write the truth.

What I refrain from doing is indicting the character of a brother in Christ.

Wade

Michael Ruffin said...

Wade,

Fair enough.

You know where I'm coming from--I don't think it's been based on cooperation for a long, long time--at least since 1990--but that's old news.

I do hope the situation improves, I really do.

CB Scott said...

Wade,

You have bought my dinner before, but not in Atlanta. That was on another guy that day. (I once bought your lunch, or maybe that was Art's)

Relating to the Carter Center trip, it was you that met us remember? Ben and I stayed at his grandmother's the night before. I picked you up at the airport.

I drove us all to lunch after meeting with President Carter and then you back to the airport after dropping Marty off at the Carter Center to pick up his truck.

Afterward, I took Ben back to his grandmother's house and headed back to Birmingham.

Last time I saw you was when you made the motion to bump Bart Barber from the SWBTS Board.

Like I said, things have changed. But I still talk to Ben and Marty. And occasionally Art, but not often. I need to catch up with Art. Have you heard from him lately?

BTW, I talked to Ben just recently. He is doing fine.

Maybe Orlando? I'll buy. :-)

cb

Jack said...

CB, Wade, Marty and the whole rotten bunch!

None of you rascals have ever bough me nuthen!!!!

But I forgive you...

: )

Jack

Rev. said...

Just a thought...the couple upset over the sacred ordinances being presided over by non-clergy may not be Landmarkists, but rather have more of an understanding in line with many non-Baptist Protestants (i.e., Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians).

Cheryl Schatz said...

Wade,

Excellent article! Also Jon Zens has a winning way of getting his point across. I am sure that his book will be very helpful.

Lydia said...

"What I refrain from doing is indicting the character of a brother in Christ."

Unfortuantly, that is happening a lot around the SBC. Ask Christa Brown.

Where do you draw the line in indicting character with a professing believer who continues to do bad things? Pedophilia? Embezzelment? Adultery? Good Character but just a bad hair day?

Christiane said...

So Wade would sit down to share a meal with those people we disapprove of?

And we would condemn him for it ?

Have we learned nothing in two thousand years?

Ben said...

Steve wrote:
"The dear couple in Wade's post would perhaps be tickled to see the ways Landmark churches around this stretch of country avoid looking like fools to outsiders by scheduling The Lord's Supper services at odd times just to avoid having to explain away the inexcusable."

I don't know where Steve lives, but every Southern Baptist church I have pastored has served the Lord's Supper on Sunday nights and I don't believe we have looked like fools. After all, why would you want to serve the Lord's Supper on Sunday morning when there are going to be the largest number of lost people present. A lost friend you have been inviting to church finally comes and gets the bread and cup put right in front of his face. You are just asking for problems and misunderstanding.

Ben said...

Wade

You wrote: "In time, people will begin to see the error of the Landmarkers. But it requires a steady, consistent chorus of grace views from those who oppose their ideology (but not them as people)."

I think the exact opposite is true. I have seen plenty of non-landmarkers some to see the truth of closed communion, church perpetuity, the local church, and the rejection of alien immersions taught clearly in the Word of God.

As a matter of fact, speaking of the Lord's Supper, things are looking better than they have in years. Restricted communion is stronger in the SBC than it has been in fifty years.

Wade Burleson said...

Ben,

Maybe. But as long as I have breath I will seek to wake people up to the unbiblical, un-baptistic, and ritualistic error of Landmarkism and closed communion and the corresponding error of ecclesiastical authority that borders on popery.

Smile.

But I sure don't mind fellowship with guys like you! Frankly, Ben, you are a really nice guy and would be welcome in our church--but I don't think you would appreciate our freedom.

Jeff said...

We observe the Lord's Supper on Sunday Morning. BTW, God used the Lord's Supper to open my eyes to my need of a Savior. Let the lost come and see the Lord's Supper.

Rev. said...

Why would you want to serve the Lord's Supper on Sunday morning when there are going to be the largest number of lost people present?

Several reasons...
1) When the Church meets on Sunday morning they gather for corporate worship.

2) The Lord's Supper is an integral part of corporate worship.

3) Most members attend worship on Sunday morning, many do not attend on Sunday night.

4) It provides an opportunity to teach the lost about things which are set aside for holy use.

5) It provides an opportunity to teach the lost they are not included in communion because they are not in fellowship with God or His people.

6) Because the Apostle Paul, who was concerned about the lost who were present in worship services (1 Cor 14:22-24), was also concerned about the manner of conduct during communion (11:17-34). If the lost are instructed that believers take holy things seriously, then they will take God seriously (Acts 5:13-14).

Christiane said...

If Landmarkers are insisting that it is unbiblical for a lay person to baptize, I think they have got it wrong.

There is no restriction in Scripture as to who may baptize.

Steven Stark said...

This is slightly on topic:

John Dominic Crossan talks about the Lord’s Supper in his book “The Birth of Christianity”:

“The Common meal Tradition may look to a Last Supper in the past, to a communal meal in the present, or to a messianic banquet in the future - or, quite validly, to all of those at the same time. But it can never get away from this: It is in food and drink offered equally to everyone that the presence of God and Jesus is found. But food and drink are the material bases of life, so the Lord’s Supper is political criticism and economic challenge as well as sacred rite and liturgical worship. It may be all right to reduce it from a full eat-and-drink meal to a token nibble-and-sip meal as long as it still symbolizes that same reality - namely: Christians claim that God and Jesus are peculiarly and especially present when food and drink are shared equally among all.”

Wade Burleson said...

Christiane,

Your theology is better than most Baptists. :)

Steven,

Very interesting quote from John Dominic.

Thanks.

RRR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rex Ray said...

RRR,
I couldn’t make my critical comment to Wade without first being critical of your critical comment to him. :)

You said, “I think the example of your response to what seems to me to be a “hearsay” comment about the intent, spirit and motive of another brother could be the biggest problem with the SBC.”

First the “hearsay comment”: "Why does Wade Burleson dislike me so much?"

Duh?
Do you think Patterson’s question was truthful? Do you think he doesn’t know?

To me, that question was the ‘guilty’ declaring they’re innocent. His question was a lie, and I believe Wade’s answer was more than gracious.

I also believe the biggest problem with the SBC is based on untruth.

BTW, we have the same initials.



Wade,
It’s great you said:

“When we are talking about a Convention built on cooperation, composed of all kinds of churches, we should NEVER make the standard of missions and evangelistic cooperation EITHER closed OR modified open communion. We should cooperate around the essentials.”

Based on the above; how in the world can you say?

“If the ability of the 40% percent was affected by open communion, then they probably should leave the church--with a good spirit and a kind word to toward those from whom they are separating.”

Huh?

That’s saying churches should split over non-essentials.

Now I could see your point IF those “affected” screamed and hollered and disrupted the service, but if that was just their opinion, then I believe your statement needs a bit of explaining.

I hope this passes the ‘Ten Commandments’. :)

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

Dear Rex,

You said, "Do you think Patterson’s question was truthful? Do you think he doesn’t know?"

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? I don't have a clue what Patterson's intent or heart was at the time he made a comment. Plus, who knows exactly what wording he used, what expression he had on his face at the moment he made a comment or the context in which it was made?

But anyway, I think I was out of line to say that Wade’s attitude and response was typical of the reasons we have problems so I’ve deleted my comments. I apologize to Wade. I think he’s a good guy and appreciate his blog.

(Actually, the initials I used are an attempt at humor meaning “right rev rick”!)

Rex Ray said...

