You Are Never Too Old, Nor Is It Ever Too Late, To Change

The old saying "you can't teach old dogs new tricks"--though possibly challenged as to its veracity by The Dog Whisperer--is a common assumption by most. Many feel that the older a person becomes, the less likely he will ever change. Cynicism only deepens when an older person faces imminent death and "comes to Christ." Many Christians feel that "jailhouse" or "fox-hole" conversions can't be real. Professed changes of character late in life, or minutes from death, seem to create cynicism.

But we who believe that the grace of God is often given in different seasons of life point to "the thief on the cross." Just hours before his death, he was converted to faith in Christ. However, even we who believe it's never too late to change don't fully understand the dramatic change that occurred in the thief within the last few hours of his death. We often point out that of the two thieves crucified beside Christ, one mocked Him and was condemned, and the other one believed on Him and was taken to paradise upon death. But we don't see how bad off both were in the last hours of their lives.

When both thieves were initially hung on the crosses beside Christ, BOTH mocked him. Mark 15:32 --

"And they that were crucified with him reviled him"

Something happened to one of the thieves. He who had mocked Christ at the 9:00 a.m. hour (Mark 15:32) came to the place by the afternoon where he rebuked the other thief for his mocking of Christ, saying:

Do you not fear God, seeing that you are experiencing the same condemnation? And we deserve our sentence of condemnation, a just punishment for our actions. But this man has done nothing wrong. Then he turned to Jesus and said, "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

The story of the TWO thieves on the cross, who both mocked Christ at the beginning of the crucifixion, is testimony to us all that one is never too old, nor is it ever too late, to change.

In His Grace,

Wade

To Question Our Leaders Is Not Only Morally Right, It Is the Essence of Christian Integrity

Nearly four years ago I wrote a post entitled The Cult of Personality in the SBC where I questioned how a large Southern Baptist Church in Florida could call a man who had repeatedly lied about his past to be their pastor. Steven Flockhart, pastor of FBC West Palm Beach, resigned his post after a secular newspaper revealed the lies he had told the pastor search committee. The resume of "Dr." Flockhart claimed he had several theological degrees, but the newspaper revealed he had fabricated all his educational credentials. Interestingly, in the very last line of Steven Flockhart's resume, there was this statement:

"(I) have been accepted at Liberty University to obtain a second doctorate."

When I initially read about his fabricated resume, I wondered if Pastor Flockhart was also lying about his enrollment at Liberty University. It seems The Palm Beach Post may have had similar questions. A reporter called to question Liberty's registrar's office about Flockhart's enrollment for a "second" doctorate. In an article published on August 26, 2006 The Palm Beach Post reported that the registrar's office initially said that they had never heard of Mr. Flockhart, but then they called the newspaper back later and said they had discovered that Flockhart was enrolled and had paid the registration fees directly to seminary President Ergun Caner. The paper then quoted a Liberty official:

"The pastor (Flockhart) is enrolled and has paid in advance," said Ron Godwin, executive vice president and CEO of Liberty University. He added, "I love those kind of students."

Granted, the Palm Beach Post could have misreported the initial response of Liberty, as well as the words of Ron Godwin, but the newspaper's published report caused many of us to ask several questions about what seemed to be a peculiar financial arrangement. While several of the financial questions were ultimately answered by Dr. Caner himself, there were two main questions that went unanswered at the time:

(1). Was Steven Flockhart enrolled in an actual doctorate program at Liberty University?
(2). If so, what safeguards were in place to prevent Liberty from accepting a doctoral student who had fabricated degrees?

Though questions to our Christian leaders may bring some discomfort, asking them is not a bad thing. It is not attacking someone's character. It is not assuming someone is evil or wicked. It is a legimitate process through which we Christians can hold each other accountable.

For example, Darrell Gilyard was a rising star among Southern Baptists. He preached at Pastors' Conferences, including the Southern Baptist Pastors' Conference in Las Vegas, and his eloquence in the pulpit was unmatched. However, it was discovered that his story of growing up homeless, sleeping underneath bridges, and being converted to Christ out of the rough streets of Jacksonville was all a lie. Baptist Press reported that the Dallas Morning News, in an exclusive July 28, 1991 story, reported that:

Gilyard actually was brought up in a comfortable north Florida home by a woman who reared him as if he were her son. The article included an interview with Barbara Davis, the 65-year-old Palatka woman who said she helped to rear Gilyard from age 8 months until he left home at age 19. The paper also reported Gilyard misrepresented his academic background; accepted a $10,000 "love offering" from Falwell's ministry under false pretenses; and lied about repeated traffic offenses and a suspended drivers license in Florida.

Gilyard is now in prison, not for lying, but for multiple sexual crimes. One wonders why Southern Baptists never asked the tough questions of Darrell Gilyard while he was a Southern Baptist and before he became involved in criminal behavior? Why does the secular press have to do what we ourselves seemed unwilling to do?

It's not hard for anyone to find story after story about Baptist pastors who have lied about their past. Baptist youth pastor Randy Lee Morrow lied about being in a biker gang. He lied about serving prison time. He lied about having terminal cancer. "I lied a lot more than I should have," he says. Why was there nobody asking the tough questions of Randy Lee Morrow?

Now some Christians are asking tough questions to Ergun Caner about the representations he has made to others about his past. These questions are not accusations--they are legitimate queries of a Christian brother to ensure accountability and integrity of Christian ministry. To ask them is not to accuse. To not ask them, however, is inexcusable--particularly when the words spoken publicly are those of Dr. Caner himself. There are some bloggers, like Peter Lumpkins, Tim Guthrie, and others who personally blister anyone who asks tough questions of Dr. Caner. One of these days they will learn that attacking the character of those who ask legitimate, tough questions of our leaders will only ultimately backfire on their intended purpose.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

When Child Training Leads to Abuse and Murder: Pearls of Wisdom for Concerned Parents

Butte County (California) District Attorney Mike Ramsey confirmed last Thursday that he is exploring a possible connection to a Web site that endorses "biblical discipline" to the murder of a seven year old girl. Kevin Schatz, 46, and his wife, Elizabeth Schatz, 42, were arraigned in Butte County Superior Court and could face two life terms in prison if convicted. The Schatzes were arrested Saturday morning, February 6, 2010 after their adopted daughter, Lydia, age 7, stopped breathing. She was subsequently pronounced dead. Her 11-year-old sister, Zariah Schatz, remains in critical condition at a Sacramento children's hospital, though she is showing some signs of recovery. The two were adopted at the same time with an infant girl, now 3, from the same African orphanage about three years ago.

