Saturday, November 29, 2008

The Nashville Tales: Lessons from Chaucer

My maternal grandfather (16 times) was a medieval poet named Geoffrey Chaucer, widely regarded as "the father of English Literature." He is best remembered for the classic medieval work entitled The Canterbury Tales, a set of stories told by a miscellaneous collection of pilgrims on their way from London to Canterbury, a city which had become a magnet for Christian worshippers after the murder of Thomas Becket in Canterbury's cathedral in 1170. The Canterbury Tales is often studied in English literature college courses, but for a great read, avoiding the medieval English of Chaucer, I would encourage you to purchase the recently published translation by Burton Raffel.

The Wall Street Journal describes The Canterbury Tales as:

. . . a human drama, in which the more than two-dozen pilgrims bicker and challenge each other. The redneck, self-employed Miller annoys the Reeve, a farm-manager who makes his living by pleasing the gentry; the aristocratic Knight cuts the Monk off in mid-story for being too damn gloomy; the celibate academic Clerk from Oxford clashes with the worldly and much-married Wife of Bath, who has no time for book-learning but insists that she should be made a professor anyway (of Love Studies, which she understands in depth).

What motivates all these pilgrims to journey to Canterbury is their desire to pay respects to the beloved Archbishop Becket who had been murdered by King Henry's soldiers. In the medieval ages, the king governed the church. King Henry did not take too well with Becket questioning various actions of the king, and it is said that days before the Archbishop's murder, King Henry raised his head off of his sickbed and queried, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Four knights heard their king and took his question as a command. They journeyed to Canterbury and murdered the Archbishop as he prepared for vespers. The knights killed Thomas Becket because he dared to question the authority, actions, and leadership of the king.

A Modern Parallel to the SBC

In many respects Southern Baptists have become as hierarchial as Roman Catholics and Anglicans. Though we have no pope, it could be argued that there is a College of Cardinals within the SBC. Most dramatically, a separatist Landmark element within the SBC seems to desire to remove from our Convention anyone who disagrees with them, or simply questions them. These separatists prop up the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as a tool that helps them propel from fellowship anybody who disagrees or happens to question the authority or actions of a fellow Southern Baptist conservative resurgence leader.

The most recent and bizarrre example of this tactic comes from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Malcolm Yarnell. Southern Baptist pastor and theologian Dr. Tom Ascol recently questioned, in writing, the wisdom of other Southern Baptist professors and pastors who seem to want to make Calvinism a dividing issue within the SBC. Dr. Yarnell responds to Dr. Ascol's criticism of the John 3:16 Conference by alleging that Dr. Ascol shares communion with a Presbyterian (gasp) and should not be considered an orthodox Southern Baptist. Dr. Yarnell writes:

Dr. Ascol is not willing to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message in its entirety. Let it be clearly noted that communion with Presbyterians is certainly within the prerogative of Dr. Ascol's local church as a free church. However, communion with Presbyterians is outside Southern Baptist orthodoxy, at least according to the common confession of the Southern Baptist Convention. A reading of articles 6-7, especially the first paragraph of article 7, of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 will demonstrate how communion with Presbyterians is outside the confessional mainstream of Southern Baptist life.

Unlike the medieval ages when knights simply took out bishops who questioned the authority of the always orthodox king, foot soldiers of the Landmark and separatist leaders of the Conservative Resurgence will only rest when pastors, churches and people who do not agree with them are removed from the Southern Baptist Convention. The weapon of choice is the accusation that those who disagree with Landmark, separatist theology lack "Southern Baptist orthodoxy." The 'liberals' are gone, so we have to create new liberals. There is nobody left to slay in the SBC but those who are busy about doing the work of Christ - within and through - the SBC. So now, to continue the fight, some must make their fellow conservative evangelicals in the SBC - people who have chosen to cooperate with the SBC - as the enemy of "orthodox" SBC'ers. The idea that closed communion is THE "orthodox" and only proper view of communion in the SBC ought to send chills up the spine of every Southern Baptist who cherishes missions cooperation. Dr. Yarnell writes about Dr. Ascol and his church's view of fellowship with a Presbyterian:

The Southern Baptist Convention may be facing a similar problem to that which it faced with Liberalism.

Good night.

If something doesn't change in the Southern Baptist Convention, and soon, a modern day Chaucer will arise to write The Nashville Tales - a collection of stories of those who have been pushed out of SBC cooperative ministry by "Christians" who have never become confident enough in their faith to be able to handle questions. If that happens then evanglicals will be talking of the SBC using the past tense.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

111 comments: said...

The Chaucer relationship, for those interested, is as follows:

16th Great Grandfather of William Wade Burleson

Geoffrey Chaucer

Alice Chaucer

John Manning

Hugh Manning

John Manning

George Manning

Phebe Manning

Mary Withers

Ezekiel Bloomfield

Rebecca Bloomfield

Zachariah Benjamin Salyer

Isaiah Salyer

William Martin Salyer

Isaiah Salyer

Samuel H Salyer

Pearl Wade Salyer

Virginia Pearl Salyer

Mary Francis Cherry

William Wade Burleson

Ramesh said...

FOUNDERS MINISTRIES BLOG: SBC and Calvinism: Three events that widened the divide

SBC Tomorrow: personal reflections of Peter Lumpkins: Tom Ascol, The John 3:16 Conference and Widening the Divide: An Appraisal: Part I

SBC Tomorrow: personal reflections of Peter Lumpkins: SBC & Calvinism: Three Events That Widened The Divide: A Brief Response by Malcolm B. Yarnell III

Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog: Phil Johnson on "Desire"
"I note also a very fascinating exchange taking place in the comments on Tom Ascol's last blog entry, found here. Malcom Yarnell scares me. Evidently, if I find my Presbyeterian brothers to be co-laborers in the kingdom, firm believers in the gospel of grace, compatriots in the battle against the powers of darkness and brothers in their passion for the freedom of God in salvation and the glory of Christ as Savior and Mediator, I'm just not quite "Baptist" enough for him. Of course, I also ran across this comment from him that made my head spin: "In response, please note that I consider the Roman Catholic church in the same way I do Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, although I do prefer the latter’s doctrines in some ways: the churches hold to innovations that countermand the New Testament, and thus may be classified as sub-New Testament." - Malcolm." "Prefer the latter's doctrines in some ways"???? I am simply left without words at such a statement. Amazing, just amazing."

Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog: A Few More Thoughts on the SBC Inquisition

Writer said...

"Southern Baptist orthodoxy"? I'm familiar with orthodox Christianity. Now we have devovled into a "Southern Baptist orthodoxy"?


This is dangerous stuff. When an employee of the churches attacks a pastor of the churches I am appalled. Perhaps Dr. Yarnell would do well to understand who comprises the SBC. It is not the seminaries. It is the churches.

I don't remember Dr. Yarnell or anyone else at SWBTS being elected as watchmen over all that is Southern Baptist. Dr. Yarnell should be more careful about biting the hand that feeds him.


Ramesh said...

PyroManiacs: You May Be a Hyper-Calvinist If... by Phil Johnson

Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog: A Former Calvinist "Saved Out of Calvinism"

Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog: David Allen on John Owen said...

Amen Les.

Thanks for the links Thy Peace.

oc said...

And all of that means what?
oc. said...


It means people need to speak out to prevent the improper exclusion of Southern Baptists by allowing people to allege they are unorthodox.

Ramesh said...

I am only linking these comments of David Allen in the context of his questioning southern baptists being not discerning enough with blog links of hyper-calvinists:

"Why I said James White is a Hyper-Calvinist
My main point, which seems to have been lost on so many people, was not to focus on James White and his hyper-Calvinism. My point was to show the unwisdom on the part of Tom Ascol in his willingness to team up with James White to debate within the Southern Baptist Convention. Many non-Calvinists within our convention are concerned not only about Calvinism, but about some hyper-Calvinistic tendencies in the convention.

We are consistently told by Calvinists within the convention that there are few if any hyper-Calvinists among us. It does not help the situation when Ascol is willing to team up with one in a debate within a Southern Baptist Convention context. That was my point.

Notice above the comments by Phil Johnson who has observed a growing tendency towards hyper-Calvinism in recent years with the resurgence of Calvinism in the overall evangelical world. If his warning, as a Calvinist, is valid, why would mine not be? Even if it could be shown that White is not a hyper, which still remains to be proven I might add, it would not negate the overall point I am making.

Has anyone noticed how many of the Southern Baptist Calvinist bloggers, including Founders Ministries, link to James White’s website? I say this because I am concerned that hyper-Calvinism is being allowed to slip into the convention because well-meaning Calvinists are not being discerning on this point. They are uncritically endorsing hyper-Calvinist bloggers and therefore their ideas are slowly filtering into the SBC.

For example, Ascol, on the Founders Ministries website, even links to Steve Camp, who also denies God’s universal saving desire, with the additional explicit denials of common grace and general love. Can anyone say that Steve Camp does not meet Phil Johnson’s criteria on hyper-Calvinism?

Here are my relevant comments verbatim taken from the audio of my presentation:

“Now whatever we do in Baptist life, we don’t need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists. It’s fine for Calvinists to get together and have debates with non-Calvinists. Fine, dandy and wonderful; let that happen all day long. But it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism” (The John 3:16 Conference recordings).

Therefore, I see no evidence from White, Phil Johnson, or anyone else that disproves my statement concerning James White’s hyper-Calvinism. The grounds for the charge have not yet been addressed by James White. Therefore, with respect to my blogger critics on this issue, I stand by my statement."

SBC Tomorrow: personal reflections of Peter Lumpkins: HyperCalvinism: Professor David Allen Responds to Critics

Anonymous said...

Dear Wade, Descendant of Chaucer,

I LOVE literary history. Thank you for sharing this with us. Explains your gift for writing!

What is the difference in religion between Baptist communion and Presbyterian communion? I had heard (probably wrongly) that communion among Protestants was a reverent sacramental memorial of the Lord's Supper.

Something about the communion sacrament must be seen as different between the two denominations for this to have raised such a fuss. (?)

If no difference, then perhaps there is more to the criticism of
Dr. Ascot because of other motives and another agenda altogether on the part of Yarnell. (?) L's

Alan Paul said...