RRR,
Nice of you to be “right rev rick”.


“To break the chains of bondage requires an understanding of the real problem.”

Now with a topic like that, it looks like the sky’s the limit on subjects. :)

Steven Stark quoted “The Birth of Christianity” by John Crossan.

Crossan explained I believe the real problem of the early church [‘SBC’ my opinion] by what happened to Paul in delivering money collected for the poor in Jerusalem. Crossan wrote:

Promise: Gal. 2:10
[Leaders of Jerusalem Church told Paul to remember the poor.]

Collection: 1 Cor. 16: 1-4; 2 Cor. 8:9 Acts 11:27-30
[Tells of Paul collecting the money.]

Delivery: Romans 15:30-31 Acts 20
[Paul asked prayer for protection from non-Christians.]
[Tells of Paul’s travel with the money.]

Disaster: Acts 21:17-26

Crossan wrote: “There is double danger in Jerusalem. Non-Christians Jews could consider Paul a traitor who had defamed God’s Laws. Christian Jews could consider him at least a danger and possible even a traitor as well. Paul was told, I presume, that the collection would not be accepted unless he used some of it as James and the elders demanded. Diaspora Jews attacked Paul in the Temple for having brought a pagan inside the forbidden area; he was arrested, and executed four years later in Rome.”

In my opinion, Paul was a ‘hot potato’ that put the leaders in a ‘hot spot’ – if their congregation stoned Paul, they’d loose Christian Gentiles. So they passed him off to non-Christian Jews to do the dirty work.

I believe the ‘dirty work’ by the C/R is not over yet.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

I have to say that Landmarkism is not the issue here. The issue is boiled down to "Why does Wade Burleson hate me so..." Clearly that was a probing question by Dr. Patterson. Clearly that was offensive to Wade. But because of the history now that has developed over the years, the present state of things is inevitable and probably irreconcilable. Not on an eternal scale, but because these two men, at least at the present time do not affect each other by simply remaining silent. Regardless of where one stands, the winner here is clearly Paige Patterson. He is perceivably taking the high road. No doubt because he is a wiser man than Wade (from shear experience alone) and Wade, with the innate gifts of helps and determination simply cannot/refuses to let this go.

The issue, on this anniversary of Roe vs. Wade has turned into Paige vs. Wade.

Right or wrong, bringing it up continually, after the matter has been settled by administration and board, is just plain immature. It serves no purpose in the Kingdom work of SB's.

The Convention disagrees with Wade on these matters. He can do one of the following things, and I relate these options in terms of a local church setting for clarity:

1. He can continue to be that pesky church member who always disagrees with leadership, causing division in the Body, trumping up daily charges to beat the leadership down.

2. He can "leave the church" quietly

3. He can "leave the church" and become a bigger threat.

4. He can let it go, give it to the Lord, seek amicable restitution such that is possible here in the temporary and press on with Kingdom work.

5. (Or like what is really going on now) He can act like everything is fine while occasionally flinging lethal darts.


I report, you decide.

K

David R. Mills said...

I choose to be a "fundamentalist" with the Apostle Paul. In II Thess 3:6, 14-15 he makes it very clear where we should stand in relation to a brothers error. I think Christianity today has lost its effectiveness because we have forgotten what N.T. Christianity was all about.

believer333 said...

" If there is a problem with Dr. Patterson, it is NOT a lack of personality, winsomeness or integrity--it is the radical, Fundamentalist ideology that leads to separation, a lack of cooperation, and a strident "you are wrong and will answer to God" attitude. It's an ideology that hampers a willingness to share a cup of coffee with someone who disagrees."

This is certainly the main point. I would like to point out however, that personality and winsomeness mean little as an indication of a good person, and nothing as regards integrity. You Wade, are more trusting of P. Patterson than I am in the area of integrity, but then I do not actually know for certain if he is a man of integrity. I look at his negative actions that you have described and wonder how a man of integrity could have done these things.

If you have ever had experiences with bad lawyers, you may have noticed that while they are charming, personable and winsome to ones face, they can do all manner of damaging skullduggery behind one's back as well as lie while smiling at you. :) It's difficult for me to imagine a person of integrity doing the same.

believer333 said...

"Regardless of where one stands, the winner here is clearly Paige Patterson. He is perceivably taking the high road."

Don't see where you get the idea that refusing to dialogue is taking the high road.

When one does damage publicly, their only saving grace is to say nothing because they have no real excuse. They want to keep doing what they are doing. If they dialogue publicly they may have to have an answer for what they did.

Widely Interested said...

Wade,

I agree that we should cooperate around the essentials. Amen!

The problem remains that one side sees inerrancy and all that goes along with that as essential.

Corrie said...

"Conversely, I know others who see the chance to talk with others of different views as a fascinating opportunity."

Yes!

Kristen,

I hear you loud and clear. In fact, before I read your response, I thought of whether or not I could sit down for a meal with a Kinist (I have had plenty of dealings with them) and it remain pleasant. I do not think I could keep my mouth shut about their abhorrent beliefs concerning other races all under the guise of "sound biblical doctrine".

And then I think of Daniel and his 3 friends and how they refused to partake of the King's table. In the Middle East, having dinner together was a mark of agreement and covenant.

Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine. It wasn't that the wine and food would defile him. To share a meal, in the Middle East, would be to commit to friendship. Sharing a meal was of covenant significance. Daniel didn't take the meal off of the King's table because he didn't want to commit to friendship to the King. (Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, pg 83).

Having studied Covenant, in depth, most covenants were cemented by sharing a meal together, thereby binding the two together in mutual friendship.

Then I think about who it was that Jesus ate with. Did He ever share a meal with the Pharisees? Something to think about.

I do agree that we should not shun those who disagree on the tertiary issues of the Christian faith.

But, could I sit down for a meal with Kinists (Christian racists), for example? No, I don't think I could without it turning into something not so pleasant. I think I would skip the meal and go right to the discussion. :-)

And, it has been my experience that those who make problems in the Church over issues like music and communion and such are those who are never happy in any Church they attend. There is always something wrong, something not good enough for them and something that must be picked apart.

Widely Interested said...

My favorite quote:

"Our task now is to let the breath of the Galilean sage fall on the neck of the church again. After centuries of being told that "Jesus saves," the time has come to save Jesus from the church. If the door is locked, we will break in through the windows. If anyone forbinds us to approach the table, we will overturn it and serve Communion on the floor. If any priest tells us we cannot sing this new song, we will sing it louder, invite others to sing it with us, and raise our voices in unison across all the boundaries of human contrivance -- until this joyful chorus is heard in every corner of the world, and the church itself is raised from the dead." Robin R. Meyers

Corrie said...

Being passive aggressive is NOT taking the "high road" and that is exactly what it is when people feign lack of knowledge about an issue with another person in order to invoke sympathy.

I think it is a Southern thing. ;-)

It is kind of like the woman who smiles and talks in a gentle voice and then as soon as you turn around they stab you in the back. Or the person who says something that sounds nasty about another person in a nice tone of voice and then says "Bless her heart!" I don't get it. I was raised in the North and I was taught that you say what you mean and mean what you say. In other words, in a confrontation, I don't beat around the bush and I don't use loaded language in order to garner sympathy. The facts, imho, will speak for themselves.

It is quite clear as to why Wade has a problem with Patterson because Wade has clearly stated that problem on this blog (ie., Sheri Klouda). To inject the word "hate" into the question and to act as if he doesn't know why Wade has problems with his theology and practice of that theology is to be passive aggressive and to be looking for sympathy.