Salon is reporting that the Schatzes followed closely the popular, child "training" practices of Michael and Debi Pearl. The teachings of the Pearls and their Tennessee-based No Greater Joy ministry, which brought in $1.8 million last year in sales of books, DVDs and the like, are widely known across many conservative Christian churches and home-schooling communities. The Pearls advocate a specific program of even-tempered "chastisement" designed to bring about total obedience -- even by infants -- to their sovereign parents. Their website proclaims "A length of quarter-inch plumbing supply line is a real attention-getter."

It is with such an instrument that sisters Lydia and Zariah were punished. The Pearls cannot be ultimately blamed for the death of Lydia, but there is a growing concern among Christian groups that the mindless following of Old Covenant discipline principles taught by the Pearls, based upon a Jewish covenantal system that ultimately called for the death of continuously rebellious children, is misleading many Christian parents.

For more information on this tragic murder one may read the following sites:

Tragedy in a Homeschooling Family
The Course of Our Lives
I Speak of the Unspeakable
A Terrible Event
When Parenting Kills
Does the End Justify the Means?
When Parenting Kills: An Update
Hold Them Down, Defeat Them Totally
Sharper Iron

History is the Prologue to the Future: The 1843 International Indian Council

This photograph of me was taken on Goat's Ridge on the eastern side of the Illinois River about 10 miles north of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. I've been speaking at FBC Tahlequah this week and Pastor Buddy Hunt and a few friends went touring with me through the historic area on Monday. Tahlequah is the capital of the Cherokee Nation, and beginning with the Trail of Tears in 1839, the city has played an important role in Oklahoma and United States history. When the Cherokees and four other "civilized" Indian tribes (Choctow, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole) were removed by the U.S. federal government from Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and other eastern states, they were forcibly marched to Oklahoma to live in the land given them by the United States "as long as the waters run." The U.S. would eventually break their promise after the five civilized tribes sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, but for two decades prior to 1861, the Indians had other problems of their own in Indian Territory.

When the largest number of Cherokees arrived in northeastern Oklahoma in 1839 at the end of their Trail of Tears, they discovered they weren't welcome by other Indians. The Osage Indians had fished and hunted the rivers and woods of northeastern Oklahoma for centuries, and other wild "Plainsmen" Indian tribes had hunted the land for migrant buffalo and other wild game and considered it their land. By 1844 the wars between the various Indian tribes were numerous and fierce. The United States government built and staffed a few forts in Indian Territory (Oklahoma) to try to protect the "civilized" Indians from the native Indians, but the troops were largely unsuccessful. If something wasn't done, and soon, the Indians would fight and kill themselves out of any meaningful existence. It was the Cherokee Indians who proposed what ultimately became the solution.

In September of 1843, the International Indian Conference was held in the capital square of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. It was, and is to this day, the largest official pow wow and peace conference among Indians held on this continent. The agreements that came out of this conference formed the basis for a lasting peace among the Indian various tribes. It just so happens, that an American artist named John Mix Stanley, had accompanied a couple of tribes to the 1843 conference. His painting of the event, entitled "International Indian Council," is displayed at Smithsonian American Art Museum.

One of these days, hopefully soon, there should be a similar conference among Southern Baptists. The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force has issued their report. It is a difficult challenge to find common agreement among Southern Baptists in 2010, and I commend them for trying. But as long as some groups see other groups as the enemy (and want them gone from the SBC), it will be difficult to focus on the Great Commission. No group is able to expand her mission while the focus and energy is on fighting tribes of the same heritage. Someone has said that history is the prologue to the future. I would be thrilled for Southern Baptists to model the Indian nations of 160 years ago and actually sit down together and come to some kind of mutual understanding for a peaceful co-existence.

Then, the Great Commission can come into focus.

In His Grace,

Wade

Walking Worthy: Graced People Live Gracious Lives

The Royal Law of Christ is to love one another as He loves us (John 13:34). The apostles wrote to followers of Christ to help us understand what a life characterized by agape love looks like. The Apostle Paul writes the first half of a letter (such as Romans, Ephesians, Galations, etc...) to help us comprehend God's incredible love for us, and then he uses the last half of the same letter to give specific steps on how we can love others like Christ has loved us. Through Paul's writings we better understand the vertical love we receive, as well as the horizontal love we give--fulfilling both elements of the Royal Law of Christ (Christ's love for us and our love for others). For preachers who do not see the significance of the Royal Law of love, there is the potentential to misinterpret certain New Testament passages, and as a result, burden hearers with unnecessary laws and expectations. For example, read the following verse from Paul's pen, translated in the King James Version:

Ephesians 4:1 -- I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called ...

Most Southern Baptists will hear preachers wax eloquent about what it means to "walk worthy." Usually it is interpreted to mean that Christians are to have quiet times, read the Bible diligently, attend church regularly, tithe, share your faith, live "godly" lives, and do all things for Christ really well. In other words, to "walk worthy" is interpreted to mean DOING well the things a Christian is supposed to DO in terms of religious activities. But is that what "walking worthy" as a Christian really means?

No, it is not. Paul uses the Greek axios, which is translated "worthy" in this passage, but translated "consistent" or "as becometh" in other New Testament passages. For example, in Philippians 1:27 Paul writes "Only let your conversation be as it becometh (axios) the gospel of Christ." Axios is the Greek word from which we get the English word "axiom" or "axiomatic." An axiom is something "that is widely accepted on its own merits." What Paul is saying is clear: I beg you--live the kind of life and be the kind of person that when someone observes you there is no doubt that the calling of God is on your life.

Take a look again at Ephesians 4:1 ---

I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called ...

Anytime you see the word "therefore" in Scripture you should ask "what is it there for?" Therefore is a connecting word, and you will never understand what follows the word until you know what was written before it. In the first three chapters of Ephesians Paul has been describing God's effectual call of us. What is true about a our salvation? Well, if one reads Paul's words in the first three chapters, one learns that God's calling of sinners is all of grace! God loved us when we were unlovely, died for us while we were His enemies, and effectually calls and regenerates us when we had no desire for Him. His call is pure, unmerited grace. After describing this gracious call of God, making his customary transition to articulate how we are to live in relation to others by writing :

"Let your life be as gracious as the gracious call which you have received" (Ephesians 4:1).