I have always thought it strange that the SBC set up the BFM2000 - in essence - a creed and then disallowed anyone who doesn't agree with it. Yet still call themselves Baptists - who are not suppose to have a creed at all.

??? said...


The Landmark separatist would say that the Presbyterians are not the true church, are living in open sin (i.e. a denial of believer's baptism), and should not be allowed to sit with us at the Lord's Table because of their sin.

I say hogwash.

I will not exclude from the Lord's Table on earth the very people the Lord Himself welcomes to His table in heaven.

oc said...

Mr Burleson,
I agree. But guess what? I'm excluded from your world. I have a divorce in my past,and have been proclaimed unworthy to even have the opportunity to take classes from a nearby Seminary. How does that work in a religion that talks about grace?

Just wonderin'where I fit in the kingdom.
oc. said...


You wouldn't be excluded from my world.

Matter of fact, I was in the midst of offering a proposal that divorced Southern Baptists be considered for missionary appointment on a case to case basis rather than a blanket policy that denies all divorced Christians from missionary service.

I resigned from the IMB before I could work this through committee.

Anonymous said...

Murder of Thomas a Becket
Archbishop of Canterbury

" . . . . How far Henry was directly responsible for the tragedy which soon after occurred on 20 December is not quite clear. Four knights who came from France demanded the absolution of the bishops. St. Thomas would not comply. They left for a space, but came back at Vesper time with a band of armed men. To their angry question, "Where is the traitor?" the saint boldly replied, "Here I am, no traitor, but archbishop and priest of God." They tried to drag him from the church, but were unable, and in the end they slew him where he stood, scattering his brains on the pavement. His faithful companion, Edward Grim, who bore his cross, was wounded in the struggle.

A tremendous reaction of feeling followed this deed of blood. In an extraordinary brief space of time devotion to the martyred archbishop had spread all through Europe. On 12 July, 1174, Henry II did public penance, and was scourged at the archbishop's tomb."

Ramesh said...

Sorry the permalinks for founders ministries blog are not setup properly for comments.

"Baptist Theology said...

I said I wasn't an "employee" of your church. But I am indeed a servant of the churches of the SBC, which is the calling that God placed on my life, and which is why I even converse with you. There is a great difference between being a "servant of the churches" and an employee of your church. If you need a lesson in SBC policy, ask one of your Founders board members for a refresher course.

And yes, sir, my church seeks to maintain a regenerate church membership. The question you have yet to answer is whether yours is flawed in its understanding of regenerate church membership by allowing unorthodox Christians to commune with you.

Now, let me sum up what I have learned from this little conversation.

1. Dr. Ascol believes history should be interpreted according to his own ideology of Dortian "orthodoxy" rather than letting history speak for itself. You may not realize it, but your admission of an ideologically-driven history casts into doubt the Founders' group's entire historiography and puts a black mark on any of your compatriots that really want to be known as scholars.

2. Dr. Ascol is not willing to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message in its entirety, but is evasive when asked a direct question.

3. Dr. Ascol thinks that employees of Southern Baptist institutions are employees of his church, and if they do not agree with such a claim, then he thinks they are not a servant of the churches. This is overreach.

Tom, years ago, I became disgusted with the bad historiography, the lack of doctrinal integrity and the overreach of liberal claims with regard to the churches. You have made me wonder: If you are representative of SBC Calvinists, then should we see all Calvinists as flawed historians, unwilling to affirm Baptist orthodoxy, and holding unorthodox views of SBC polity?

Now, I have served your church for far too long, Tom, so please forgive me if I turn my energies toward helping those other churches who are interested in promoting the cause of Christ.

In Christ,

8:06 AM, NOVEMBER 28, 2008"

Tom said ...

I really hoped this time would be different. When you took it upon yourself to engage me and others here this time, I hoped that when your views started getting pressed hard and the necessary implications of your words started being exposed that you wouldn't revert to your condescending, dismissive tone and quit. I hoped that this time you would stay and own your positions. Unfortunately, I was wrong. You are correct that I am not a very good historian. Good historians learn from history. I allowed my brotherly love to engender hope that, this time, you would act differently.

Sadly, but beneficially, your comments here serve to illustrate the very point of my post. Rather than respond to your patronizing parting shots (very unbecoming of a servant, I might add), I will simply acknowledge that, given your unwillingness to abide by common rules of logic, your repeated unkindness to those with whom you disagree, and your unwillingness to be corrected, it really is fruitless to try to dialogue with you.

Again, history should have taught me this. Our previous email exchanges as well as your previous interlocutions here provide more than enough data to document your pattern of engage, inflame, get called to account for your words, then rather than deal honestly with the challenges, retreat under the guise of some noble cause. As you go to serve "other churches" you should be comforted to know that if my email and phone calls are any measure, you have served many, many churches in your words here. Your comments are helping many see things much more clearly than they previously had and are helping them make decisions about the future.

I encourage everyone reading here not to be distracted by Malcolm or those like him who refuse to engage in honest dialogue. We should try to avoid engaging in "dialogs" with those who are politically rather than exegetically driven and who refuse to be guided by Christlike respect for the other person.

There is a growing number of Southern Baptists--Calvinists and non-Calvinists--who are weary of the condescending, patronizing attitudes too often displayed by those who see themselves as the champions of the Baptist cause while only theoretically holding to key Baptist principles. The former should let the latter continue to talk to themselves as they build their party while the rest of us move forward in our efforts to build bridges that will enable us to unite more effectively in fulfilling our Lord's Great Commission."

Anonymous said...

Landmark religion: A strange religion that only offers communion to those 'worthy' to receive it.

Even in my own faith, before receiving communion we say, 'Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof; but only say the word, and I shall be healed.'

Are those of the Landmark religion now in control of the SBC ?

At what point do the Landmark people allow that a Baptist is considered 'good enough' to recieve the sacrament?

I didn't know anyone was ever 'good enough'?

A Christian's simple 'I am not worthy.' and a plea to the Lord for merciful healing should be all that is necessary, I would think. (?)

Ramesh said...

It's kind of sad to see this political divisions in southern baptists. You can almost predict which of the commentators will fall on which side. It's hard to engage in true debate or learning or growth through questioning here. At least that is my understanding.

Maybe these lines were there from before and for some reason after John 3:16 conference questioning Calvinism brought them to the forefront.

My prediction, this "fight" will drag on for the next 10 years on this subject.

Ramesh said...

For a true understanding of this post, you have to read this post.

"Now is the time for Southern Baptists of all stripes to stand up and hold those who misrepresent brethren with whom they disagree accountable for their words and actions. Speak the truth in love and leave the consequences to God. The anti-Calvinists (as opposed to non-Calvinists) are becoming, as one seminary student put it recently, "increasingly irrelevant," especially to younger SBC leaders. While they are writing and preaching to themselves, more and more Gospel-centered Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike are showing a genuine willingness to link arms in order to move forward to make disciples of the Lord Jesus.

The future belongs to the bridge-builders, not party-builders."

Anonymous said...

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16).

These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny.

I am convinced that humanity truly needs the "essential message" that God is love.

Anonymous said...

There are many things that are scaring me from both sides of the ailse. But, they all point to the pride of having authority over others.

When Ascol talks about church discipline, I have to wonder...who disciplines the discipliners since it is just a handful of men who have the power to discipline in those hierarchical structures?

Personally, I believe infant baptism is pretty bad. There are people who went to their death to practice believers baptism. But then, the other side practices infant baptism with 5 year olds.

In any event, we should not keep a repentent professing believer from the Lord's table just because they are Presbyterian! Yikes.

But, I just want to say that both sides scare me and seem to be caught up in political gamemanship. It is astounding the arrogance that is coming from both sides.


Bob Cleveland said...

Hmmm ... "excluded from the table..." ... hmm ... Jesus didn't even to THAT to Judas.


Getting a better picture of some folks' priorities, I guess....

Anonymous said...

There won't be any Baptists in Heaven, only the children of God.

Since Presbyterians hold to the doctrines of Grace, why shouldn't Baptists who hold to them, fellowship with them/

I go to many fellowships with Southern Baptists who differ with me on The Doctrine of last things.

Some are Amillennial, others are post, I am pretribulational, premillennial.
What I'm sayinf is this there are some things we can differ on, and yet fellowship with and cooperate with others.

Also The doctrines of Grace motivate me to evangelism. I can witness, preach and teach knowing God has sheep, that will come in.
This gives confidence in evangelism and missions.

Anonymous said...

Prayer of a missionary who died strangled on a cross in China in the 1800's.

This missionary had ONE Priority in religion. Can you guess what his priority was? L's

"O my Divine Saviour,
Transform me into Yourself.
May my hands be the hands of Jesus.
Grant that every faculty of my body
May serve only to glorify You.
Above all,
Transform my soul and all its powers
So that my memory, will and affection
May be the memory, will and affections
Of Jesus.
I pray You
To destroy in me
All that is not of You.
Grant that I may live
But in You, by You and for You,
So that I may truly say,
With St. Paul,
"I live - now not I -
But Christ lives in me".'

John Gabriel Perboyre
Christian Martyr

Anonymous said...


I found this on Wikipedia:

" To denominations like the Baptists, which have historically stressed religious liberty, toleration, and separation of church and state, this practice ( Believers' Baptism) is an unacceptable violation of the basic human right to self-determination in matters of spirituality and religion."

That part about Baptists historically stressing:


Is this true? It doesn't sound like the current SBC at all. L's

Anonymous said...

OOPS, I made a mistake on the my last entry. It should read as follows:



I found this on Wikipedia:

" To denominations like the Baptists, which have historically stressed religious liberty, toleration, and separation of church and state, this practice (Infant Baptism) is an unacceptable violation of the basic human right to self-determination in matters of spirituality and religion."

That part about Baptists historically stressing:


Is this true? It doesn't sound like the current SBC at all. L's

Anonymous said...


A young woman wandered into a church and was not denied communion there. Here is the beginning of her story:

"Raised as an atheist, Sara Miles lived an enthusiastically secular life as a restaurant cook and writer. Then early one morning, for no earthly reason, she wandered into a church.

"I was certainly not interested in becoming a Christian," she writes. "Or, as I thought of it rather less politely, a religious nut."