"Poor me, I am such a nice person, why does that other person hate me so much?"

Kevin, I don't understand your comment at all. That was clearly NOT a probing question. If Patterson really wanted to know why Wade "hated" him so much then he could pick up the phone or write him an email and ask himself without going to another person.

And, are you really going to assert that experience makes a person wiser? Because, I know plenty of fools with lots of experience. :-)

Kristen said...

Corrie, I think Jesus did eat with the Pharisees. I don't remember the chapter and verse right now, but I remember that when the woman came in and washed His feet with her tears, He was eating at the home of a Pharisee.

To me it's not so much about not eating with Patterson, as that I would probably not be able to keep the meal pleasant. *grin*

Now if I were Wade, and I knew that Patterson already knew my position on the subject of women's full equality in church and home, then I might be able to set it aside just for one meal with the guy-- but since I'm me, and Patterson doesn't know me, and that one meal would be all the contact I might ever have with the man-- I would not feel that I could in good conscience keep my mouth shut, no matter how much he thought it my place to "be silent."

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

So Wade would sit down to share a meal with those people we disapprove of?

And we would condemn him for it ?

Have we learned nothing in two thousand years?

Thu Jan 21, 09:54:00 PM 2010

11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone NAMED A BROTHER, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—NOT EVEN TO EAT WITH SUCH A PERSON.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

1 Corin 5

Christiane said...

I am reminded about how much more difficult it is to live in immitation of Lord Christ
than to follow the teachings of St. Paul.

Lydia said...

So, the situation is that we can call one a 'brother in Christ' YET know that we must protect ourselves from them because they are known to do very mean and cruel things to people under the guise of correct doctrine and still be considered Christian leaders with integrity and good character. Hmmm.

Strange that the world is a safer place than with some of our "Christian brothers' who happen to be leaders with power and influence. In the world, one is not protected with a 'church' legal status.

Lydia said...

I am reminded about how much more difficult it is to live in immitation of Lord Christ
than to follow the teachings of St. Paul.

Fri Jan 22, 01:45:00 PM 2010

So, ignore the passage? Note, it says 'one who calls themselves a brother'. Are you saying Paul is writing something contrary to Jesus Christ?

Christiane said...

Wade wrote:
"Recently I spoke at a funeral where a friend of Dr. Patterson's told me he was asked by Paige himself, "Why does Wade Burleson dislike me so much?" "

I am reminded of a situation where Person A supports lawful government limits being put on HMO profiteers' ability to deny life-giving services to clients, leading to the clients' deaths.

Person B has and continues to support NO INTERFERENCE with the 'rights' of the profiteers by the government for any reasons in this matter.

Person A points out that there is a moral issue involved: the life of a human being needs to be protected from those whose profits will be increased by permitting denial of life-saving care.

Person B then says, 'YOU are implying that WE are immoral' because WE don't support your idea of government health care, and YOU are insulting ME 'indirectly'.


There it is.
The implication that to support an injured party's case is tied to the 'dislike' of a person who does not support that case.

In Patterson's case, the actions HE and the trustees took against Dr. Klouda produced horrific results for an innocent woman and her family.
Wade spoke up and pointed to the moral law being violated.

Now Patterson states that he is confused about 'why' Wade 'dislikes HIM' personally.


I think the goal in both cases is to take the spotlight off of the needs of those who are abused.
And to then suggest that the support for 'doing what is right and just'
is somehow now a personal attack on those who don't see the situation in the same light.


The line is drawn here:
can we see something happening that is evil and unjust, and do nothing? And say nothing? And still call ourselves human?

A saying of the rabbis:
"If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am not for others,
what am I? "

A Christian person can absorb many blows without responding.
A Christian person can NEVER see another person abused, and do nothing or say nothing.

As for those who 'take offense'?
And do it publicly?
Implying that they themselves have been the victims as targets of ill-will or 'dislike' ?

Hmmm . . .
the moral arc still supports those who speak for the badly abused and speak for those in danger of death . . .

The advocacy for the profiteers and for the powerful falls to those who feel that it is the right thing for them to do.

People see priorities differently.
It has to do with what is valued most.

But Wade also once said: ‘we must love them in the midst of their sins’.
A most Christian observation, ‘n’est-pas ?’

Lydia said...

But Wade also once said: ‘we must love them in the midst of their sins’.
A most Christian observation, ‘n’est-pas ?’

Fri Jan 22, 01:59:00 PM 2010

So, you think Paul did not love the guy he told them to kick out in 1 Corin 5 so he could be saved?

Tom Kelley said...

RevKev said ...
Right or wrong, bringing it up continually, after the matter has been settled by administration and board, is just plain immature. It serves no purpose in the Kingdom work of SB's.

Kevin,
I might be mistaken, but this sounds like a reflection of your view of authority. Seems to me that pointing out when someone has done wrong, and refusing to stop until they acknowledge the wrong and repent, is what got John T. Baptist beheaded. Should he have just let is go because a properly ordained authority made the decision?

Tom Kelley said...

Christiane said...
I am reminded about how much more difficult it is to live in immitation of Lord Christ
than to follow the teachings of St. Paul.


This is a false dichotomy. One is no more or less difficult than the other, as the words and actions of Jesus and the writings of Paul are equally inspired by the same Spirit of God.

It may well be easier, though, to follow our own pre-conceived ideas about what God wants of us than to heed what He actually desires.

Christiane said...

Hi TOM KELLEY,

Do you really believe that the Spirit of God had to 'act on' Christ ?

Kristen said...

It seems to me that there is no conflict between Christ's actions and Paul's words, if we take context into account. Paul was writing to a whole church, telling them how to conduct themselves as a church. As a church, they were to disassociate themselves from a so-called "brother" who was unrepentently committing major sin on an ongoing basis. Jesus went to eat at the home of one Pharisee who invited Him personally. While He was eating there, He did not hesitate to confront the Pharisee's sin of self-righteousness. Jesus' actions were public, but they were the actions of an individual, not a church.

We have to be careful to read the passages in their context and also to try to learn any cultural/historical assumptions that might have been shared by the writers and readers, that we may not be privy to.

Each of us has to decide from there, in our own consciences, how we should act both individually and as churches, in our own particular situations.

Corrie said...

Kristen,

You are correct. In Luke 7, Jesus was invited to a Pharisee's (Simon) home. That is the passage where the sinful woman comes and anoints His feet with her tears and dries them with her hair.

The Pharisee upbraided Jesus, in his mind, because if He was a true prophet He would have known what a wretch this woman truly was.

"Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”"

Jesus, of course, knew this was all going to happen and took the time to accept the invitation as an opportunity to teach.

I understand what you are saying about keeping things pleasant and not knowing if you could in certain circumstances.

I guess it makes me think a little deeper about this issue.

I also think that being a woman would probably be even more difficult in these situations with some since they believe a woman should remain silent and not discuss theology (lest she be thought of as teaching) with men. A man might be able to get away with a bit of "unpleasant" discussion but a woman? She would probably be considered uppity, not in her place and the men would take her husband aside and talk with him about getting her back in her place where she belongs.

In fact, that has happened to me. I have approached issues where there is oppression (ie., spousal abuse, molestation of a child, etc) and the elders are trying to keep it quiet and are protecting the abuser and have been met with spurious comments about being a female. But, when there is no man in sight to protect those who are being abused, I had to confront the issue on behalf of the abused parties.

It has also happened to me when having, what I thought, was an amicable discussion about theology. There have been men who have been offended that I would dare join in the conversation.