A Christian without graciousness may very well be a person without grace. One may declare he is a Christian, or one may profess before the world that Christ is His Lord, and not know Him as Lord and Savior. The axiom that Christ has saved us is lifestyle that is consistent with His calling of grace. We, too, are gracious people. We are different from the world. To put it simply: Graced people live gracious lives. If you cannot be gracious to people, then more than likely God has not been gracious to you.

Paul describes gracious living in the next few verses of Ephesians 4. Graced people "endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit" "Endeavor" could be translated "working hard," Notice, Christians are not called to create this unity, but to maintain it. Paul goes on to reveal five characteristics of a gracious Christian who endeavors to keep the unity of the Spirit:

(1). There is humility --- translated "lowliness" in the King James Version. Humility is the ability to be honest with oneself and about oneself. A humble person does not try to keep people from revealing his weaknesses, but is at the forefront of acknowledging his own faults and frailties.
(2). There is meekness --- could be translated "controlled strength." A meek person is one who has power under control. There is never any "exerting power" or "grasping authority," but rather, a spirit of servanthood toward people. Show me a pastor who is kind to the custodians, I will show you a pastor who isn't exerting authority.
(3). There is longsuffering --- could be translated "patient." This literally means a Christian should be willing to suffer long and be patient with others, in a manner similar to Christ's longsuffering for us.
(4). There is forbearance --- which means the willingness to "bear up" one another. When another Christian struggles we shoulder a burden for him .
(5). There is love --- the willingness to meet the needs of those around us with the kind of spirit that Paul describes in I Corinthians 13.

This is what it means to "walk worthy of your calling." God called you by His grace, and now you live consistent with your calling of grace. You live a gracious life. To be gracious does not mean you refuse to confront. You confront like Christ's confronts. You love like Christ loves. You care like Christ cares. You live unselfishly like Christ lives unselfishly. Your life, when observed, is an axiom of the truth of God's grace through Christ.

People see Christ in your life as much as your words.

In His Grace,

Wade

Jesus Fulfilled the Old Testament and Became a New Lawgiver Better than Moses

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" Matthew 5:17-18.

These two verses are sometimes used to prove that everything in the Old Testament (the Law and the Prophets) is as binding on Christians as it was binding on the Jews in the Old Covenant. From the Sabbath law written on the tablets of stone, to the “storehouse tithing” laws, to the discipline and punishment of rebellious children, to the dietary and civil laws in Leviticus--some say all of these biblical laws of the Old Covenant are as binding upon Christians as they were the Jews. Jesus, however, is clearly teaching just the opposite. Jesus reveals to His disciples how He came to fulfill (plerosai) the Old Testament (the Law and the Prophets). He then proceeds to boldly declare that "the Law" will pass away when "heaven and earth" pass away because the Law will have been completely fulfilled ("accomplished" NAS).

Western Christians think of "heaven and earth" as the sky and the terrestial ball we call earth. But when Jews would refer to the establishment and/or fall of governments or covenants, their prophets would employ the language of creation and/or destruction of "heaven and earth." For example, God describes His agreement with the Jews in the Old Covenant in this manner: "I have put my word in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of my hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are my people'" (Isaiah 51:16). The Old Testament prophets said God promised to destroy "the heavens and the earth" because Israel "broke my covenant" (Isaiah 24:5). "Heaven and earth" in the context of Isaiah's writing is not the literal heaven or the literal earth, but the Jewish economy and the Jewish age. Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians were all Jews, and they would be familiar with the "heaven and earth" language employed by prophets to describe the judgment of God on nations or ages.

The great theologian John Owen writes about Peter's prediction (pre-70 AD) in II Peter 3 regarding the end of the "heavens and earth:"

"I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state".

The early Christians clearly understood that God was coming in judgment to end "the Jewish age" (Matthew 24:3). Jesus plainly told His disciples that "not one stone" would be left upon the other at the Temple in Jerusalem. He said that "the Jewish age" would be destroyed, and He used language of the destruction of the "heavens and earth" (Matthew 24:29) as the nomenclature for the end of this Jewish age. Within a generation of Jesus speaking these words (Matthew 24:34), Jerusalem, the Temple, the age of the Jews, and the destruction of the "heavens and earth" occurred (in 70 AD), fulfilling the prophecies of Matthew 24 and Isaiah 24 regarding the end of the Jewish age. Thus, the LAW OF THE OLD COVENANT WAS ABOLISHED--precisely the way Jesus said it would be in Matthew 5:17-18, because "heaven and earth" (the Old Covenant) passed away. All the Old Testament laws (613) associated with Israel's covenant with God were now gone. Why? Because Christ had fulfilled them. He was the Anti-type, fulfilling the types. He was the Substance, predicted by the shadows. He fulfilled completely what the Law and the Prophets declared. Nobody disagrees that the idea of "the Law" passing away or being abolished, even for Christian Jews, would be a drastic change for the age in which they lived. For "the Law" to pass away means there would be no more Temple, no more feasts, no more sacrifices--the world as the Jews knew it would be forever different. But it had to pass away--because Jesus fulfilled it.

Summary: When God established His covenant with the Jews, He described it as the establishment of "heaven and earth" (Isaiah 51:16). When Israel broke their covenant with God through unfaithfulness to His Law, God described the impending judgment as the destruction of "heaven and earth" (Isaiah 24, Matthew 24, II Peter 3). The destruction of "heaven and earth" occurred in 70 AD when the Temple and the Jewish age were destroyed by the Roman army, and the "Law" was abolished, just as Jesus predicted it would be in Matthew 5:17-18.

The question then becomes, post 70 AD, what "Law" is established and in effect for Christians to follow?

Matthew presents Jesus as the New Lawgiver

(1). The early Christians saw Matthew's writings to be five books, similar to the Pentateuch of Moses.
The first book (Matthew 1-4), tells the narrative of Jesus' birth and early years and has remarkable parallels to the narratives of Israel's forefathers and Moses the Lawgiver as God led His people out of the bondage of Egypt. The second book (Matthew 5-7) parallels with the teaching of Moses on Mt. Sinai etc… as found in the book of Exodus. The third, fourth and fifth books in Matthew point us to the instructions of Jesus to His followers and parallel the teaching of Moses to Israel in the books of the law called Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
(2). The Sermon on the Mount is preceded by baptism in water and forty days in the wilderness. Again, the whole narrative of Jesus (childhood, exodus, baptism, wilderness, mountain, law) is precisely the narrative of Moses and Israel (childhood, exodus, Red Sea, wilderness …). The parallel between Jesus' life and that of the old lawgiver Moses is clearly seen in the book of Matthew.
(3). Matthew calls Jesus greater than Moses (i.e. "hear HIM" not Moses 17:5), “greater than Solomon” (12:42), “greater than the Temple” (12:6), “greater than Jonah” (12:41), and the “Lord of the Sabbath” (12:8).
(4). It is disobedience to the Words of Christ that defines “lawlessness” (anomia) in Matthew (see 7:23-24).
(5). In the Great Commission, Jesus instructs to teach all that “I have commanded” (28:18-20).