But she ate a piece of bread, took a sip of wine, and found herself radically transformed.... "

What makes us deny to others what might help them? Who are we to send anyone away the the Lord because 'they don't measure up to our standards'?
May God have mercy on us all.

The story about the young woman is an excerpt from her book:
"Take This Bread"

The author: Sara Miles

P.S. Do not read this book unless you believe in THE POWER of Jesus to change our lives. :)

oc said...


Anonymous said...

It is quite sad (and more than a little annoying) that some are so enamored with being Baptist over being Christian that they would refuse to take the Lord's Supper with a Presbyterian.

That said, the Lord's Supper ("Communion") is a distinctively Christian observance, and, as such, should never be taken by one who is not already a Christian.

The idea that someone would be genuinely converted to Christ merely by drinking wine and eating bread is absurd.

The idea that such a one would then continue as a practicing lesbian and be given a position on staff at a church is an outrageous insult to the God of love and grace.

P.S. Do not read "Take This Bread" by Sara Miles unless you want to read the words of someone who has no idea of what the transorming POWER of Christ's grace is all about.

Anonymous said...


About Sara:

"Sara Miles "found Jesus" in the simple act of giving food. She discovered that the core message of Jesus was "feed the hungry, heal the sick, visit prisoners." She concluded that Jesus did not promote religious convention and did not exclude anyone, but rather offered love and compassion to all, without conditions. Miles took this message at face value -- as did Francis of Assisi, Albert Schweitzer, Dorothy Day, and others throughout history -- and she began feeding people. San Francisco is a postcard magnet for wealth that is pushing its dispossessed, many of them mentally ill or addicted, ever further to its margins. Miles collected reject or cheap food and established a free food pantry at St. Gregory's church. Hundreds of the city's poor, desperate and homeless came for groceries, with no questions asked.

Then, a miracle occurred. The food multiplied before her eyes. Many of the destitute stayed and wanted to help. Homeless beggars transformed themselves into providers for others. A lawyer heard about her project and provided $250,000 from a court charity fund. Miles used the money to establish fourteen free food pantries in San Francisco, including one operated by high school students. Hundreds of poor families now eat regularly from these pantries.
"There is a hunger beyond food that's expressed in food," California bishop Bill Swing told her, "and that's why feeding is always a kind of miracle."

"To feed others means acknowledging our own hunger and at the same time acknowledging the amazing abundance we're fed with by God," says Miles. In her book Take This Bread, Miles tells the story of her conversion and the miracle of giving that transforms both the recipient and the provider"

Anonymous said...

"Then, a miracle occurred.
The food multiplied before Sara's eyes.
Many of the destitute stayed and wanted to help.
Homeless beggars transformed themselves into providers for others."

This quote from 'Take This Bread' adds new meaning to the Bible verse that says 'good works' are as 'filthy rags' before the Lord.

People with rags on, homeless beggars serving food to others.
. . . . "filthy rags' . . . .

May we ALL not be afraid to wear 'filthy rags before the Lord' in our service to His poor.

I think He would like that very much. :)

Unknown said...

As a Southern Baptist Minister, Dr. Yarnell’s comments, and apparently deeply held Landmark beliefs, are just Appalling!

If Southern Baptist do not rise up and demand of the Trustees of SWBTS that they hold Dr. Yarnell accountable for his comments and hostility toward the Christian sentiments of Non-Landmark Southern Baptist then SWBTS is lost to the SBC.

Grace Always,

Anonymous said...


Put your stones down, friend.

Go out to a food bank and help someone tomorrow instead.

Would God give a stone to a starving person? Would you?

What is REAL Christianity: words on paper, hate, judgment ?
Was that REALLY His Way?

Is there anything of love and charity and caring in your faith at all? I think there must be.

Sara is not yours to judge.
Leave her alone and look to your own sins. If you judge HER, God will render your judgment on YOU. You know this to be true from the Bible.

There are a lot of Christians among the poor who will see God before we do. Then He will wipe away all their tears. We will not be able to hurt them any more with our 'CHRISTIAN' neglect.

Feed someone tomorrow who is hungry. God will smile on you.
He will remove your hate and give you a heart for others.
He can and will do that for you as He has done for so many.

Put your stones down, friend.

ezekiel said...

Act 10:28 And he said to them, You yourselves are aware how it is not lawful or permissible for a Jew to keep company with or to visit or [even] to come near or to speak first to anyone of another nationality, but God has shown and taught me by words that I should not call any human being common or unhallowed or [ceremonially] unclean.

Unless your a Baptist of Dr. Yarnell's stripe. Then it is ok to call others unclean.

Anonymous said...

Is there no one but CB Scott who is willing to challenge the non-Christian utterings that have filled the comments of this blog since Lucy's grandaughter showed up? Are all you men and women of God more concerned with being nice and getting along than with standing for and procaiming truth and confronting error and "feel good" quasi-spirituaity?

Lucy's grangaughter, you seem a nice person, intelligent, and someone with a kind spirit (though you proably don't realize that you come across as judgmental of those whom you consider judgmental, especially those mean ole fundamentaists). But you don't seem to grasp some really basic elements of the Christian faith, such as the conditions required for a person to become a Christian and that unless a person has a personal relationship with Jesus, that person will go to hell. I am sorry no more people on this blog care about your spiritual condition enough to tell you the truth as plainly as CB did. Please give great consideration to what he shared -- for it is the gospel of salvation from damnation and the gift of eternal life.

oc said...

And you?

Anonymous said...

I have no anger, no hate, no stones for Sara, nor for any other sinner. I am no less sinful than she, I am sure. But I know what sin is, and I know it is an offense to a holy God, and I know He desires, expects, and demands that we repent of our sins, that we "Go, and sin no more".

The greatest command is that we love God with all that is in us, and the second is that we love others as much as we do ouselves. And Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commands." That is, if one truly loves God, that person will not persist in behavior they know disdpleases Him. Likewise, if we love others, we will not sin against them, nor with them.

As Paul taught, "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." If I go give food to people yet refuse to honor God in personal obedience to His commands, whatever I am doing, it is not true love.

Anonymous said...

Amazing! Simply Amazing!

That Tom Ascol, leader of the Founders Ministries, would not answer a basic question about historic Baptist ecclesiology. This is a subject that the founders of the SBC were in 100% agreement upon. This is a historic FACT that cannot be denied. The second president of the SBC wrote in 1846:

"Individuals have been found in our country, who express doubt as to the propriety of strict communion. A few isolated instances exist of communities who practice upon the opposite principles. But no association, nor even a single church, respectable for either numbers or intelligence, has, within the compass of my information, seceded from the great body of the denomination upon this ground."—R.B.C. Howell, Terms of Communion, 1846, p. 16.

Howell, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Nashville, said he did not know of a single church in the south that praticed open communion in 1846. Not a single one!

DL said...

The irrational argumentation and obvious intellectual dishonesty prevalent in some SBC circles is mind-blowing. These men have nothing better to do than look at the links on some people's blogs? The slippery slope of blog links concern them? Some men have to always be fighting something in order to justify their existence. When there's no more liberals around, they redefine the term so they can keep on feeling useful. I find it ironic that the types of men these professors bash aren't just writing far more scholarly works, but they're also on the front lines of missionary endeavor. The SBC is aging. The pride of some in this convention is driving away those who could keep it from dying. The sad thing is that the ones doing the driving will blame the disenfranchised for the demise. That's okay, though. I hear ACTS 29 is doing real well. :)

oc said...

The same question. Again. And you..?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, OC, I don't understand the question. "And I" what? Can you be more specific?

Anonymous said...

With nothing but hatred for Calvinism and amillennialism in his heart a pastor attempted to destroy our fellowship over this issue, then he resigned along with all active deacons. What else could it be?

This church is surviving and trying to rebuild. What an awful testimony for the Gospel of Christ!

I suspect more of this type of activity to occur with the new fuel from so many "leading" SBC voices from the John 3:16 Conference.

Should our fellowship remain affiliated with the SBC? Or should we expect these 3:16 speakers to leave in the future months? Will this become the major conflict for the SBC?

Anonymous said...


I can respect your primary source. I try not to distort Baptist history even if I do not like it.

However, the problem is this--it's 2008, not 1846.

No, I am not arguing that truth changes. However, when we are part of an "employee paying" denomination which looks to not be practicing close/closed communion on the whole and yet would nevertheless be shut out of missions through the IMB if confessional absolutism were enforced, then I see that as a problem.

I think a more fair approach, if you will, would have been to have kept this out of the convention's confession and then people like yourself could have had the opportunity to persuade the masses over time of your position.

But no matter what I think--there it is in the confession.

Along with the Spirit baptizing [which Carroll explicitly rejected].

Along with peace and war.

And absent union with Christ in its baptism statement.

I understand that people can make mistakes as to what gets in or is left out of a confession.

It's the "essential" statement in the preamble that is the most problematic thing to me in connection to the BF&M.

Grace to you,

Benji Ramsaur

Anonymous said...

And by the way, I don't think anybody has any business playing any games with the BF&M's statement or Carroll's statement.

Both are explicit. The committee could have put a statement on Spirit Baptism in the God the Son section, but chose the God the Spirit section instead.

If the words in the preamble/BF&M are going to be used to shut out people from the mission field through the IMB, then those advocating the shutting out should own up to those words themselves.

And those words necessarily lead to the conclusion that B.H. Carroll was not, at the least, a full orbed Baptist.

None of this "praise the BF&M 'and' praise the great Baptist B.H. Carroll" stuff.

Don't play games [i.e, well, that's not what we really meant...]

Own it.



Anonymous said...

And let me add just one more thing.

If anyone is going to assault my character [i.e., he's got a bad intent!!!!] in trying the old "shoot down the message by shooting down the messenger" trick, then it ultimately does not matter anyway.

The primary sources are out there for people to see themselves. They can make up their own minds no matter what my intent is.

Grace to you anyway,


Anonymous said...

Wow, can you do some genealogy for my family? How fun is that?!

I guess I've missed a lot of discussion in light of "sick of Christless Christianity's" comments. I have no idea what any of that is about.

Wade, great linkage of concepts here. All the variety of word pictures God gives you to communicate through definitely casts a big net for understanding.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Sick (you should have picked a different nickname :))

I like L's and you are correct that she is a very nice person.