And, trying to discuss the issue of racism with Christian racists has only gotten me labeled with some pretty horrible names. I can't use the name one racist gave me (it is very inappropriate and vulgar) but he basically called me a lesbian. And then there is always the "F" word (feminist) that gets flung around by most subordinationists whenever you try and discuss the issue of gender "roles" with them.

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

Corrie: You are not alone.

From Under Much Grace Blog [Cindy Kunsman]:

How Do You Study the Bible After Someone Has Bludgeoned You With It? Cognitive Dissonance and Bible Study Following Spiritual Abuse Part I
Okay, there’s my plug for Sunday school and Missionettes, so I guess that the aberrant FIC folk will now say that I was “trained by Socialists?” (Voddie Baucham claims that Sunday school is Social Darwinism and therefore a great moral evil.) Here, I suppose, is the proof that I’m a Communist, feminist, lesbian and in a same-sex marriage with my husband because they consider me like a man because of my behavior! (Doug Phillips, Russell Moore and others in the hard complementarian camp call their female critics lesbians and variants thereof, both to insult and to terrorize their followers from reading “lesbian material” that will corrupt and infect them.)

Kristen said...

Yes, Corrie-- and this is why it would be much more of a challenge for you or me to eat with Dr. Patterson than it is for Wade. At least Dr. Patterson does not look at Wade as someone of inferior station.

I hear you about your treatment by certain men. It's happened to me, too. And they are convinced that their superior attitude towards me is no sin, while my desire to be treated simply as fully human (not superior to them, just equal), is sin.

As for racists-- up here in the Northwest they are afraid to make their views public, so I've never had such a discussion.

Christiane said...

I agree with Kristen that there is no 'dichotomy' between Christ and anything in Scripture.

The Word IS Christ.
He is the central focus of all Scripture. And the Gospels are the 'heart' of Scripture because they focus on Him.

The teachers in the Scriptures could never 'change' the importance or the pre-eminance of anything Christ did or said.

Nor would they.
The 'change' comes from how the teacher's inspired writings are interpreted by men who do not use the lens of Christ.
Therein lies the cause of much trouble. When Dr. Klouda was abused, the Bible was cited as justification for her treatment. Some verses were mentioned. They were interpreted and acted on without regard for the Lord of the Gospel Who commands us to love one another as He has loved us.

Whichever way you slice it, anytime the Scriptures are used to break Christ's commandments, you have seen a violation of the Word.

St. Paul and Christ are not 'on the same level'. St. Paul's writings do not 'supercede' the actions and the Words of Our Lord.
The only 'conflict' lies in the interpretations of those who seek excuses to justify walking away from the great commandment of Christ to love.

Lydia said...

"Yes, Corrie-- and this is why it would be much more of a challenge for you or me to eat with Dr. Patterson than it is for Wade. At least Dr. Patterson does not look at Wade as someone of inferior station."

Kristen, It would be a challenge for me too. And not based soley on his view of women but on his 30 year long rap sheet of targeting people under the guise of doctrine and throwing them under the bus.

At what point do we say to a 'Christian brother' that he does not act like a Christian brother? And wouldn't it be loving to do so?

Let us not forget he is paid by offerings to model such things to future pastors. But they have had such modeling as his dismissal of Gilyards victims of sexual molestation and his treatment of Dr. Klouda to emulate as integrity?

Lydia said...

St. Paul and Christ are not 'on the same level'. St. Paul's writings do not 'supercede' the actions and the Words of Our Lord.
The only 'conflict' lies in the interpretations of those who seek excuses to justify walking away from the great commandment of Christ to love.

Fri Jan 22, 03:12:00 PM 2010

In other words, What Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5 is not Inspired. OR, Paul did not really mean the church should kick out the unrepentent sinning brother because Jesus would never do such a thing.

Kristen said...

Lydia, I think that what Christiane meant was more, if there is an obscure passage in Paul that is hard to interpret, interpret in the light of Christ's teachings. If Paul appears in conflict with Christ, the interpretation is wrong. Christ's words are to be given the most interpretive weight.

I don't think she was saying Christ's words negated Paul's.

Christiane said...

Kristen, thank you for explaining that to Lydia.

Lydia said...

"Lydia, I think that what Christiane meant was more, if there is an obscure passage in Paul that is hard to interpret, interpret in the light of Christ's teachings. If Paul appears in conflict with Christ, the interpretation is wrong. Christ's words are to be given the most interpretive weight."

I am confused. Is that 1 Corin 5 passage hard to interpret? Paul advised them to do that so the person COULD be saved. I must be missing something. Can you tell me what it is?

And you were right on in your comment above about the difference in it being a church. And that is where the difficulty rises...defining what is the Body of Christ in these situations.

In the lawsuit, Patterson said the seminary was a church and therefore Klouda could not teach men Hebrew. Then we have the entire local church autonomy situation where if a church corporately decides to protect the pedophile, then it must be ok.

According to what I am understanding about what Christiane is saying is that Patterson should be given a pass for what he did to Klouda and that his behavior could be considered that of integrity and good character. That seems to be what she is arguing.

Love means never having to repent or face any consequences?

Christiane said...

"That seems to be what she is arguing."

No. It isn't.

Kristen said...

My impression was that Christiane was arguing against an interpretation of 1 Cor 5 that would be, "no believer can ever eat with another believer if the first believer believes the second believer to be in any kind of sin."

The passage about Christ eating with the Pharisee helps us interpret Paul's teachings in a way that avoids that extreme. That's all.

Lydia said...

My impression was that Christiane was arguing against an interpretation of 1 Cor 5 that would be, "no believer can ever eat with another believer if the first believer believes the second believer to be in any kind of sin."

The passage about Christ eating with the Pharisee helps us interpret Paul's teachings in a way that avoids that extreme. That's all.

Fri Jan 22, 05:05:00 PM 2010

But Paul even gives us a list and makes it clear he is talking about one who calls himself a 'brother' yets lives in that sin.

..it is not for any sin at all or we could not take the Lord's supper together.

Kristen said...

Lydia said:

"But Paul even gives us a list and makes it clear he is talking about one who calls himself a 'brother' yets lives in that sin.

..it is not for any sin at all or we could not take the Lord's supper together."

Ok, this is true, Lydia-- but what I was getting at, is that Christ's eating with the Pharisee (a religious leader) can shed some light on how far Paul meant his teaching to go. I maintain that Paul was talking about a church as a group, cutting someone off from fellowship (including eating with that person), but not that no believer can ever eat with another religious person, even a religious leader, if the believer believes the other person is in one of those sins.

That's what Christiane and I were talking about in terms of Christ's actions informing us as to how to interpret Paul's teachings. (Of course, there's also the context of Paul's letter itself, to give us added information.)

Debbie Kaufman said...

Love doesn't mean not letting someone face consequences but it does mean that we don't abandon him/her while they are going through those consequences. That we hold them up in prayer, and we wrap our arms around that person, weeping over them.

Debbie Kaufman said...

We don't jump up and down because they are dealing with the consequences.

reagan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

You cannot use 1 Corinthians 5 for every sin or when you are angry at someone and be interpreting this passage properly in my opinion.

What was the sin Paul was speaking of specifically. The sin of fornication. Not every sin or just because you are angry at someone. This needs to be seen when interpreting the text.

Paul was saying that this particular sin was so serious that it warranted church discipline. Fornication not every single sin.

Tom Kelley said...

Christiane said...
Hi TOM KELLEY,

Do you really believe that the Spirit of God had to 'act on' Christ ?