The idea that we do not have "Law" as believers in Jesus Christ is ludicrous. Our Law is His Law. Our desire is to do His will, to hear His commands, to be His bondslaves, and to do as He bids. The Royal Law (James 2:8) of Christ is "to love one another as He has loved us" (John 13:34). Jesus, gospels writers and others of the apostles all write to help us understand how this agape love works itself out in our lives.

But now, when we read the Old Testament, we see Jesus. Our concentration is not obedience to Old Covenant "commands" or laws--we see Christ. We see Him in the narratives of creation and exodus, in the laws of sacrifice and festivals, in the prophets and the psalms--all the Old Covenant Scriptures point to Him. We, however, are not "bound" to any Old Covenant laws--including any alleged "Sabbath" day, because we are inlawed to Christ (I Corinthians 9:21). Every day is a day of rest. For those who cringe at the thought of no "Ten Commandments" for believers, we remind them that it is hard to commit adultery when you aren't lusting in your heart (Jesus' command in Matthew 5:28), or to commit murder when you don't hate (Jesus' command in Matthew 5:17), or to steal when you see a need and give to meet it (Jesus' command in Matthew 6:4), etc... It's also hard to keep any special day as a Sabbath day because every day is a day of rest in Christ (Colossians 2:16).

The Law that we follow is Christ's Law--and we willingly, cheerfully, and fully pledge ourselves to keep it as His bondslaves. But we reject any notion that our Lord's law is Moses' law. "Heaven and earth" has passed away, and a "new heaven and earth" (the New Covenant) with a new Lawgiver, a new age, a new people, and a new agreement with better promises has dawned (Hebrews 8).

In His Grace,

Wade

Graced People Reap What They Have Not Sown; Lost People Reap What They Have Sown

One of the weapons used by legalists to keep people in line is the threat of standing before "the judgment seat of Christ." It is said by them that God will reveal the hidden agendas of the heart, every secret sin, and each action that transgressed the line of God's eternal law. For this reason, the legalist says, you should keep your walk holy, obey God completely, and ensure all your actions are righteous.

The only problem with this premise is that it contradicts the written word of God regarding the judgment of believers in Christ. The legalist is right, however, about the judgment for those apart from Christ. Every sinner apart from God's grace through Jesus Christ will give an account of his deeds and will be rewarded according to God's pure justice. The punishment of God's righteous wrath in hell will not be as severe for some sinners as it is for others (see Jesus' words in Matthew 10:15). The experience of righteous punishment will vary in intensity according to the depth and number of unrighteous actions of those who die without Christ. God will not be mocked. Whatever a sinner sows in life on earth, that will he reap at judgment (Galatians 6:7). In other words, Hitler will experience the wrath of God in a measure greater than a girl who dies in her teens without Christ. The sinner reaps what he sows. The Righteous Judge never errs in the meting out of His sentences for sin. Part of the wiping away of every tear in heaven very well may be the people of God saying, "Yes, Father, you are righteous in your judgments towards those of my family who have rejected Christ." There will be no complaints when all is revealed before the throne of God. For this reason, the person without faith in Christ would do well to live the most moral life possible--for he will one day reap what he has sown.

But those of us who have faith in Christ will never appear at this judgment seat. The book of life which contains our names forever decrees the sealing of the books that contains the sins of our lives (Revelation 20:11-13). The Scapegoat has removed our sins into the desert of forgetfulness (Lev. 16:22). We never answer for sin because as the brilliant Baptist theologian John Gill stated, "God sees no sin in His people." That does not mean God is not aware of our sin; it means that God has dealt judicially with our sin at the cross of Christ, and all the righteous wrath due our sins (hell) has been born by Christ. And it is our faith in God's grace in the person and work of Christ that is credited to us for righteousness (Romans 4:24-25).

But then the question comes, on what basis are we rewarded in heaven? Answer: We reap what we have not sown!

Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:17).

To be a co-heir with Christ means that we receive from God the inheritance Christ has earned by His obedience during His life, death and resurrection. The perfect righteousness of our Lord and Savior Jeus Christ in the complete and perfect obedience to God's law has obtained for us the unsearchable riches of God's great grace (Ephesians 3:8). Heaven is the eternal unfolding and enjoyment of these riches fpr all the ages to come (Ephesians 2:7). In short: We reap what we have not sown.

One of the tell-tale signs of the legalist is the inability to totally rest in the knowledge that the riches of God's favor are earned by Christ's obedience, not ours. It is impossible to be a co-heir with Christ if the rewards of God's people are dependent on our performance. We are rewarded for eternity by God's grace through the person and work of Christ. The knowledge of this will keep those of us with faith in Christ always ready to admit our faults, confess our mistakes, and be transparent to people around us. Why? Because our eternal reputations, our eternal rewards, our eternal reign is not dependent on our performance on earth--it is dependent on Christ's vicarious performance on our behalf.

But hell is just the opposite of heaven. In hell, you reap what you sow. In heaven, you reap what you have not sown. Why is it that we Christians preach, teach and relate to one another as if we are citizens of hell? Our citizenship is in heaven; and for this reason we ought to be very honest and transparent about our sins here. Our eternal inheritance and reward is dependent on His grace through Christ, not our peformance through works. We live powerful lives, led by the Spirit, when we no longer question His favor on our lives in terms of our merit or works by obedience to any law, but by faith in Christ who brings us a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees.

In His Grace,

Wade

Christian Liberal Ideology and Christian Fundamentalist Ideology Are Brothers from the Same Mother

Classical Liberalism and classical Fundamentalism within Christianity, at first glance, seem to have nothing in common. The former makes figurative the historical narrative of Scripture while the latter makes literal the figurative, poetic and apocalyptic language of Scripture. Classical Liberalism denies, or removes from, truth in the sacred text, while classical Fundamentalism affirms all, and adds to, truth in the sacred text. Classical Liberalism turns salvation into something not needed, while classical Fundamentalism turns salvation into something not heeded. Classical Liberalism affirms the Bible to be sufficient for next to nothing, while classical Fundamentalism affirms the Bible to be sufficient for absolutely everything. At this moment, the Southern Baptist Convention is overwhelmed by the latter group (classical Fundamentalists). Grateful as I am that classical Liberalism is not at home within the SBC, it behooves us all to recognize the similarity between classical Liberalism and classical Fundamentalism in order to focus on a Gospel Resurgence within our Convention. We have no hope of the gospel being our priority if we don't see that Liberalism and Fundamentalism share the same DNA.