You should know that a few people have tried to talk to L's about her unbiblical view of salvation in the past. It is simply a works based salvation.

The silence from everyone else was deafening. I didn't understand then and you won't get anywhere now either.

John Daly said...

In regards to sharing the orthodox view of Christianity with those who hold to a false gospel...I was kind of waiting for our host to take the lead.

B Nettles said...

As we take communion at the end of our service this Sunday morning (weekly), we will be singing "Before the Throne of God Above." The first verse ends with "I know that while in Heaven He stands no tongue can bid me thence depart."

What a wonderful summary of the power of the Gospel: My fellowship with believers depends on Christ, not man's whims.

Anonymous said...


Pray this chapter from Corinthians and you will find rest for your soul on this Sabbath Day:

Chapter 13
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Anonymous said...

Overview from Wikipedia

The ancient Churches, such as the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox exclude non-members from Communion under normal circumstances, though they AMY ALLOW EXCEPTIONS, e.g., for non-members in danger of death who share their faith in the reality of the Eucharist and who are unable to have access to a minister of their own religion.

Many conservative Protestant communities also practice closed communion, including conservative Lutheran Churches like the Old Lutheran Church. The LANDMARK Baptist Churches also practices closed communion, as a symbol of EXCLUSIVE membership and LOYALTY to the distinctive doctrines of their fellowship.

MOST Protestant communities practice open communion, including some Anglican, Reformed, Evangelical, Methodist, and more-liberal Lutherans (such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Church of Sweden).

Some open communion communities adhere to a symbolic or spiritual understanding of the Eucharist, so that they have no fear of sacrilege against the literal body and blood of Christ if someone receives inappropriately.

Others feel that Christ calls all of His children to His table, regardless of their denominational affiliation.

Many Churches that practice open communion offer it only to baptized Christians (regardless of denomination), although this requirement is typically only enforced by the recipients' honesty.

Some Progressive Christian congregations offer communion to any individual who wishes to commemorate the life and teachings of Christ, regardless of religious affiliation.

Anonymous said...


"Eucharist" (noun). The word is derived from Greek "εὐχαριστία" (transliterated as "eucharistia"), which means thankfulness, gratitude, giving of thanks. Today, "the Eucharist" is the name still used by Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, United Methodists, and Lutherans.

Most other Protestant traditions rarely use this term, preferring either "Communion", "the Lord's Supper", or "the Breaking of Bread".

"The Lord's Supper", the term used in 1 Corinthians 11:20. "The Lord's Supper" is also a common term among Lutherans, as is "The Sacrament of the Altar".

Other Churches and denominations also use the term, but generally not as their basic, routine term.

The use is predominant among Baptist groups, who generally avoid using the term "Communion", due to its use (though in a more limited sense) by the Roman Catholic Church.

"The Breaking of Bread", a phrase that appears in the New Testament in contexts in which, according to some, it may refer to celebration of the Eucharist: Luke 24:35;Acts 2:42, 2:46, 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16.
"Communion" (from Latin communio, "sharing in common") or "Holy Communion",[58] used, with different meanings, by Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, and many Protestants, including Lutherans. Catholics and Orthodox apply this term not to the Eucharistic rite as a whole, but only to the partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, and to these consecrated elements themselves. In their understanding, it is possible to participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic rite without necessarily "receiving Holy Communion" (partaking of the consecrated elements.

Groups that originated in the Protestant Reformation usually apply this term instead to the whole rite. The meaning of the term "Communion" here is multivocal in that it also refers to the relationship of the participating Christians, as individuals or as Church, with God and with other Christians (see Communion (Christian)).
"Mass", used in the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church, Anglo-Catholicism, the Church of Sweden and some other forms of Western Christianity. Among the many other terms used in the Roman Catholic Church are "Holy Mass", "the Memorial of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord", the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", and the "Holy Mysteries".[59]
The "Blessed Sacrament" and the "Blessed Sacrament of the Altar" are common terms for the consecrated elements, especially when reserved in the Church tabernacle.

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the term "The Sacrament" is used of the rite.

"Sacrament of the Altar" is in common use also among Lutherans.
"The Divine Liturgy" is used in Byzantine Rite traditions, whether in the Eastern Orthodox Church or among the Eastern Catholic Churches. These also speak of "the Divine Mysteries", especially in reference to the consecrated elements, which they also call "the Holy Gifts".

In Oriental Orthodoxy the terms "Oblation" (Syriac, Coptic and Armenian Churches) and "Consecration" (Ethiopian Church) are used.

Likewise, in the Gaelic language of Ireland and Scotland the word "Aifreann", usually translated into English as "Mass", is derived from Late Latin "Offerendum", meaning "oblation", "offering".
The many other expressions used include "Table of the Lord" (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16), the "Lord's Body" (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:29), "Holy of Holies".

Anonymous said...


VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the LORD'S SUPPER.

The LORD'S SUPPER is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.

Anonymous said...

Can a mentally-challenged person receive communion?

Kevin did:

" . . . Kevin’s understanding is limited, yet on target. He understands that church is over when the people hug and shake hands and talk. Kevin knew the signals. He felt the spirit of the celebration of Eucharist.

And he knew what "Pray!" means. How many of us, in our complicated lives, can focus on prayer as quickly and simply as Kevin does?"

Anonymous said...


"the stranger must be welcomed and offered the best of what you have… and if the Lord's Supper is not the best we have, what is?"

'For I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink . . . "

What are the limits of our ability to restrict others from the Lord's Supper?

Who do we offend when we offer the Lord's Supper to all?
God? or Ourselves?

Serious thinking needs to happen before pushing anyone away from Christ.

His arms were spread wide on the Cross: wide enough to embrace the whole of Creation. And His arms were nailed there in place. Who are WE to limit what He can do?

Just questions. To think about.

Anonymous said...



O come, O come, Emmanuel,
and ransom captive Israel,
that mourns in lonely exile here
until the Son of God appear.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee,
O Israel.

O come, thou Wisdom from on high,
who orderest all things mightily;
to us the path of knowledge show,
and teach us in her ways to go.

O come, thou Rod of Jesse, free
thine own from Satan's tyranny;
from depths of hell thy people save,
and give them victory over the grave

O come, thou Dayspring, come and cheer
our spirits by thine advent here;
disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
and death's dark shadows put to flight.

O come, thou Key of David, come,
and open wide our heavenly home;
make safe the way that leads on high,
and close the path to misery.

O come, O come, great Lord of might,
who to thy tribes on Sinai's height
in ancient times once gave the law
in cloud and majesty and awe.

O come, thou Root of Jesse's tree,
an ensign of thy people be;
before thee rulers silent fall;
all peoples on thy mercy call.

O come, Desire of nations, bind
in one the hearts of all mankind;
bid thou our sad divisions cease,
and be thyself our King of Peace. Refrain

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
and ransom captive Israel,
that mourns in lonely exile here
until the Son of God appear.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee,
O Israel.

Words: Latin, twelfth century;
trans. John Mason Neale (1818-1866), 1851

Putting Christ back into Christmas again. :)

Anonymous said...


Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 18

18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

18:24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

18:27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and FORGAVE HIM the debt.

18:28 But the SAME SERVANT went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

18:29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

18:30 AND HE WOULD NOT: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

18:31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their LORD all that was done.

18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O THOU WICKED SERVANT , I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had COMPASSION on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also UNTO YOU, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Sick, you CAN be healed.
As we all can.
Stone-throwing went out with Jesus Christ. He offers us a better way.
It is not part of Christianity any more. :)

Anonymous said...


More information has emerged regarding the young woman who was stoned to death. As it turns out, the young woman, Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow was 13 years old and not 23 as originally reported. The number of spectators who witnessed the stoning turned out to be more than 1,000 instead of a hundred. According to young girl's father, she had been raped by three men and reported it to the al-Shahhib militia. She was detained, accused of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. As I sarcastically noted before, none of the men who raped her have been arrested.

In the mind of pea-brained fundamentalists, women and young girls are to blame for everything. There is no instance of rape where the victim should ever be blamed much less punished for it. The problem with narrow minded fundamentalists is they believe they are doing God's will. In their mean-spirited, hateful minds, this young girl deserved to be punished for her adulterous act. During her execution, bystanders who tried to save the girl from being stoned were shot at by the militia.

Since when does punishing a victim of rape include execution? Where are those imams, ayatollahs and other Islamic authorities who are so quick to issue fatwas when Islam or the prophet Mohammad is insulted? Why haven't they renounced this barbaric behavior? Why do they remain silent about human rights and violence against women?

Anonymous said...

Wade wrote: "The weapon of choice is the accusation that those who disagree with Landmark, separatist theology lack "Southern Baptist orthodoxy."

How does 'Landmark' fit in with other Baptist orientations?

Most Baptist traditions also believe in the "Four Freedoms" articulated by Baptist historian Walter B. Shurden:[1]

Soul freedom: the soul is competent before God, and capable of making decisions in matters of faith without coercion or compulsion by any larger religious or civil body
Church freedom: freedom of the local church from outside interference, whether government or civilian (subject only to the law where it does not interfere with the religious teachings and practices of the church)
Bible freedom: the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual
Religious freedom: the individual is free to choose whether to practice their religion, another religion, or no religion; Separation of church and state is often called the "civil corollary" of religious freedom
The label Protestant is rejected by some Baptists (primarily those in the Landmark movement) because in their view Baptists have existed separately since the early church days. Those holding this view maintain that Baptists have never been a part of the Roman Catholic Church, and as such are not "protesting" against Catholicism. Further, they point out that Baptists have no direct connection to any of the Reformationists like Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.

Other Baptists accept the Protestant label as a demographic concept that describes churches who share similar theologies of sola scriptura, sola fide, the priesthood of all believers and other positions that Luther, Calvin, and other traditional reformers held in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s.

Anonymous said...

LANDMARK continued:

Although different champions of the Landmark Baptist cause have identified different required characteristics, or "marks," that validate a legitimate Baptist church, all varieties of Landmarkism stipulate that legitimate Baptist churches are the only legitimate churches.

According to Landmarkism, congregations of other denominational varieties are merely religious gatherings, or "societies," with no claim to the title "church."