I didn't use those words, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. I can say that the Spirit of God did, in a sense, "act on" Christ (Luke 4:18, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.")

But if you are asking if I think that Paul and Jesus were "on the same level", my answer is, of course not. Jesus is divine, sinless, and impeccable;, Paul was none of those. But I do believe that their teachings are from the same God, are equally the Word of God, and they never conflict.

It seemed possible that someone might think that you were pitting the two against each other, so I made my comment to clarify that what they both said was God's Word. It's important to remember that the only record we have of Jesus' teachings comes to us through the writings of the apostles and their close associates. The writings of Paul are no more or less the Word of God than the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (including the "red letters" words).

We just need to understand both Jesus and Paul correctly. I think that's basically the same as you were saying when you wrote "The only 'conflict' lies in the interpretations of those who seek excuses to justify walking away from the great commandment of Christ to love."

Christiane said...

Hi DEBBIE,

I love how you this: "Love doesn't mean not letting someone face consequences but it does mean that we don't abandon him/her while they are going through those consequences. That we hold them up in prayer, and we wrap our arms around that person, weeping over them."

DEBBIE, that is SO BEAUTIFUL !



I once wrote this down and filed it away, so I will share this today. Maybe it will help someone who doesn't know what the strength and power of their own Christian love for another can do:

" Ideas for helping someone in trouble:

Let them know that they are more important to you than their offenses. We are told that God loved us and sent His Son while we were still sinners. Can we be more severe in condemning a sinner than our Creator was with us, and justify it ?

Be someone who listens to them. Just listen. People in trouble need so much for someone to listen. Does the Lord not listen to us when we need to talk with Him in our trouble?

Ask if you can help them in some way to overcome their trouble, as a Christian friend. Tell them you will ‘tuck them in your sleeve' and keep them before God in prayer, until help comes to them.

As a mother would care for a child who had done something very, very wrong, know that they may not be able understand everything yet. But they will.
Be there for them.
In the Lord's time, He will help them. He will not abandon them.
You mustn't either.

These are some basics that what we can do for someone who is in trouble. And the worst trouble in the kind of sin that has turned them away from Our Lord.
Our care for them will help turn their faces towards the Lord once again. We must be patient and loving, in the time of their brokeness.
I suggested these ideas because when people don’t know what to do for someone who is in trouble, they might not understand how much their loving care can to help ‘melt the frozen places’ in a sinner’ heart

The Holy Spirit guides , when we feel the call to serve someone in trouble. He gives us care over them, in their broken-ness. We are His servants, and theirs."

Thy Peace said...

1 Corinthians 5:1-5:

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man has his father's wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the sinful nature [a] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Tom Kelley said...

Christiane,
I might have more readily agreed with your comment had it been "I am reminded about how much more difficult it is to live in immitation of Lord Christ than to follow what some people think to be the teachings of St. Paul."

Is that perhaps what you meant?

Christiane said...

Thank you, TOM KELLEY, for clarifying. I appreciate your response.
Love, L's

P.S. I did not know what your understanding was about the Holy Trinity. There seems to be a lot of different opinions about that doctrine. Thanks agian. :)

Kristen said...

Debbie Kaufman said,

"Paul was saying that this particular sin was so serious that it warranted church discipline. Fornication not every single sin."

Well, the list he actually gave goes in my translation like this (1 Cor 5:11): "sexually immoral, greedy, idolators, slanderers, drunkards or swindlers."

I'm not at all sure that Paul meant those and only those sins. He doesn't mention murder, for instance, or violence or cruelty. I think he mentions these particular sins as examples of a certain level of unrepented, habitual sin in a person's life. Did he mean the church had to disfellowship someone who spoke lies about someone else, but not someone who murdered someone else? Did he mean a church couldn't disfellowship a spouse abuser or a child abuser? I don't think so.

But I agree with you and Christiane completely about continuing as individuals to love and communicate with our loved ones, even if they are in serious sin.

Tom Parker said...

Wade:

I think something PP lost sight of years ago is that cooperation is possible without everyone believing the way he does.

PP has been the driving force behind the way women are viewed in the SBC for quite some time and sadly there are some that do not believe he has gone far enough yet as it relates to women.

Lydia said...

We don't jump up and down because they are dealing with the consequences.

Fri Jan 22, 06:45:00 PM 2010

I wasn't aware anyone was inferring that. So, I don't really understand where you are coming from. I doubt that even victims of cruelty from other Christians would jump up and down if there were consequences. It is serious stuff and should be sobering for us all.

RRR said...

Corrie said: "Jesus, of course, knew this was all going to happen and took the time to accept the invitation as an opportunity to teach."

Did He "know this was all going to happen"?

Rex Ray said...

Kevin Crowder,
On Sunday Jan 17, I wrote, “Kevin, sometimes you can say (my opinion) the dumbest things.”

I was replying to your comment:

“Simple black clergy robes. Hides the man behind the Word. Hides the man from the thoughts of the people. Eliminates the appearance of evil. Places the focus back in what is important.” Fri Jan 15, 04:52:00 PM 2010

I wrote quite a bit, but lost it when my computer went blank. I never rewrote or posted.

Patterson practices the good philosophy of:

“It’s better to let people think you’re a fool than open your mouth and prove it.”

I’d like for you to reply to Believer 333 and Tom Kelley.

Your “I report, you decide” causes me to change “dumbest” to “Et tu Brutus?”

Debbie Kaufman said...

Lydia: Just read the statement as written. There was no motive or accusation other than a warning. If this is not what you are doing, then it would not apply to you. But, there are those who do jump up and down. I've read it, I've seen it. That is where I am "coming from".

I do wonder what is happening in our denomination at times. I have read of a Baptist pastor who killed his wife and another who molested two boys. Both have been arrested. If we are as great and spiritual as we think we are, with emphasis only on exact right theology, why are people like this slipping through? I think we have some inner self examinations to do.

Lydia said...

I do wonder what is happening in our denomination at times. I have read of a Baptist pastor who killed his wife and another who molested two boys. Both have been arrested. If we are as great and spiritual as we think we are, with emphasis only on exact right theology, why are people like this slipping through? I think we have some inner self examinations to do.

Sat Jan 23, 12:03:00 PM 2010

Deb, From what I am reading here, their sins are not that big of a deal. And we know they are not that big of a deal to the SBC as a whole or Matt Baker would not have been hired and promoted so many times when his sexual perversion had been reported several times by victims.

I still have not figured out how Patterson could do all the things he has done over the years and all the victims in his wake to be considered a man of integrity and character.

Maybe you could explain to me why we think it is normal for a brother in Christ to hurt other Christians for so long and consider that person to have integrity and good character.

Are only murder and molestation to be considered sinful? Seems to me, it is easier to ignore the real bad stuff when we can think someone like Patterson and what he did to Klouda and Gilyard's victims and has lived high off the hog on SBC offerings for so long can be considered to be a man of intergrity and character. Sin has been dumbed down to the point it has to be heinous to get our attention.

Remember, Patterson told Gilyards victims he did not believe them. It all starts there.

Lydia said...

"Lydia: Just read the statement as written. There was no motive or accusation other than a warning. If this is not what you are doing, then it would not apply to you. But, there are those who do jump up and down. I've read it, I've seen it. That is where I am "coming from"."


Debbie, I think you infer such things on purpose. Next time, why not name names so we can know and adjust accordingly? Or, as Wade suggested, contact that person in private to point it out that you think they are gleeful over other peoples consequences of sin.

linda said...

Ok, I have returned to the fold of the SBC.

And I have a question.