Both ideologies find it difficult to allow the freedom to express disagreement.

Or, to put it more bluntly, classical Liberalism wants only Liberals to be heard, and classical Fundamentalism wants only Fundamentalists to be heard. Adherents to both ideologies remind me of weak, insecure Chief Executive Officers who can't let their boards ever question their decisions--out of fear they may move in the wrong direction. Of course, the wrong direction is any direction opposite of the views of the CEO. Rather than being open to dissenting views, all dissent is ridiculed and stifled. Stifling and silencing opposing views is as prevalent in the university, institution, classroom or church controlled by classical Liberals as it is by those conrolled by classical Fundamentalists. Since classical Fundamentalism is the struggle within the SBC at this moment, allow me to show the danger of Fundamentalism silencing all dissenting views on various subject matters. We have seen Fundamentalists remove missionaries who disagree over the cessation of spiritual gifts, professors who disagree over women being able to teach men in a classroom setting, and a host of other examples of silencing and removing dissenting viewpoints in the SBC these last few years; but now the SBC is being given another example of the prevailing ideologists clamping down on any opposing view.

An Attempt to Remove Professors Who Do Not Teach Storehouse Tithing

An excellent biblical presentation on the Old Covenant practice of "storehouse tithing" is found in an article entitled “Will a Man Rob God?” This study on tithing in the Old and New Testaments by Andreas J. Kostenberger and David A. Croteau, who at the time the article was published served as professor and Ph.D. student respectively at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, is an excellent argument for pastors and teachers to cease their emphasis on "the tithe" and encouraging their members to give "cheerfully, generously, and regularly" as led by the Holy Spirit. Dr. Kostenberger remains a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. David A. Croteau is now a professor in the religion department at Liberty University.

I received information that Southern Baptist pastor Les Puryear, a small church pastor who ran for President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2008, contacted the supervisors of these men at the respective seminaries where they are employed. I was told Les was seeking their termination for teaching giving and Christian stewardship in a manner contrary to "storehouse tithing" and the practice of the Jews in the Old Testament. I contacted Les to ask if this was true, and he both called and wrote a written response which he published in the comment section of his blog. He wrote:

-- "Thanks for your email. I returned your phone call as well but your assistant said you were in a staff meeting.

First, I don't know who your seminary contact is, but rest assured that I will raise the issue of private information being leaked to you, to seminary officials.

Second, your source is wrong. I have not asked for anyone to be fired, nor will I ask for anyone to be fired.

Third, I appreciate your concern with tertiary issues, however, I believe that this issue goes beyond tertiary and to a foundational issue of our convention and that is the role of Holy Scripture in the life of the Christian. That is the issue I am addressing. If you think the validity of scripture is a tertiary issue, then we have a true disconnect." --

I took Les at his word and thanked him for not seeking the termination of the professors who disagreed with his views on "storehouse tithing."

But then, after my conversation with Les, I was given excerpts of the letter Les sent. Pay close attention to what Les writes to the seminary supervisors:

1) -- "It has come to my attention that one of your professors has written a document that is available online in which he states that the biblical command to tithe is no longer applicable."

2) "I do not believe that (professor’s name) position is the typical position among SBC pastors. My concern is the influence which (professor’s name) may have upon future pastors who may teach this unbiblical position."

3) "I am completely shocked and surprised that in the years following the Conservative Resurgence, (school name) would employ a professor who teaches that tithing is not necessary."

4) "… do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of (school name)?" --

I will accept that Les didn't mean what it sounds like he meant. Asking the supervisors of the respective professors "is it helpful to keep this professor on faculty?" may not, at least technically, be a call for the professors' terminations. But let me turn the phrase around to maybe help Les understand the signficance of such a letter from the perspective of those who are being pressured to be silent about their beliefs in order to continue as seminary faculty members. Suppose one of the members of the church where Les pastors wrote to the chairman of his deacons and said the following:

"Do you think it is helpful to our church to keep Pastor Les on the payroll when he is publicly teaching (blank)?"

I would think that the impression given by the letter would be, "Les, stop teaching (blank) or you may be fired!" I honestly don't believe I am the only one who believes the letter Les sent is indicative of an inability for Fundamentalists to handle dissent. There are some people in the SBC who still don't seem to get the problem we are facing as a Convention. The struggle within the Southern Baptist Convention is no longer over the Bible. We are in as much trouble today as we were years ago when Southern Baptists were shouting "Liberalism! Liberalism! We must throw out the Liberals!" Though some doubt the extent of Liberalism within the SBC in the late 1970's, there can be no doubt the spread of Fundamentalism in the SBC in the early 2010's. We have substituted one ideology for another ideology--and the brother of the former has the same DNA.

Both can't stand dissent or disagreement.

Well, if we threw out adherents to the Liberal ideology in 1979, then we better get ready to throw out the adherents to the Fundamentalist ideology of the present or apologize for what was done to the people we Southern Baptists called "liberals" in the late 1970's.

In His Grace,

Wade

Lukewarm Churches Are Those That Neither Heal Nor Refresh

I believe one of the most misunderstood passages in Revelation comes from the words of Jesus as He speaks to the church at Laodicea saying, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:15-16). Most Christian teachers who speak on this passage compare people being "hot" to being on fire for the things of God, and those who are "cold" to being calloused and cold toward the things of God. Of course, "the things of God" are usually made to mean those matters important to the preacher or teacher. These Christian leaders then conclude with an encouragement that God hates "lukewarm Christians," and if the listeners won't get on fire about serving God and getting "sold out" to Him, then they might as well turn their backs on everything associated with God and be "cold" toward spiritual things and go to hell. God likes us either "hot" or "cold," but He can't stand lukewarm Christians. The remainder of the teaching time is usually used by the teachers of this text to get the hearers to "recommit," or "to be more active in the church," or "to repent of not doing enough for God."