The invalidity of non-Baptist churchly acts Landmark Baptists have refused to recognize as valid :

any baptisms or ordinations performed in circumstances other than under the auspices of a Baptist church.

Thus, Landmark Baptists have declined to allow non-Baptists to preach in Landmark Baptist churches and have required prospective members who have received "pedobaptism" or "alien immersion" to be baptized by a Baptist church before receiving them into membership.


Expressed as a syllogism, the Landmark Baptist argument is:

Major premise: To be valid, Christian ordinations and baptisms must be performed by a valid New Testament church.

Minor premise: Only valid Baptist churches are valid New Testament churches.

Conclusion: Therefore, only ordinations and baptisms performed by valid Baptist churches are valid Christian ordinations and baptisms

Bob Cleveland said...

We celebrated communion at FBC Pelham this morning. The pastor simply said the Bible tells us that each should examine himself. He said the Bible didn't tell the church to do that, at least not in connection with the Lord's Table.

He also reminded us it was the Lord's supper, not ours.

We did, and Amen.

Anonymous said...

"Things which matter most should never be at the mercy of things which matter least."

Johann Von Goethe

Anonymous said...

Sick of Christless Chrstianity

"Is there no one but CB Scott who is willing to challenge the non-Christian utterings that have filled the comments of this blog since Lucy's grandaughter showed up? "

Anonymous said...

Wade and Others:

Interesting history!

I regret that I am number 63 or so commenting on this. Wish I could have commented earlier.

Dr. Yarnell is a fine scholar and a great person. I have no problem with he and Dr. Ascol having a robust debate over the BFM. It would be best if, in this instance, we could concentrate on the subject at hand, so that we could have some understanding.

Notwithstanding my respect for Dr. Yarnell and those who have written in support of his interpretation of the BFM, his alleged reading of the BFM is just like the way many people read the Garner motion. They are adding things that are not in the text.

Many SBC churches have had open communion for decades. I joined an SBC church when I was 16 in 1977. It was the largest SBC church in town (4,000 members in that day). It practiced open communion. I have belonged to and visited many SBC churches over the last 30 years in cities such as Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Memphis, Birmingham and Nashville. NONE of the churches that I have attended or visited practiced closed or close communion. They all practiced open communion. The church that I am a member of now practices open communion.

The BFM was first adopted in 1925 and then revised in 1963 and 2000. Many SBC churches were practicing open communion in those years. The language about the Lord's supper has not changed.

The language does say that the Lord's Supper is taken by the church to symbolize the Lord's death and resurrection and as a reminder of His coming. True enough. That statement would be true in churches that practice both open and closed communion. The church members are taking the supper together.

However, the BFM does NOT address whether people in addition to those members of the local church or others who are members of churches who practice the ordinances may also take communion. The BFM does not say anything about that.

Just because the church members take the supper together does not mean that others cannot be invited to join them. That is adding language to the BFM that is not there.

Now, the BFM could have been drafted to spell this out clearly. But it wasn't. It wasn't because in 1925, 1963 and 2000 it was recognized by all those adopting by the BFM that a large number of churches practice open communion.

It is fine for Dr. Yarnell and others to advocate his vision of what Baptist churches should do, but it is not correct to read restrictive language into the BFM when it is not there. Words have meanings, and to add a closed communion restriction to a provision that does not contain it is not careful or correct.

That is the answer to this question and why this entire debate is a tempest in a teapot.

I do not believe that any motion will be made at this next convention or anytime soon to add language to the BFM that would mandate closed communion. The reason is that such a move would fail.

Nor do I believe that any motion will be made at the next convention to remove persons as trustees or from employment in various agencies (the part about the agencies would be out of order anyway) who are from churches that do not practice close or closed communion because it is not consistent with the BFM and the motion would fail. Why Morris Chapman himself attends a church that does not have "Baptist" in its name and does not practice close or closed communion.

Have a great day.


Anonymous said...

Bottom line to me is this. No one, NO ONE, would have an issue with anyone who is non-calvinistic in their theology.

The real problem is that people like Yarnell, Lumpkins, and unfortunately we have on record and so we can now say most of the
J316C speakers are ANTI-calvinistic.

There is a big difference and they are the big problem. Not the Calvinists and not the NON-Calvinists.

Yarnell, Lumpkins, and I assume the rest of the bunch hate to be called ANTI-calvinistic.

To me (and anyone else that can read or hear) it is crystal clear that's what they are.

And that is a shame.

Anonymous said...

Lucy's grandaughter:

Is homosexuality a sin?
God is the ultimate and sovereign judge for sin. Homosexuality is sin by His order; it is not decided by public opinion or deceived/false clergy. Changing societies do not dictate God's standards. Sin is defined by God for us in the Bible. It is the source for what God says is holy and righteous or sin and abomination. Hebrews 13:8 states that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; he does not “go with the flow.”

God's Word says that homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, an abomination, fornication, vile affections, and a great sin against Him. He states any sexual act outside of marriage is adultery (hetro or homo sexual). Sex is to be between man and woman within marriage.

Is homosexuality a sin? What does this mean?
God's design for natural sexual relationships is part of His plan. Homosexuality falsifies what God designed. Sin often means not only rejecting God but denying or rejecting how and why we are made. Though it may be considered acceptable by some today -- even in some churches -- it is not acceptable to God. And we need to take that seriously.

Sexual sins were rampant in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (This is the origin of the word sodomy.) Despite warnings, they refused to repent. God destroyed those cities and it was recorded as a warning to all future generations. (Genesis 18:20-21, Genesis 19:4-5, 2 Peter 2:6) Some additional scriptures on homosexuality are found in:

Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:26-27

The price paid for homosexuality and other fornications are told in:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Jude 6-7
Romans 1:18

In spite of the growing secular humanist trend to think "it's ok to be gay," it's not a righteous lifestyle. Most vocal Christians are not homophobic, but are trying to share Christ's love for homosexuals and trying to keep them from horrific judgment.

Is homosexuality a sin? Is there hope for forgiveness?
There absolutely is hope for homosexuals. God can cleanse and purify all persons from sin. As many scriptures as there are that address sin, there are more that speak of forgiveness and redemption. He is able to give deliverance to any who sincerely desire true freedom and salvation. Such is demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 6:11 (KJV): "And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." This verse says “some of you were,” meaning they became past acts.

We are offered the empowering Spirit of God to help us turn from our sins. Coming out of drug addiction, homosexuality, pornography, or other sin isn't always easy but God will provide the way. Christians are to "love" into the kingdom, those who desire repentance and to live by His natural plan.

Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of our sins and rose again the third day. He desires that we repent and be forgiven of our sins by coming into a personal relationship with Him.

There is hope for the helpless
Rest for the weary
Love for the broken heart
There is grace and forgiveness
Mercy and healing
He'll meet you wherever you are
Cry out to Jesus,
Cry out to Jesus

Scott Shaffer said...

Wade, what's with all the anonymous posters since you returned from your hiatus? To make matters worse, they have a penchant for hopping onto rabbit trails instead of dealing with your posts. This really detracts from the discussion.

Just my two cents.


Anonymous said...

Dear Sick of Christless Christianity,

L's Gran is a Catholic (as I am now), and does not speak the same religious language that you do.

We tend to treat our relationship with Jesus Christ as private and personal, because it is such. Besides, it is the sin of presumption to say that "We are saved and are going to heaven."

Even though I love to pray, and enjoy the various ways of doing it, I nevertheless found teaching a class about prayer extremely difficult. Why, because it reflects the intimacy that I have with God, and that is not shared lightly or easily.

We also emphasize our works, because that shows others how we love and serve Our Lord. (Didn't Jesus talk about separating the saved and unsaved by their actions toward the needy? )

You asked her about the sin of homosexuality. The Catholic answer is that homosexual attractions are NOT sinful, but acting on them is. A single who is sexually active is sinning, and it doesn't matter with whom.

While I am not judging your salvation, I do have one question for you.

Are you displaying the same kind of mercy that Jesus did?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Yarnell and those who demand closed communion would do well to re-read Luke and note their resemblance to "the Pharisees and the scribes who murmured, saying, "This man welcomes sinners, and eats with them."

Anonymous said...

Anna A said...
Are you displaying the same kind of mercy that Jesus did?

Yes, I think I am. Do you think I am not? Do you think it is more merciful not to tell someone plainly when they are wrong about something? Did Jesus avoid confrontation? What is more kind and merciful -- to allow someone to publicly state and recommend error, or to correct public error with public truth? Catholic or Baptist or Frisbeetarian, or any "religious language" has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...


It's me, L's Gran.

What is all this about homosexuality?

I am a woman married to my FIRST husband for forty years
(a miracle of God :)
I was sacramentally married in the Roman Catholic Church and ALL of my children were baptised in our faith.

I am not a homosexual and I don't understand how all this got started BUT,
since we are now on the subject, I can say that I don't judge homosexual people: they are much treated as modern day 'lepers' by Christians and that is wrong, I think.

I do have a cousin who is a lesbian. She married and raised two children with her husband, before 'coming out' as it is called.

My cousin is someone I see as having the 'spirit of Christ' within her, and here is why:

She was the one person who stood by an aunt whose behavior had changed under medication. This aunt was rejected and left alone by everyone EXCEPT for my cousin. It was my cousin who took care of my aunt, until the time of my aunt's death.

Maybe it is because my cousin was so rejected, that she found the grace to help another outcast.

All I know is that my cousin is a better Christian than I will ever be. If I am half the Christian she is, it would be a miracle.

So, the person who is 'sick' of all the unchristianity, I cannot provide a target for you as a homosexual,
but I can most willingly provide a target by standing in front of my cousin so that you can judge me for accepting and protecting her.

It would be AN HONOR to be maligned for the sake of that dear woman.

L's Gran

Bob Cleveland said...

L's Gran,

Your compassion is admirable. But the bible does say what it does say about homosexuality, namely its being an abomination to God.

Also, the bible is quite clear on the church's responsibility toward members living in such open sin.

That can set up heart-breaking situations in reference to people we care for, but nonetheless, we don't have the option to excuse what the bible says we must not.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob,

I understand what you are saying and I absolutely accept the responsibility for NOT sitting in judgment on my cousin. I cannot judge her, it would not be right.
She doesn't deserve that from me.