Just when did Jesus abdicate His role as Lord over the church?

And just when did the Bible cease to be our sole rule of faith and practice?

And when did salvation by grace get replaced by salvation by keeping the law?

And whatever happened to soul competency?

Ok, so I had more than one question.

Oh boy. I think I'm gonna be in trouble.

No. I will live what I believe. I will graciously be nice to those who believe differently. And hopefully, if I live grace, that will preach Jesus so much louder than all the gracekillers' statements of rule and statements of faith foisted upon us.

And someday, God willing, we will truly be Baptists again.

Wade Burleson said...

Linda,

Well done.

Welcome back. We need people like you in the SBC.

Your articulate defense of historic Baptist beliefs is needed.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Debbie and Lydia,

The murder trial last week and eventual conviction of the SBC pastor for murdering his wife is sickening. I want to publicly thank Christa Brown for her work in keeping us all informed on this issue. I am familiar with the Gilyard case, and have written extensively about it. Likewise, the Klouda case. I have only become recently aware of the details of this Waco murder case.

I agree with Lydia that when the treatment received by Sheri Klouda is ignored by her superiors, it makes it easier and easier to ignore other things.

This murder in Waco, however, is absolutely sickening. Particularly when you read the transcripts of the witness statements (the pastors' girlfriend) and victim statements at the time of the convicted murderer's sentencing.

Unbelievable.

Somebody really high up in the SBC needs to issue some kind of statement that takes responsibility for letting this pastor slip through the cracks when attempted rape and other sexual crimes were reported to religious authorities, but nothing was done to him.

You wonder if those of us in a position to do something to stop people like this from advancing in the SBC, but don't do anything to if we become acclompices to murder. I'm trying with motions for a data base for those ministers credibly accused or convicted of sexual misconduct, but I don't know where to turn now.

Wade

Jack said...

Linda

Can you share what Baptist church or convention that has stated that

1) Jesus is no longer Lord over the church

2) The Bible is no longer our sole source for authority

3) Salvation is by keeping the OT Law

4) Soul competency is not a valid, biblical doctrine and has been replaced with something else

I to welcome you back to the SBC.

Jack

Jack said...

Wade

Can you OP on the Waco murder? I to am unaware of the details. I believe the issues you bring up and the questions are grist for the mill of discussion. Get us up to date and post and lets discuss it!

Jack

Jack said...

Tom

You seem to have some info on how far the current leadership of the SBC wants to go in reference to the role of women. Fill us in brother! What else is there that they want to go even farther than PP's position?

Jack

Thy Peace said...

All the below links are from Stop Baptist Predators [Christa Brown]:

Excerpts from the Matt Baker murder trial.

Guilty! Jury says pastor murdered wife.

It shouldn't take a murder.

Tom Parker said...

Jack:

You asked me:"Tom

You seem to have some info on how far the current leadership of the SBC wants to go in reference to the role of women. Fill us in brother! What else is there that they want to go even farther than PP's position?

Jack"

It would be updating the 2000 BF&M to further spell out the limited roles of women in the SBC.

I sure hope that I am proven wrong.

Lydia said...

"You wonder if those of us in a position to do something to stop people like this from advancing in the SBC, but don't do anything to if we become acclompices to murder. I'm trying with motions for a data base for those ministers credibly accused or convicted of sexual misconduct, but I don't know where to turn now."

WARNING: I am not accusing Patterson of murder.

BUT...What is the difference between the leaders/pastors/administrators that knew about Baker's sexual proclivities and ignored them and Patterson ignoring Gilyard's victims? One public word about Gilyard back in the day when this started would have ended his ability to pastor.

(BY the way, the very secular YMCA fired Baker over this but churches, seminaries, etc did not)

So, what is the difference? That is where you start. Not giving them a pass for knowing and not saying a word until so much damage is done. In the instance of Baker, it ended in murder. For Gilyard, prison. But so many thrown under the bus in the meantime.

That, and many other things, are the reasons I do not believe we can sweep so much under the rug and claim Patterson has integritry. It is like stomping on the victims all over again.


Does this mean I hate Patterson? Not at all. He is one of many who have ignored or even protected perverts in the SBC. But he is very much admired by many young men who are learning from his deeds.

happy gram said...

"If I am a theologian I am one to the extent I have learned to duck when the small, haughty doctrines fly overhead, dropping their loads of whitewash at random on the faces of those who look toward Heaven.......Christmas night and Easter morning are this soil's only laws." (Wendell Berry "Leavings")

Jack said...

Tom

Is that just your opinion or do you have something more substantive to offer as proof of your allegation?

Jack

Jack said...

The subtle allegation that PP had any thing to do with this so called pastor is simply not true. I understand that you are only trying to draw a comparison in process and philosophy, however PP had no contact with this guy. This guy came out of the moderate camp (that is no indictment on the moderate camp at all) PP is a whole other universe than the Baylor/Truett community

Rev. said...

"Somebody really high up in the SBC needs to issue some kind of statement that takes responsibility for letting this pastor slip through the cracks when attempted rape and other sexual crimes were reported to religious authorities, but nothing was done to him."

First, Matt Baker should receive capital punishment.

Second, Baker was a BGCT pastor. Crossroads Baptist Church, where he served, is not an SBC congregation. It isn't listed as being affiliated with the SBC.

Wade Burleson said...

Rev,

The BGCT is SBC.

Jack said...

Wade

Not every BGCT church is affiliated with the SBC, you know that. It is a very difficult thing indeed to try to tie the two together and any attempt to do so takes away from the serious nature of this subject matter. Lets deal with the issue instead of some using it to attack the SBC.

Rev. said...

Wade:
Not quite. I've been in Texas for 20 years and seen the battles over Baylor, funding/de-funding SWBTS, the formation of Truett and Logsdon, the formation of the SBTC, the BGCT taking over endorsing responsibilities for chaplains, etc. Many congregations who were once affiliated with the SBC are no longer so. Crossroads is no longer listed as an SBC congregation. Don't know how long that has been the case, but it is. Nevertheless, perhaps it would be better to say that we as Baptists - regardless of whether SBC, CBF, etc. - all need to take the steps necessary to guard against such heinous acts.

Rex Ray said...

Wade said…
“The problem in our SBC churches is not the lack of integrity or character of its people; the problem is an ideology that does not allow you to return phone calls and sit down at supper with those who disagree with you.”

Why is it no one on the blog wants to discuss this same problem with Early Christians?

If we could see their problem, we could learn from their mistakes, and NOT repeat them!

To believe they had NO problems is to stick your head in the sand.

The IDEOLOGY of the Christian Jew for Christian Gentiles to “sit down at supper with” them:

“Was the Holy Spirit’s decision and ours…that you abstain from
[1] food offered to idols,
[2] blood,
[3] eating anything that has been strangled,
[4] sexual immorality.”
(Acts:15:18 Holman)

The IDEOLOGY of Patterson & Co. for Southern Baptist to “sit down at supper with” them requires:

(1) Signing BFM 2000.
(2) Believing inerrancy.
(3) Being One of Us. (C/R)
(4) NOT asking WHY.

In my opinion, Wade’s problem with the ideology of Paterson started with numbers 3 and 4, and now includes 1.

Paul’s problem with “milk Christians” was numbers 1, 2, and 3.

It took about 200 years for the “milk” Christians to start baptizing babies for salvation.

Wonder how long before “One of Us” joins them?

Rex Ray said...