That is such an unfortunate interpretation of a beautiful text. The people at Laodicea knew exactly what Jesus was saying to their church. Laodicea was a city situated at the crossroads of the aquaduct system of Rome. Aquaducts were open, above ground troughs that carried the water throughout Asia Minor. Fifteen miles north of Laodacia was the Roman city of Hierapolis where people from all over came for the healing found in the hot water springs of that city. Ten miles east of Laodacia was the Roman city of Colossae where the incredibly cold springs brought refreshment to weary travelers on their way to other regions of the world. Both Hierapolis and Colossae sent their water to Laodacia via aquaduct, but the cold water of Colassae and the hot water of Hierapolis became lukewarm water--good for nothing--upon arrival at Laodicea. With this knowledge, "cold" in the context of 1st Century Rome and Jesus' letter to Laodicea represents something "good," not "evil."

So what Jesus was saying to the people of Laodecia was simple, yet profound:

"I want you to be like the "hot" water that comes from the springs at Hierapolis. That is, I want you to be a people who bring healing to those hurting, wounded people that come your way. I also want you to be like the "cold" water that comes from Colossae. Be a people who bring refreshment to those who are tired, weary and full of despair. As it is, you are now neither "hot" nor "cold." Those who come into your midst find neither healing nor refreshment. I know your works. They are "lukewarm" and good for nothing. As it is, I spit you out of my mouth.

Might I propose that churches and church leadership that bring neither healing nor refreshment to sinners are "poor," "blind," and "naked?" Might it also be true that churches who work hard to build an empire but lose sight of helping those who are spiritually wounded, oppressed and needy are "miserable and wretched?" I personally think this is the proper intepretation of Jesus' words to the church at Laodicea.

How do we know if we are a people that bring either healing or refreshment to sinners who come in contact with us? I think Paul Burleson gives us a keystone in his post The Kind of Group To Which I Belong on how to measure our success in this matter.

In His Grace,


Wade

A Place of Worship for Wiccans and Witches at the Air Force Academy

Jeff Rogers, a friend and former member of Emmanuel, has sent me the following information. He is employed by the United States Air Force and lives in Colorado Springs, CO. He tells me that the Air Force Academy has now provided a “worship circle” for wiccans, and pagans. They call themselves “Neo-Pagans” but there is nothing new about paganism. The place of worship is being called the “Stonehenge of the Rockies”. Links to internet articles below the picture

See Fox News and The US Air Force Military News for additional information. We've come a long way since the days of our Founding Fathers.

In His Grace, Wade

The Wisdom of Leading by Example Rather than By Denigrating Opponents Personally

There is much to really like about Sarah Palin. Her values, her charisma, and her outside the beltway background makes her politically attractive to many. Whether she has a future in national politics is yet to be seen, but Saturday night she gave all of us in leadership a valuable lesson. According to the Huffington Post, Palin "mocked" President Obama for using teleprompters in speeches, even to students in school. Yet, Palin herself would often glance at her hand where she had written several notes as talking points for her speech. The words "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" are clearly visible. Sarah Palin will weather the criticism that comes her way from her faux pax Saturday night, but the lesson that seems evident to me is that one would be wise to build support on the basis of clear enunciation of principles rather than denigrating an opponent's personal idiosycrasies (like using a teleprompter). If an opponent is to be challenged, let it be on matters of principle. All of us have personal idosyncrasies. When we build support by mocking our opponents personal habits, we invite scathing criticism of our own. Again, it seems to me that civil discourse and discussion should lead us down the path where we only point out the differences of our opponents policies and principles, choosing to leave out our observations of his or her perceived personal faults. What's the difference between attacking another's policies rather than his or her personal idiosyncrasies? The former seems to lead to effective and needed debate on the issues, the latter to personal ridicule and denigration of other people. Of course, Sarah Palin has been the recepient of the latter by those who oppose her since she was thrust into the national limelight. I have not heard her speak often, but I am hoping that her advisers and speech writers will not lead her down the same path the liberals have taken when it comes to denigrating her personally. She has enough material on policy issues alone to build a huge support base. All of us who comment on blogs, or lead others, would do well to simply and clear enunciation our principles rather than personally denigrating those who disagree with us.

In His Grace, Wade

Free From the Law Oh Blessed Condition! The Reasons You Should Welcome the Charge of Antinomianism

There is a tendency among some brothers in the Southern Baptist Convention to call "antinomian" (i.e. "against the law") those Christians who don't hold to certain hard and fast "rules" or "laws" those brothers wish to impose on everyone. For example, in a recent discussion over "tithing," one pastor called "antinomian" those Christians who disagreed with his belief that God's "law" demands every believer give 10% of gross income to the local church. This Southern Baptist pastor then writes, "Antinomianism has raised a huge red flag to me and many other pastors. We will ... sound the alarm which will reverberate throughout the SBC to face this issue head on."

Red flags? Alarm? The charge of antinomianism sounds like something we should avoid as Christians, right? Well, not so fast. Those of us who have confidence and trust in Christ's Person and work should welcome the charge of antinomianism. Why? (1). Because when that charge is floated against us it means the gospel is actually being preached by us. Ironically, if you have never been accused of being an antinomian, it is possible you have never actually taught anyone what is so truly good about faith in Jesus Christ. And, (2). If you are accused of being an antinomian you are in some really good company.

The Apostle Paul taught the good news of Jesus Christ very clearly. He was often accused of being antinomian. Some in Rome called him this. Paul responded to their accusations in Romans 6. A few people in Galatia accused him of antinomianism. Paul responded to their charges in Galatians 3. In Acts 21:21 James tells Paul that the Jerusalem church leaders "have been told that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles forsake the law of Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe other laws. Finally, some leaders in Corinth were alarmed by Paul's teaching that led people away from observing biblical rituals (feasts, new moon celebrations, Sabbath observance, etc...) and other biblical laws. In response to their charge of antinomianism, Paul writes, "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law" (I Corinthians 9:21). The expression translated "I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law" is a peculiar phrase in the original Greek and can be literally rendered, "I am not lawless toward God, but I am inlawed to Christ."

"Inlawed to Christ." Wow. That is a powerful phrase. It means that you are wed to Christ and all the benefits and protection of perfect obedience and righteousness is yours because of CHRIST'S obedience. You reap what you have not sown; you reap what HE has sown. You are a co-heir with Christ, a child of God, and forever blessed because you are "inlawed to Christ." Those who wish to put you under their laws try to convince you that God's favor and blessing comes on your life through YOUR OWN OBEDIENCE to their laws. They will press on you laws from the Old Covenant, or a modern religious laws, or a church laws, or the preachers' laws, or any other number of laws--and try to tell you they are all "biblical" (they always call them "God's laws"). But the mistake they make is claiming that God's favor will only come to you when you "obey" these laws--and if you don't, then you will bring a curse upon your life. This, friends, is totally contrary to the gospel. AGAIN, ALL THE FAVOR AND BLESSING OF GOD IS GUARANTEED YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE INLAWED TO CHRIST.