For one thing, I don't think she realized WHAT her feelings were until she was past menopause. Whether it was psychological or a hormonal thing, I don't know.
We have never talked about her situation. I have never intruded on her privacy even though I did not understand what she was going through.
I accept her the way she is and I do this with my whole heart. Unconditionally.

I absolutely wish that so-called Christian people would stop calling homosexual people 'sinners'. If they want to call 'homosexuality' a sin, then that is different. We need to stop attacking them as people. They may be dealing with more than we could possibly understand.

We all have our OWN sin baggage to deal with in this world. I think the Scriptures mention this, so it must be human nature to want to look at others and see them as deserving of our judgment, while we see ourselves as fit to sit in judgment on them.

In psychology, there is such a thing as projecting one's own sins and negatives on to another and then speaking against them. Projecting is something that is not emotionally healthy, but we do it. We all do it. Makes us feel better than 'them'. Sadly.

Actually, what IS considered healthy is interesting:
behavior that does not abuse others:
or behavior that does not allow others to abuse us.
This includes physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Makes sense.

I don't want to judge others, but I do it, too. But I don't want to. Human nature. I'd rather have a Christian nature anyday.
I'm a work-in-progress.
Pray for me, Bob.

By the way, how is your health these days. I worry about you, too. L's

P.S. I SURE hope next Sabbath we can be PEACEFUL and honor Him that way. He would like that. :)

Anonymous said...

Matthew 10:34
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Anonymous said...

L's - Your comments are a handful to deal with. You are way off biblically on how one is saved and you are way off biblically on how Christians are to react to, make judgements about, and confront sin.

I think you are neck deep in your religious tradition and "good" works and it is tough to deal with on a blog.

Biblically, not only CAN Christians sit in judgement of your position, but we MUST sit in judgement of it. It is required of us, because both your tradition and your "good" works will be of no benefit to you on the day you meet your maker.

Unfortunately for you, this needed exchange is not going to happen via blog comments. Please step away from your tradition and "good" works long enough to discover true biblical forgiveness for your sin against a holy and just God. Your good works will then flow like a river of gratitude because of what He did for you. Right now, you are too focused on what you can do for Him.

Anonymous said...

Wade wrote: "Unlike the medieval ages when knights simply took out bishops who questioned the authority of the always orthodox king, foot soldiers of the Landmark and separatist leaders of the Conservative Resurgence will only rest when pastors, churches and people who do not agree with them are removed from the Southern Baptist Convention.

The weapon of choice is the accusation that those who disagree with Landmark, separatist theology lack "Southern Baptist orthodoxy."

In using their 'weapons' against fellow Christians,
the foot soldiers should be wary of possibly serving SATAN:

Here is a guide for the foot soldiers:


The Rule of Integrity:
“To do evil
in order to accomplish good
is really to do evil.”


Breaking one of God’s commandments is not the way to advance His Kingdom, ever.
If, in the service of Christ, I act in an un-Christian way,
I become a highly effective ally of the very forces I set out to combat, satanic forces.

Bob Cleveland said...

L's Gran,

I understand, but the bible says what it says, and I never want to mislead someone .. offer spiritual comfort .. when they are in rebellion against the revealed word of God.

If someone is living in a sin which God calls an abomination to Him, I certainly don't want to do anything to indicate it'll be OK for that person to continue in it.

And 1 Corinthians 5 is clear about what the church must do in such matters.

Anonymous said...

Hello Anonymous,

It's me, L's

I am HIS servant.
I serve others in His Holy Name.
And according to the Rule of Charity written in 1 Cor. 13

I will not be my cousin's judge.
THAT is above my paygrade on this Earth. I'm sure God can judge her
Himself with infinitely more Wisdom and Mercy than we can imagine.

One thing troubles me:
How is it that no one has formed a committee to seek out those who harmed the missionaries and Dr. Klouda, and tried to help the perpetrators?
I do hear you about confronting, in a Christian manner, for the sake of a someone who has sinned.
I do understand this concept.
But it does not involve judging the PERSON. Rather, it is done as a service in Christian love and compassion, to encourage repentance and reconciliation to God. No condemnation.

We do not even have the same concept of the Nature of God, you and I.
My concept of God is that He is BOTH merciful AND just at the same time and infinitely so. I trust my Father's wisdom and mercy to judge me and all of us in sacred ways that we cannot understand now in our poor human frailty, here on the Earth, where we see 'as through a glass darkly'.

Have you confused sitting in judgment on another person with counseling that person about something that is harmful to them?

Like an intervention to help the person? That is not the same as
sitting in judgment on the person.

I do believe in intervention.
God is very good about that on His Own and needs no help from any of us. However, sometimes, I think He wants us to help another as a way for us to grow as Christians.
Given an opportunity to intervene in His Name to help someone, we can and should respond to His Call.
You know when He calls you to help another. He calls you by the power of the Holy Spirit who informs your spirit, your conscience, and your heart.
You then can become an instrument of God's in order to help another. Didn't you know that? Lots of people don't.

Please know this: we are to be JUDGED as we have judged others.
Please be careful. This is a serious commandment of God, not to be taken lightly.

As for our 'neighbors':
We are not to be their judges,
We are to be their servants.

You and I must agree to disagree.
For some reason, this may be difficult for you.
I am sorry to have caused you upset in any way. Apparently I have done that. L's

P.S. If it is any consolation for you: I asked my friend if she thought I was a Christian.

She said, 'Are you kidding. You are definitely one of the most Christian people I know."

This coming from my friend who is a Baptist and has two sons: one studying for the ministry and another studying to be a medical missionary.

I was so relieved when she said that. Especially now.

I will let myself out of the
Baptist Dog House For Heretics
based on her opinion. :) L's

Anonymous said...

L's: I said this on the other post, but I believe you. I also agree with what Bryan Riley has said concerning this.

DL said...

"Breaking one of God’s commandments is not the way to advance His Kingdom, ever."

Unless you are 1)Jesus who tread on the commandments well enough that everyone in Israel was confused as to just what God requires, 2) Hebrew midwives in Egypt who lied to Pharaoh and gained favor with the Lord, 3) Rahab the harlot who lied by faith about the spies - just three times off the top of my head that humble me whenever I think I'm ready to write "Ethics for Dummies".

Anonymous said...

Name dropper. By the way, I can clearly see the resemblance. Most of all the chicken legs! - Steve Mortensen

Anonymous said...




Anonymous said...


It's me. L's

I left you a message on the other post.

Thank you for your kindness.

I have always admired your comments which are thought-provoking and I have wondered if you worked in a religious capacity.
Tell me about yourself, if you like. If not, I thank you, in any case, for your help. :)

So until the next time I get into trouble using language from another religious culture, I remain grateful for all help. L's

Bob Cleveland said...

L's Gran,

Sorry I missed your question to me. I'm taking radiation sort of as a "why not" deal. We're dealing with a very slow-growing cancer that the doctor says I will probably die with, but probably not die from.

Thanks so much for asking.

And I will pray for you.

Anonymous said...

Lucy's grandaughter,
I by no means meant to imply that you are a homosexual. I also did not mean to imply that you are not a Christian. Ultimately, the salvation of another is not mine to judge.

The article I posted about homosexuality was in response to the recommendation of Sara Miles book and comments affirming her claims she was converted via partaking of communion. And I encouraged you to take seriously what CB Scott wrote to you because you have made several statements indicating you believe in some other way to a relationship God than through faith alone in Christ alone. If I have misreprsented or misunderstood your positions, I apologize. But if I have misunderstood you, it is obvious from the comments of others that I am not the only one. So you are free to set the record straight by affirming that Jesus is the only way to salvation for anyone, and that you trust Him and Him alone for your own salvation (and not your own good deeds, or a combination of faith and good deeds).

All this talk about judging and casting stones just obfuscates the real issues, and makes matters personal. It is not wrong, nor lacking mercy, nor unChristlike, nor casting stones, to say that someone who is unrepentantly engaging in sin should not to be serving in a ministry position of a church, or to say that such a person evidently does not grasp the nature of saving grace. (Or is it only ok to "judge" someone for "judging"??)

God's mercy does not override His justice, nor temper it, just as His justice does not negate His mercy, or lessen it. He is equally both just and merciful, and the two attributes are distinct, and they are both fully demnstrated in the person and work of Christ.

gmommy said...

It is not wrong, nor lacking mercy, nor unChristlike, nor casting stones, to say that someone who is unrepentantly engaging in sin should not to be serving in a ministry position of a church, or to say that such a person evidently does not grasp the nature of saving grace.

Do you speak this boldly to SBC ministers who not only allow confessed and credibly accused sexual predators to remain in the ministry but also cover for them?

Ramesh said...

Stop Baptist Predators: Thanksgiving
"Southern Baptist ministers and leaders instilled in me a hateful lesson. The core teaching of their lesson was this: “You are a creature void of any value -- you don’t matter.”

In both my childhood and adulthood, Baptist leaders made that dehumanizing lesson absolutely clear. They whipped it into me.

It was a lesson first taught by Tommy Gilmore, the minister who molested and raped me as a kid.

It was a lesson reinforced by the keep-it-quiet music minister, Jim Moore, and by other leaders in my childhood church, who knew and stayed silent.

In recent years, the lesson was retaught by the current ministers and deacons at First Baptist Church of Farmers Branch, including the same keep-it-quiet music minister Jim Moore, who is still there. These were men who chose to threaten recourse against ME rather than doing anything about their own former minister who molested me when I was a kid.

Then, as though Baptists were afraid I hadn’t adequately learned my lesson, it was retaught yet again by the men of the Baptist General Convention of Texas who, with double-faced dissembling, strung me along, did nothing to help me, and instead helped the church that was seeking to silence me.

The lesson was repeatedly retaught again and again by men of the Southern Baptist Convention who misled me to think my perpetrator wasn’t in ministry, who wouldn’t even shake my hand, who did nothing to help me, and who said remarkably harsh and hurtful things.

In truth, if I were to recount all the misery of what I’ve encountered in Baptist-land, there would be no end to it. And how I wish my story were a rarity. But it’s not."

let's stop pastor darrell gilyard together

Ramesh said...