Wade said… “Rev, the BGCT is SBC.”
Rev. said…Wade: Not quite…”

I’d add to Rev’s “Not quite” the numbers 1, 2, 3, & 4 of my previous comment. Also supported ‘fired missionaries’ and joined the BWA that SBC withdrew from.

You see, the SBC accepts our money, but not us since we are prohibited from being missionaries, seminary teachers, or holding positions in the SBC.

Something like, ‘Taxation without representation’ that started the Boston Tea Party.

I believe without the love we have for our missionaries, we’d left long ago.

I wish the C/R had gotten their own name instead of stealing the name SBC.



Jack,
You asked Linda: “Can you share what Baptist church or convention has stated…the Bible is no longer our soul source for authority?”

The SBC SS literature has:

“The 2000 statement of the Baptist Faith and Message is our doctrinal guideline.”

Would you not agree that a guideline for doctrine is another source for authority?

In fact, I believe a ‘guideline’ takes preference OVER material being read. Which would mean the BFM is HIGHER than the Bible.

Note there is no smiley face.

Wade Burleson said...

Jack and Rev.

The SBC is composed of churches who give a minimum contribution to either the Cooperative Program, Lottie Moon or other Mission offerings. Unless messengers are refused a seat at the Southern Baptist Convention in June, every incorporated Baptist church who meets this minimum standard is recognized as a SBC church.

Blessings to you both.

Wade

Lydia said...

The subtle allegation that PP had any thing to do with this so called pastor is simply not true. I understand that you are only trying to draw a comparison in process and philosophy, however PP had no contact with this guy. This guy came out of the moderate camp (that is no indictment on the moderate camp at all) PP is a whole other universe than the Baylor/Truett community

Sat Jan 23, 11:10:00 PM 2010

You did miss the point by `100 miles. Some of Bakers victims went to Christian leaders who ignored them. This went on for years.

Some of Gilyard's victims went to Patterson (his mentor) and he ignored them. Even insulted them. And of course Steve Gaines, who protected a pedophile minister, was invited to speak at SWBTS chapel right after it all came out. What message was that sending to victims?

Wade was asking where to start. I said start there. Start holding leaders accountable who blow off victims of sexual abuse accusations and protect or promote those who are accused or those who protect abusers.

They did nothing but sweep it under the carpet for the sake of image. They were not neutral and decided not to believe the victim enough to seriously investigate. So, they cause more and more victims.

Either it is a heinous sin or it isn't. What is more, it is even worse when the perp is influential and has power. It is a breach of trust. Why go along with that?

Not to mention that the perp is a fraud in the pulpit and the leaders are backing frauds.

There is NO difference between how the moderate camp handles sexual abuse cases and how the conservative camp handles them.Ask Christa Brown as she has been tracking these things for years. It is something you all have in common with the liberals.

Ironically, they are on the same page in this. Is that conservative or liberal in thinking? I wonder?

Jack, you show us the biggest hurdle in this problem. If more folks would be outraged at ignored victims instead of making excuses for those who have the power and bully pulpit to speak out against them then they would not dare sweep this stuff under the rug.

If it meant they might lose their leadership position, they would take every single victim at least seriously enough to call in the civil authorities to investigate or even encourage the victims to call the civil authorities.

Lydia said...

Places where Baker worked:

•Baylor University


•First Baptist Church of Waco


•Columbus Avenue Baptist Church


•First Baptist Church of Robinson


•the YMCA (which reportedly fired him)


•Truett Seminary at Baylor (as a student)


•Pecan Grove Baptist Church


•Williams Creek Baptist Church


•First Baptist Church of Riesel


•Northlake Baptist Church in Dallas


•Waco Center for Youth (where his clergy credentials allowed him to work as a chaplain with emotionally disturbed youth!!!)


•Crossroads Baptist Church


•Baptist Student Union at Schreiner College

Lydia said...

Jack, another interesting item is that Tiffany Croft, a victim of Gilyard, had her blog subpeoned by Brunson, too. Why? Her name is on it.

http://tiffanycroft.blogspot.com/

Tiffany has been so very careful and walked on eggshells trying to get some justice for the victims and get him out of the pulpit. She has been malgined and treated horribly. Why did Brunson go after her blog with a subpeona?

Corinne said...

This is exactly the reason we are leaving our SBC church. The people are wonderful, likeable people, but they refuse to engage in conversation on issues that we disagree on (women in ministry being the biggest issue). My parents both were SBC missionaries in the late 80's and left when Kenneth Parks resigned b/c of the fundamentalist takeover.
I'd also put forth that another reason for this fundamentalist takeover is a general appathetic attitudes.e that church parishoners have towards convention matters. Most of our friends at church could care less about what happens with the convention and show little to no interest in where their money goes and what it supports.

Debbie Kaufman said...

The Darrell Gilyards were allowed to stay and shine in the SBC, as well as these two men that I mentioned, yet a Hebrew professor who happened to be a woman was fired for being a woman.

What woman has had a sexual or murderous scandal in the SBC? Yet the hot debate isn't the murders and sexual predators in the SBC but a woman teaching or preaching to men. And we are so spiritual? Right with God? What is wrong with this picture?

Wade Burleson said...

Corinne,

I do believe, in just a few years, the SBC will do a 180 on several tertiary issues and become far more concerned about difficult, challenging issues like protecting congregations from sexual predators.

Debbie,

Spot on.

Jack Maddox said...

Lydia

I hear you passion and quite frankly I agree with you on much of what has been said. You do not know me nor do you have any earthly idea my personal experience in this area and how I handled it, so be careful before you lump me in some barrel simply because you think you know what I am thinking. I was simply trying to make the point that PP is not linked to Baker...that was my only purpose.

Do not for one instance think my personal regards or respect for someone means that I agree whole heartedly with every facet of their ministry. No where have I "made an excuse' for anyone in this whole sordid mess

Jack

Jack Maddox said...

Wade

There are many Baptist church's in Texas that would disagree with your criteria. You try to tell them they are SBC and they will send you back across the Red River brother! These church's have not given a dime to the SBC in years and are still members of the BGCT.

You know this

Jack

Jack Maddox said...

Rex

That is a HUGE straw man brother and you know it. The mention of the BFM 2000 as a guideline in no way replaces the Bible. Jump in the pool of reality Rex, the water is fine.

Jack

Lydia said...

"Do not for one instance think my personal regards or respect for someone means that I agree whole heartedly with every facet of their ministry. No where have I "made an excuse' for anyone in this whole sordid mess"

That is great, Jack. But remember, the silence by many and the affirmations keep them in power to continue. I have heard that Brunson is slated to preach at the SBC Pastors Conference. I wonder who thought that was a good idea considering his behavior over the past year?

Rev. said...

So if you asked David Currie and Russell Dilday if they are Southern Baptists (not if they were), how would they answer?

Nonetheless, the essential point is this - no "side" (or group of Baptists) is clean in this whole mess. Everyone needs to act in a way to safeguard the ministers and members of Baptist congregations.

Tom Parker said...

Jack M:

You said to Rex Ray:"Rex

That is a HUGE straw man brother and you know it. The mention of the BFM 2000 as a guideline in no way replaces the Bible. Jump in the pool of reality Rex, the water is fine.

Jack"

Tell me how having to sign a sheet of paper saying you agree with the 2000 BF&M to even teach a Seminary Extension course has not replaced the Bible with 2000 BF&M?

They were not asked to sign a Bible but this document.

My, how the SBC continues to fall in the hands of FUNDAMENTALIST!!

Jack said...

Rev

Spot on!