What then shall we say? How shall we live? What makes us different from those who have NO faith in Christ? What "laws" shall serve as our boundaries in life? Paul says that we "liberty" and "freedom" and should "use this freedom to serve one another in love" (Galatians 5:13) This love, in essence, is our law. James calls it "The Royal Law of Love" (James 2:8). It is the commandment that Jesus gave His disciples and that Jeremiah the prophet promised would be written on our hearts. We are bound to this Royal Law because it is within us. We can't help but "love one another as Christ has loved us" (John 13:34) because we are "inlawed to Him." It's in our DNA. Jesus says that this agape love serves as our trademark of genuine faith. Others know that we are Christ's because they see our love. So, place your confidence in Christ, follow your heart as you love and serve those people God has placed in your life, and enjoy the freedom you have in Him. Don't put yourself under bondage to any law in order to "earn" the favor of God. Trust in God's full and complete favor because of your union with Christ. Then watch the Spirit of God powerfully use you to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. It's so incredible what the Spirit does through His people as we listen to Him. The Spirit is Life. The Spirit is Power. Churches lacking in both life and power lack leaders and people who listen to, and are led by, the Spirit of God.

Wear the charge of antinomianism as a badge of honor. From this short look at antinomianism, five things should be very clear to us as Southern Baptists:

(1). Only those who clearly and plainly preach the good news of faith in Jesus Christ are accused of antinomianism. Nobody who preaches the law is accused of antinomianism.
(2). Never shy away from the charge of antinomianism. Jesus was accused of it, the Apostle Paul was accused of it, and the early church was accused of it. You will be in good company.
(3). We who cast our full confidence in Jesus Christ are not without law, for we are "inlawed to Christ." All the benefits and protection of full and complete righteousness comes through Him. We reap what we have not sown. We reap what He has sown for us.
(4). Those who accuse other Christians of antinomianism are usually wanting to control others by limiting their freedom. Rather than encouraging Christians to follow the leadership of the Spirit, these leaders who are alarmed about antinomianism are wanting something they feel they cannot obtain without imposing "laws" to get it. If we Christians could learn to live by the Spirit through loving and serving the people God has placed in our lives, we would turn the world on its ear.
(5). We should never forget to love those brothers in Christ who accuse us of antinomianism, but we should be also be clear in our articulation of why their accusations are so off base. We should never be ashamed of our complete and utter confidence in God's full blessing for us because of the obedeience of Christ. We are inlawed to Him.

I love the following song, written by Philip Paul Bliss in the mid-1800's:

"Free from the law—oh, happy condition!
Jesus hath bled, and there is remission;
Cursed by the law and bruised by the fall,
Christ hath redeemed us once for all." (P. Bliss)

Our brothers who don't understand our freedom might sing the following:

"Bound to the law-oh, everyone listen!
Jesus did die, but we're on a mission;
Live by the law and try not to fall,
cause Christ did nothin for us at all." (S. Baptist)

Smiling and Free,

Wade Burleson

The New Covenant Emphasizes Being Led by the Spirit: The Old Covenant Emphasizes the Law

On several blogs today there is an ongoing discussion by preachers and laymen regarding the practice of teaching what is called "storehouse tithing." The discussion is a good one, the only negative being the tendency of some to personalize disagreement by making moral judgments against those who view things differently than they do. Some who believe in "storehouse tithing" have called those who don't "antinomian" (meaning people who are "against God's law"), and some who don't believe in storehouse tithing have a tendency to call those preachers who do "greedy" or "selfish." My name and church have been brought into the discussion, so I thought I would take this opportunity to share my beliefs on the matter.

I do not believe "storehouse tithing" is a biblical, New Covenant law or doctrine. But I respect those who do. The hermeneutic or interpretative principle that leads me to reject any "law" for how and where New Covenant Christians should give their money comes from the mountain pictured above (Mount Tabor). Mount Tabor is the traditional mountain where Jesus was transfigured--where He changed in appearance--before Peter, James and John (Mark 9:2-9). Mark writes that when the disciples saw Jesus transformed, they became very afraid. Their fear was heightened when they saw the lawgiver of Israel (Moses) and the prophet of Israel (Elijah) suddenly standing next to Jesus and conversing with Him. Peter, not knowing what to do or say, blurts out, "Teacher, it is good that we all are here. Let us make three tents: One for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." (v.5). Suddenly, a cloud descended and a Voice spoke to the disciples, "This is my beloved Son; listen to Him!" When the cloud disappeared the disciples looked around and saw NOBODY BUT JESUS.

The original two words that form the last sentence in God's instructions to the disciples are "akoute auton" - Hear Him! Christ's voice is the voice to which we listen. He supercedes the Old Covenant law of Moses and the Old Covenant sayings of the prophets. Hear Him! The Old Covenant ceremonial, civil, festival, dietary, and moral laws portray the Person and work of Christ for us. Likewise, the Old Covenant prophets portrayed through their ministry and words some aspect of the Person and work of the everlasting Prophet, Priest and King--Jesus Christ. But the Old Covenant, in the days of the disciples, possessed a "fading glory" (II Corinthians 3:13). The New Covenant, signed and sealed by the blood of Christ, is far superior in nature and glory! Whereas in the Old Covenant, you reaped the rewards of your personal obedience to the law, in the New Covenant, you reap the rewards of His personal obedience in your place. As Paul says, "I have a righteousness of my own that does not come from my obedience to any law, but a righteousness that comes from God and is mine through faith" (Philippians 3:9). Having my hope and confidence in Christ, I listen to Him! He is my Master. I "akoute auton." I hear Him!

There is, however, a slight problem. Unlike the disciples that walked with Christ on earth, we can't see Christ visibly or hear Him audibly. We can't physically walk with Him, personally and audibly talk with Him, privately eat with Him, or publicly minister with Him--so how in the world do we "hear Him" since He's gone? Jesus answers this question. Right before He left the disciples to "Go and prepare a place for those who love Him," He said something astonishing. "It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you . . . When the Spirit of truth comes, the Spirit will guide you . . ." (John 16:7-8, 13).

It's interesting to note that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message makes a pronounced error when it comes to the Spirit of God. In Article II C, on 'God the Holy Spirit,' the 2000 BFM states, "At the moment of regeneration the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ." That's just not right. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever say the Spirit baptizes anybody. Christ baptizes us in the Spirit.