Grace and Truth to You: The Sordid and Strange Darrell Gilyard Story and What It Reveals About the SBC

Grace and Truth to You: The Problem of a Predator In the Pulpit in the SBC

Anonymous said...

Sick: I read her as having affirmed that. I see no need in continuing to badger L.

Anonymous said...

L: I am 52 years old and a member of Emmanuel Baptist church for 16 almost 17 years. I do sub-teach in my own class when needed, something that I enjoy doing but I also enjoy listening and being a student. I own about every commentary and lots of Bible study material, and enjoy being a student of scripture. That is the only "office" I hold at this moment as I am also helping to raise three granddaughters who lost their father this past April in a motorcycle accident. I'm about as simple as that. My life told in one paragraph. :)

I am a believer in the Bible as the final authority, and

Anonymous said...

Oops, I see my editing wasn't perfect with the last semi-sentence. That was in answer to another poster that I put in the wrong spot. Please disregard.

Anonymous said...

L has not confirmed true biblical salvation. When she does attempt to define it, she can't do it without going into a diatribe regarding good works and relying on her friends to tell her she is a great Christian.

This is yet another opportunity for her to do so.

L's - Please feel free to layout what you believe to be true biblical salvation to clear the air for all of us. It would be helpful if you would rely only on biblical texts and please don't mention things that are a result of salvation like good works.


Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous (Dec.1, 4 am)

L's Gran is Catholic. WE don't speak, nor write the same religious language that you do. Even words like prayer mean very different things to us.

But, from Scriptures, can you please explain what Christ meant when He was separating the sheep from the goats in Matthew.

Ramesh said...

Did you know that Dr. Tom Ascol was struck by a lightening?

All the below posts are from Founders Ministries Blog.

A display of divine greatness and mercy

Update from Donna (Tom's wife)

Thanks for your prayers


Anonymous said...

Do you speak this boldly to SBC ministers who not only allow confessed and credibly accused sexual predators to remain in the ministry but also cover for them?

Mon Dec 01, 12:26:00 AM 2008

Thank you Ruth. A very good point. Seems we have our share of promoting and ignoring sexual sin in SBC churches and leadership. Seems we do want to throw stones at others even though some of our own leaders and big name pastors have been coddling perverts.

Where is the outcry besides this blog? Why aren't these folks worried about this in light of sin and sanctifacation? Shouldn't they know better?

As a denomination, we have little crediblity in this area. After all, these folks are still big leaders being paid by tithe dollars.


Anonymous said...

There is no Anony at 4 am, but I will reply.

I'm not interested in religious languages, Catholics, Baptists, or anything else right now. I just want to hear from L's what is required for a person to go to heaven? What is biblical salvation? There is only one correct reply regardless of any of our other differences - including religions.

If she (or anyone else) disagrees with that and thinks there are two ways or many ways to get to heaven, then the conversation should probably stop now because we are a million miles away from each other. And frankly, relying on good works would be the least of their problems.

But for now, the question on the table is very clear and should be very easy to answer, if one knows the biblical answer. I am wondering if L's can do it without discussing good works or anything else that is a RESULT of salvation.

I am also wondering if she can show text from scripture and not just rely on her friends who tell her she is a "great Christian".

I don't mean this arrogantly L's and I am sincere in asking. I will also gladly answer the question about the sheep and goats (which is a parable) if it is still needed after L's reply.

If she gives a biblical reply to what is required for salvation, the explanation of the parable will not be needed.

L's - I am not going to belabor the issue either. If you can't answer or don't want to answer, I am not going to bash you on the head relentlessly. Furthermore, if you can't answer without referring to good works I am not going to continue on and I will consider the discussion over.

Thanks for your patience and for understanding.

Bill said...

I'd like to echo Scott here. The plethora of anonymous postings and great number of off-topic comments and links detracts from the conversation.

Tom Ascol has become the new Baptist bogeyman (after Wade, who is now bogeyman-emeritus). The Founders organization represents much of what the SBC hierarchy rejects: Not just Calvinism, but smaller churches, church discipline, membership integrity, and an end to the Finney-esque evangelical shenanigans that plague much of our convention.

How anyone can look at what the J3:16 conference was; a collection of non-Calvinists speaking against the Calvinist understanding of the bible, and still maintain that it was not an anti-calvinism conference is beyond credulity. If people believe Calvinism to be wrong then they should not be ashamed to speak against it.

Anonymous said...

To take this thread back to the original topic, let me first say that Dr. Yarnell's behavior was abominable. The complete lack of Christian charity, combined with the deceitful misrepresentation of what the BFM actually says, reflects poorly on both him and the institution that employs him.

But the self-righteousness of many of the open communion proponents on this thread is suffocating. Those of us who practice closed communion do so not because we think we are better than everyone else, or because we want to exclude "sinners" from the Table. We do so for one or both of the following reasons:

1. The Regulative Principle/Rule of Prescription -- personally I don't think this argument holds water, but many who practice closed communion cite this as their primary motivation.

2. Paul advises the churches in his epistles to avoid those church members who live in open, habitual sin, to the point of not even eating with them. By the language he uses, I think Paul is essentially saying that those members who are under discipline are to be excluded from the Lord's Table. To do so as a practical matter, of course, a church must practice close or closed communion.

I have no interest in arguing the merits of these reasons. My point is only that those of you who advocate open communion would be wise to actually understand what you are arguing against, rather than knocking down absurdly self-righteous straw men arguments. Otherwise, you are no better than Dr. Yarnell.

Ramesh said...

Please check out this new post:

SBC Tomorrow: personal reflections of Peter Lumpkins: SBC & Calvinism: Three Events That Widened The Divide: A Rejoinder to Tom Ascol by David Allen

Anonymous said...

"Yes, I believe that Gaines' sin was terrible and he was criminally negligent but Rogers would have expedited the case by spending thousands of dollars to keep it quiet."

Anonymous, What class. Defaming a dead man who cannot defend himself.


Anonymous said...

LANDMARKER wrote: "Those of us who practice closed communion do so not because we think we are better than everyone else, or because we want to exclude "sinners" from the Table."

'we want to exclude sinners from the Table. . . '

I guess no one takes communion in your religion, Landmarker.

For Heaven's Sake, just who do you think communion is for?
Even the most saintly among us is 'not worthy'; but even the greatest of sinners among us can be healed by the Lord.
No one, NO ONE could measure up to your standards.

Think about it.

It's me, L's.
I knew you were receiving medical treatment at a hospital from previous posts. I will keep you close in my prayers, my kind-eyed friend, and believe me, in my religion, we have a way of storming heaven relentlessly with our prayers.:) My husband went through cancer surgery last year and had radium implanted for it. He was successfully treated, thanks be to God, and will be followed up for at least five years. I know your family is going through a lot of worry for you. I've been there. You are such a shining Christian with so much to give to your church and others. May God keep you safely and lovingly free from worry and pain. I'm calling the nuns to pray for you, too. They pray 'without ceasing' through the night for those in need of prayer, so you will be surrounded with loving care twenty-four seven. :)

Dear Sick of Christless,

It is very strange to read your writing and wording. Anna is right. We speak differently and think differently.

I think you want a debate using the Scriptures. I can only tell you this:


Now, does this make me a heretic?
Or does this make me the mother of a severely mentally disabled adult son who does not have the gift of speech?

You decide.

I have learned a thing or two about humility through my wonderful son, who has more of the shining light of God in his eyes than I have a right to see.
My Patrick will go to heaven, you bet. But, if the Lord doesn't want Patrick with Him, then I will go willingly with my son to keep him company through all eternity so that he will not be afraid and alone and unloved.

In your writing, you don't see that some people can't be fit into your mold of 'Christian'. Some just aren't able to live up to your expectations. I can't. My son certainly cannot. Back to the 'heretic dog house'. Oh dear.

Did you know that God's mercy has a Name? JESUS CHRIST
And I DO believe that God's justice IS tempered by His Mercy to us. So, we disagree.

What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Where can we go where God is not there?

Your concept of salvation works for YOU. Be grateful for that. And pray for me. And pray for my son who could never live up to your expectations as a Christian.

My concept of salvation is this: that God has imprinted his Law on our hearts. So He may judge our response and cooperation with a wisdom that is far above anything we can begin to imagine.

When I think of salvation, I see the crucifix that belonged to my parents, of blessed memory. It reminds me that the arms of Jesus were spread wide to encompass the whole of Creation.

The Living Word who could calm the wind and the sea; it is the Living Word that will decide who among us is to be 'saved'. L's

Anonymous said...


I can only assume from your ambiguous comment that you reject the idea of church discipline per se. If that's the case, your argument is with Paul, not me.

WatchingHISstory said...


you got the message and thanks.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for your note.
You may be right about the entries of 'Sick of Christless' being by another person other than Charles Page. I am very aware that I MUST NOT ON ANY ACCOUNT write anything that would cause harm to this troubled man.

We must try to help and protect those who suffer from mental illnesses as we would try to help someone with a medical problem. People with a fascination for child pornography are at risk to eventually act out, unless there is intervention. This is an additional reason for ecouraging him to get therapy. It takes a very special kind of therapist to work with people whose behaviors make everyone else cringe and want to run from. And yet, he MUST be cared for.

I now know enough not to engage in any 'conversations' with this man. I have no qualifications to help him: 'At least, do no harm".
'Ignoring' is not what he needs either.

I agree, someone with his behaviors, as presented on this blog, does require serious intervention by professionals qualified to help him.

Does anyone know his family? Or his minister? Is there anyone willing to continue to encourage him to get help? Or is he pretty much alone in the world?

There must be SOME WAY that no one has thought of yet to get him some help.
Any ideas, anyone? L's

WatchingHISstory said...

Thanks for your concern for my welfare.

I am presently undergoing counseling. He is a very spiritual counselor who points out sin in myself and others. He has helped to deepen my faith in Christ. In fact he is humble and defers praise so easily to others.

He is willing to spend so much time with me and endures my many faults. When it is difficult to confess my own complicated sins he will help me in my prayer life.

There have been times he did not have the words and he just groaned on my behalf.

You won't believe this but he has given me my own private prayer language.

The only thing I dread is the bill, he has never billed me and I know it will be large.