Tom

Requiring a signature on a CONFESIONAL document is not the same thing as placing it's authority over the Bible. Baptist have been and are a CONFESSIONAL people. Let me be clear, I am not big on having people "sign' anything, but to state that many churches have replaced the bible with the BFM is again because of denominational confessional agreement is, well. simply WRONG.

Jack

Rex Ray said...

Jack Maddox,
Thank you! You’re an example of the parable of two sons. One son said he would not, but he did. (Matthew 21:29)

You said you would not talk to me, but you did. Even if we disagree, I thank you.

When someone asks a question but there’s no response, it’s like being snubbed. Non response to “hello” might involve ‘persecution’ or better yet – ‘imitating Patterson’.

But, to the discussion.

First, let’s agree on the definition of ‘guideline’. Google’s Webster says:

“Guideline is a formal rule describing how a situation must be handled – used as a direction to administrators from superiors.”

Oooo, I’ll bet “from superiors” makes egos of some feel good. And “must be handled” sounds like an order with authority.

You said that I know it’s a straw man in my saying “the BFM as a guideline replaces the Bible.”

How do you know what I know? In fact, I do know the BFM replaces the Bible by quoting the BFM:

The Bible is ‘silent’ if a woman can be a pastor, but the BFM rises above the Bible by saying, “The officer of pastor is limited to men.”

I mean, superiors have made their guideline to support their creed - Nebuchadnezzar has spoken.

The old Conventions of Texas and Virginia; and many other Southern Baptists have said “Our only guideline/creed is the Bible.”

As others have said, ‘On that I stand – I can do no other.’


Tom Parker,
Great point.

Rex Ray said...

Jack, (Not Maddox)
I’m glad you did not reply to my question to you (Sun Jan 24, 07:59:00 AM) if it’s your habit to put words in people’s mouths as you did Tom Parker.

Tom said:
“Tell me how having to sign a sheet of paper saying you agree with the 2000 BF&M to even teach a Seminary Extension course has not replaced the Bible with 2000 BF&M?
They were not asked to sign a Bible but this document. My, how the SBC continues to fall in the hands of FUNDAMENTALIST!!”

Jack, you said Tom said:
“To state that many churches have replaced the bible with the BFM is again because of denominational confessional agreement is, well. simply WRONG.”

Jack, I believe you got some of that sentence mixed up, so I’ll delete some. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Jack, you said Tom said:
“To state that many churches have replaced the bible with the BFM is simply WRONG.”

Tom didn’t even use the word “churches”.

Would you please explain?

BTW, if you choose to reply to people’s comments, would you put quotes around their words?

I realize I broke this rule when I replied to Jack Maddox. I wrote:

“You said you would not talk to me…”

To put his words in quotes would be:

“Sorry rex, but I am breaking up with you. That’s right…no more talkie talkie.”

Sorry, Jack Maddox…the devil made me do it. :)

Tom Parker said...

Rex Ray:

It is sad that the Fundamentalist do not want to even think about how their narrowness is quickly destroying the SBC.

To not be allowed to teach a course at a local Southern Baptist Extension Center because you will not sign a document agreeing to the 2000 BF&M shows to me the limits that some are willing to go to shut others out. I only ask when will it stop.

Rex Ray said...

Tom,
I wish I knew. I'm afraid it's going to take a lot of funerals, but I won't be around to see them.

The same with the government as shown by today’s news:

Washington (CNN) -- Nearly three out of four Americans think that at least half of the money spent in the federal stimulus plan has been wasted, according to a new national poll.

To sumerise the leaders of the SBC and our president, I’d say, “They don’t have a clue.”

Jack said...

Rex

"Jack Maddox" and "Jack" are the same person, namely...ME. I post from my Macbook and my iMac. 2 different accounts. I realize that it confusing and will only use one account in the future...it is very confusing, not unlike your posts! LO! just kidding brother...kinda : )

Jack MADDOX aka Jack

Tom Parker said...

Rex Ray:

As you stated:"To sumerise the leaders of the SBC and our president, I’d say, “They don’t have a clue.”

To even try to bring to the attention of the leaders of need changes or what is truly wrong is to lose the possibility of a position in the SBC and too many men are unwilling to give the possibility of that up.

Fear appears to be a real motivator.

saxophone2002-google said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott Long said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
happy gram said...

just got to bring politics into it. off-task.

liz said...

I am new to this blog and as I read through all of the posts, something kept bothering me. It was the statemnt in the second to last paragraph-"...the status of women in the New Covenant, and other tertiery matters..."

Is the denial of the full redemption and full participation in the kingdom of God by half the human race really a tertiery matter? If it is, then maybe that is the real and bigger problem.

PP's view of women (along with others of his persuasion), is nothing short of robbery. We are talking about half of the kingdom of God being denied their full inheritance in God's kingdom.

I don't think this is a tertiery matter to the women who have been denied the opportunity to use the gifts that the Spirit has bestowed on them. It is not a tertiery matter to the women who have left the church in despair because there is no place for them. It is not a tertiery matter to the women who won't enter the kingdom because of fear (and shock that the God who made them sees them as less than worthy). And somehow, I don't think it is a tertiery matter to God. I think he is broken hearted over the treatment of his daughters.

How can the full redemption and participation of half of Christ's body be a tertiery matter? It is certainly essential to the salvation and sanctification of the women it affects.

I apologize in advance, if I have come across as harsh. I don't mean to. I have appreciated the coversation in this post and I realize that the post was primarily about eating with and being civil to those we disagree with, but this just seemed like the elephant in the room. I agree with you Wade, that the second commandment should guide us in all of our relationships which leads me to ask, in this matter of the status of women, are we loving others in the same way that we love ourselves?

Rex Ray said...

Liz,
I did not know what ‘tertiary’ meant until I read, “Primary stands for first stage of anything, secondary stands for second stage of anything, and tertiary stands for third stage of anything.”

I also did not know until ‘spell check’ that Wade and you have ‘tertiary’ spelled wrong.

Could Wade argue that a word spelled wrong lets him off the hook? – I thought not.

If Wade had used the word ‘secondary’, he would be absolute right because all things are secondary compared to ‘primary’ that saves us.

With that said, I agree 100% with what you wrote and the way you wrote it.


Jack Maddox,
Wouldn’t it been funny if I’d disagreed with one Jack and not with the other Jack? Could never have happened…Huh?

Where would ‘two birds with one stone’ come in here? :)

Jack said...

Both Jack's love you Ray and look forward to God straightening us both out!

: )

Jack and Jack

Rex Ray said...

Jacks,
Tired of my uncle and the preacher arguing doctrine, my aunt told them, “When y’all get to heaven; you’ll probably find out you’re both wrong!”

Wade Burleson said...

Liz,

I think I did not commicate clearly what I intended to say.

There are some in the SBC who label those who believe in the full equality of women as "heretics" or "liberals" or "feminists" etc .... and wish to shut them out of partication in missions and evangelism.

I am saying that disagreements over the Scriptures teaching regarding whether or not a woman can preach, teach a man, lead men, or have authority over a man should not be essential to our Christian fellowship - thus, a tertiary matter.

Wade

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
Primary stands for first stage of anything, secondary stands for second stage of anything, tertiary stands for third stage of anything, and quaternary for fourth stage.

You said, “-Thus, a tertiary matter.”

What makes the ‘subject’ third stage? Why not fourth stage (quaternary)?

Do you use a different definition of ‘tertiary’ than Webster?

Are you disagreeing that the ‘subject’ is not ‘secondary’? Or do you just not want people like me being armchair quarterbacks? :)

liz said...

Wade,

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you.