It might be a shock to some of our brethren to learn the BFM 2000 is not inerrant (smile). John the Baptist said "Jesus will baptize you with [lit., "in", the Gk. Preposition en] the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16 see Sam Storms). Why does Jesus immerse us completely in His Spirit? Because the Holy Spirit is His gift to us; He is "another" (Gk. alloy - "of the same kind") Comforter who leads Christ's disciples. In other words, in as simple language as possible, the disciples were instructed by God to hear Christ. But Christ ascended into heaven, so He now baptizes all those who trust Him in the Holy Spirit. Hear Him! Hear the Spirit! We are called by God to "walk by the Spirit," to "listen to Spirit," as we serve, give, witness, etc... The royal law of Christ is to love one another as He has loved us, but the way we practically live out that commandment is to "listen to the Spirit of God" as He guides us while we live in this world.

Simply put, in the New Covenant agreement with God, you LISTEN TO HIM AS TO HOW YOU GIVE YOUR MONEY AWAY. There is no law. There is no code. There is the Spirit. Hear Him. And, by the way, the Spirit of God leading His people brings about powerful, even miraculous, things in this world. Those who obey the Spirit aren't antinomion at all--they are Spirit led. Probably the clearest writing I've read on this subject as it pertains to Christian giving is an article written by, of all people, Dr. John R. Rice.

Dr. John R. Rice writes:

"When anybody takes from a man the right to go to Jesus Christ and get instructions and follow Him, he is on the way to greater heresies. Popery of a Baptist preacher is wrong just like popery of Rome is wrong.

If a pastor has a right to tell the people where their money must go, then a local denominational secretary will have the right to say so, too. If a church will have a right to tell you where you can give your money, it will have a right to tell you what you must believe also. If a church can tell you that you have no right to inquire directly from God about where to give your money, then the church can tell you that you have no right to come to Christ for salvation except as you come through the local church and let the church decide it. That way is Catholicism and that is wrong. Any bold and insistent step into heresy means further heresy ahead.

Giving? Oh, yes. Giving tithes and offerings? Oh, yes, and far beyond that as I have delighted to do now for many, many years. If God leads, give it all through the local church, but only as He leads. But remember . . . (Jesus) has a right to say where it should go. No one has a right to take this crown right of Jesus Christ and put it on a preacher or board of deacons or a finance committee.

Dr. George W. Truett said this so wonderfully strong, standing on the steps of the Capitol at Washington, in 1920. Dr. B. H. Carroll said it strongly. Oh, men, forsake this new heresy not taught in the Bible, not accepted in any Statement of Faith, not taught by any reputable scholar or commentary.

I guess you could call what I believe about giving to the local church "Mt. Tabor giving." Akoute Auton! Listen to to the Spirit of God as He leads you in the amount you give, where He leads you to give it, and when He leads you to give it. It's all the Lord's anyway. Hear Him!

As a pastor, I trust that the Spirit will supply the needs of our church ministries through the promptings He gives people. If not, we will change how we do ministry, seeking to follow His leadership. He definitely does not need me to issue a law.

In His Grace,

Wade

When Good People Get Brought Down in the Vortex of an Evil World

10 Southern Baptists from Idaho, including a Southern Baptist pastor, have been arrested in Haiti for "child trafficking." The United States government is attempting to negotiate their release back to the United States. It became known on Monday that 21 of the 33 children attempted to be moved from Haiti to the Dominican Republic by the ten Southern Baptists came from a small mountain village and had been willingly given up by parents and relatives. The families had been told, though it was not reported by whom, that the children would be given good care, a proper education and even their own swimming pool.

The 10 Southern Baptists - arrested on the Dominican Republic border on Friday in possession of the children - insisted that they were not involved in child trafficking, but they had simply been trying to bring the children to a hotel on the north Dominican Republic coast. The hotel had been established as a temporary orphanage by two congregation members, Laura Silsby and Charisa Coulter, who are among those being held. The group was working toward a permanent solution for the care of the Haitian children.

Laura Silsby admitted to Haitian authorities that her group from Idaho did not have the correct paperwork, including the passports or proper permission to leave the country from the Haitian government, but she said she did not believe lack of proper documentation would be an issue. She claimed she was "just trying to do the right thing".

I, for one, believe her. I believe every person in this group had good intentions. Unfortunately, we live in an evil and fallen world, and both law enforcement and the public cannot believe everyone who claims they had "good intentions." For example, a blog with the title Why Steal the Organs When You Can Steal the Whole Child alleges these Southern Baptists were after the children to sell them to nations who would use them for organ harvesting. Some of the comments made by people on this secular blog were quite unsympathetic to the 10 Southern Baptists. For example:

"I know for a fact that there is one or several groups of Americans who are deep into child abduction – real kidnappings of orphans and the abandoned – out of poor countries and they do like black kids. They have for instance bought babies from crack moms during the 90s and trafficked young girls out of Niger as well. They are then sold into slavery, and some of them are kept as sex- and house-slaves on farms in US rural areas. These people are organized and dangerous."

"This is an outrageous situation that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

"Either they are being taken for the sex industry, or organ harvesting. That’s my opinion. I read a story the other day, that told about trucks riding around Haiti picking up children."

The people who wrote the above comments are wrong. These Southern Baptists had benevolent, generous intentions.

Unfortunately, our Southern Baptist friends were also very unwise- yes, even stupid. In a world as evil as ours, you can't go about doing good while breaking international law. Laws in civilized societies are established to protect the innocent.

I am praying for our fellow Southern Baptists, but we Southern Baptists should be the first to point out that though our brothers and sisters in Christ were benevolent in their intentions, they were completely wrong in how they went about accomplishing their mission.

The difficult question is whether or not they should be given jail time for breaking the law. Though I do not want any of the Southern Baptists to be sentenced to jail time in Haiti for their actions, I believe they should be--for the sake of the law and the future enforcement of those laws when those who possess evil intentions toward children are caught taking them without government permission. I realize this position is not a popular one, and I believe the sentence should be a light one, but the verdict should be "guilty."

Of course, if it were my wife in the Haitian jail, I would fight tooth and toe nail to get her out. I would call in every marker, pressure every politician, and fly to Haiti myself to do all I could to help her get out--NOW.

But I would hope I that would have had the wisdom to never have sent her to Haiti to remove children without proper legal documentation and government paperwork in the first place.


In His Grace,


Wade Burleson