Perhaps you all can start a fund for my expense. I don't think he accepts credit cards or checks only cash.

Anonymous said...


I assume you saw Charles Page's 6:44 comment before it was deleted?

Mr. Page has a family, a wife and two married adult daughters, both of whom live in the Memphis area. He also has two young grandchildren, and I fear for their safety. I doubt his wife is aware of all his "online" activities. If she is and approves, then she's as badly in need of help as he.

He regularly attends a Baptist church although he has never joined. The pastor there is well acquainted with him. Attempts to get this pastor to help him fell on deaf ears as have appeals to two other ministers who know him. It seems no one who knows him cares enough to get involved, or perhaps they don't want to set him off. Others who have encouraged him to get help have been met with nothing but resistance and ridicule. He's on a "mission from Gawd" and says nothing is going to stop him.


WatchingHISstory said...

Grace (are you a man or a woman?)

I want to commend you for your courage to come out of annonymity and be grace. Courage!

The other annon and the other anon and the other anon are all cowards. Oh and the angry anon ain't he or she impossible to deal with. giving wade a hard time

Hopefully "L" will straighten him/her out.

Oh my wife knows about my online activities and we have four grandchildren and one on the way.
Would you like to see pictures?

Get this, she complains that I don't spend enough time with them.

Anonymous said...

Oh my wife knows about my online activities and we have four grandchildren and one on the way.

My bad about the number of grandchildren. Now I'm doubly worried for their safety. If your wife has read the filth you post and approves, she's as sick as you, but I doubt she has.


Ramesh said...

L's if you need to post, you can interact with Debbie. It looks like Pastor Wade's main post is serious now.

Ministry of Reconciliation: Elect Is Another Word That Is Used In The Bible

Here are some of Debbie's comments:
"The purpose of this post is not to try and change someone’s mind, nor is it to be mean. It is simply an attempt to get people to think, check scripture, and to come to their own conclusions. Friction is here. To ignore it will not make it go away. Discussion helps clear the air.
This is also a safe place to agree, disagree, and discuss. The fact is that Calvinism is growing in Baptist life. It is important that both views thrive in Baptist life. Fear and anger is being strewn about based on innuendos and not fact. I would like to be able to talk about it."

Anonymous said...

GRACE wrote:


I assume you saw Charles Page's 6:44 comment before it was deleted?"

I'm sorry, no.
I did not see it.
My daughter's phone call interrupted my blogging and I 'saved' what I had typed without reading other comments that came in while I was on the phone. L's

No need to say more, I think.
I feel so sad.

Anonymous said...

It contained, among other things, a couple of f-bombs. This is the kind of garbage he says the Holy Spirit tells him to write. It is indeed sad.


Anonymous said...

miriam's well

dr. rev. jeremy taylor ph.d., d.min, (hon), m.a. steals the God spoken created protected name ministry of dreams, and hides on his website. Google indexes, and ordained unitarian universalist minister jeremy taylor of the aol dream show will not release, but rather charges high fees to speak, 1200 per, and teaches students, but hates Gods servant.
Here is google cache of the theft of protected ministry of dreams which reverend jeremy taylor stole and letters from dr. taylor calling ministry above copyrights and threats of liberlous: google cache of doctor jeremy taylor's theft: Dreams: Community MinistryStruggles with Racism & Sexism, Give Birth to the Community Ministry of Dreams. In my increasing distress I thought about simply canceling the rest of the ... - 47k - Cached - Similar pages.
heres is 4 letters from jeremy taylor claiming it is ok to take ministry of dreams that is God spoken and created and protected, calling ministry above copyrights: : From: "Kathryn Taylor" Save Address To: ,, CC: Subject: ministry Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:43:02 -0800 Show Full Headers Back To [INBOX] ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------- Dear Anonymous Dream Minister I have been a minister for over 25 years and have been actively carrying out a ministry focused on dreams and dreaming for that entire time. I have taught in seminaries, universities, and workshops all over the world and continue to do so. I have always advocated that working with dreams in general and working with them as a ministry is open to all who are called to it. The world needs as many good dream ministries as it can get. There is room for all at the table (as Jesus so eloquently said). Ministry of any kind is not about threats, or copyrights or ownership in any way. I can only conclude that you are very new to this and are not aware of the fellowship of ministry. The goal is to help each other, in order to offer help to others. Your hostility, and your implied and specific threats make it difficult for me to simply welcome you to the ranks of the ministry of dreams - which is always what I would prefer to do. I have noted that you have called me a thief in print and the law considers that a libelous statement (email to Jim Garrison, 2/15/07). That's unfortunate. I wish you peace. Reverend Jeremy Taylor, D.Min.,
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Jeremy Taylor wrote: From: Jeremy Taylor Subject: Re: taylor stole from anne frey, u might b next like christian To: Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 11:47 PM Dear Corey Brackney, Thank you for your email. I am not sure why you are sending me copies my various attempts to communicate directly with unstable cyber-stalker "Bob". Has he been inundating you with his unpleasant, threatening rants as well? Or is this just another one of "Bob's" cover addresses? (If it is you, Bob, why don't you give it a rest - or do you derive pleasure from the notoriety you are cultivating on the Net with your incessant nonsense masquerading as religious vision?) Unfortunately, "Bob" appears to be a mentally and emotionally unstable person. He has been stalking me on the Internet since February. He has been using MY return email address as part of his harassment of me when he posts his unpleasant, threatening rants on open web sites, so - please understand that I did NOT make the requests and/or comments attributed to me, even though they may appear to have come from my email address. In any case, I am sorry that you have also become yet another object of his unwanted attention. Yours sincerely, Jeremy Taylor On Aug 25, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Corey Brackney wrote: On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:19 PM, Jeremy Taylor wrote: Dear Ministry of Dreams, "Bob", Thanks for your e-mail. It is nice to see that "Ashoka" is helping to inform folks about so many of the various dream activities around the country. I know all these people, some better than others, but I know them all. They are folks I have known for years. Most of them I met first face-to-face at International Association for the Study of Dreams conferences around the planet. Aren't they all doing interesting work? I do hope all is well with you - at least as well as possible under the circumstances - and that you are finding some relief from your own nightmares... I am assuming that the dream fragments on your web pages that are not specifically attributed to others are yours? Thanks again for the direct communication. Reverend Jeremy Taylor, D.Min. Co-founder and past president of the International Association for the Study of Dreams. (IASD), Executive Director of the Marin Institute for Projective Dream Work, (MIPD) Jeremy Taylor 736 San Pedro St Fairfield, CA 94533 707/422.9308 Subject: Re: How's it going? On Jan 8, 2008 9:16 PM, Jeremy Taylor wrote: Dear Bob, Your incessant and repetitive postings on open bulletin boards and interactive web sites, using my e-mail address as your return address are irritating the people whose mail boxes you are filling up, and it's wearing me out replying. Here is what I have been saying to them, each time I get a distressed, (or automated) e-mails from anyone on whose web site you have left one of your "rants" disguised as a message from me. Unfortunately, there is a person using the internet to "stalk" me. He has been using my e-mail address to post his unpleasant rants on various open access bulletin boards and web sites. Please understand that I did NOT write the comments attributed to me. I am sorry that you have also become an object of his unwelcome attention. From reading your own web site(s), it does not seem to me that any of this activity on your part is making Jesus any happier. (All that stuff about electric shocks, and sexual organs, and whatnot is pretty distressing...) I assume you would say on one of the "ministry of dreams" web sites if any of this made you, or Jesus, feel any better... Is that right? Would you let us know if doing any of this made you feel better? So, why don't you give it a rest for a while, and see what that feels like? Also, who are these other people you keep mentioning whom you say have have also "stolen" the phrase "ministry of dreams" from you? I HAVE Googled them, as you suggested, and not found the references you tell me are supposed to be there... What's the story with that? This really is an invitation for the two of us to communicate directly, if you care to, of if Jesus wants us to... Jeremy Taylor
Jeremy Taylor 736 San Pedro St Fairfield, CA 94533 707/422.9308
The board and trustees of starr king school for the ministry have been emailed, but choose to still charge students to be taught by witchs like reverend jeremy taylor d.min, and protect dr. taylor, ask them why they hate Jesus so much the protect thief wizard jeremy taylor u.u.,
Rev. Thomas Disrud Chair Associate Minister, First Unitarian Church of Portland Portland, Oregon
Rachael Balyeat Vice-Chair, Nominations Chair Business professional specializing in real estate / Vintner Home church: First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco San Francisco, California
Rev. Roger Fritts Treasurer, Finance Chair Senior minister, Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church Kensington, Maryland
Rev. Manish K. Mishra Awards Chair Minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of St. Petersburg St. Petersburg, Florida
Rev. Dr. Daniel Kanter Advancement Chair Minister, First Unitarian Church of Dallas Dallas, Texas

persecution is torture, pray for me

visions and dreams
Mary Anderson Home church: Unity Church-Unitarian of St. Paul St. Paul, Minnesota
Rev. Sean Parker Dennison Minister, South Valley UU Society Salt Lake City, Utah
Kay Hodge Attorney Home church: First Parish in Framingham Marlborough, Massachusetts
Dr. Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz Professor of Ethics and Theology, Drew University Home church: Our Lady Queen of Angels Roman Catholic Church New York City, New York
Dr. Lee Helena Lawrence Activist / psychologist / lifelong Unitarian Universalist / former faculty member, Harvard University Home church: Unitarian Universalist Church of Berkeley Moraga, California
Rev. Dr. Rebecca Parker Ex-officio Trustee President, Starr King School for the Ministry Oakland, California
Darcy Baxter Student Trustee San Francisco, California
Amy Moses Student Trustee San Francisco, California
Rev. Dr. Dave Sammons Ex-officio Trustee SKSM Faculty Representative Walnut Creek, California
Judy Welles Ex-officio Trustee SKSM Grad Association President Carlisle, Pennsylvania
dr. reverend jeremy taylor m.a. also works for wisdom university and dr. jim garrison knows, and if you ask jeremy taylor about his theft of ministry of dreams, he will say, I cant discuss that with you, thats in litigation, but this is his lie and way of not having to confess and be embarrased. Demand your money back from wisdom university and starr king school for the ministry, this is not the behavoir of reverends, ministers, but of devils with those titles.