Thursday, February 05, 2009

Are Southern Baptists Blind or Blindfolded?

As time goes by I continue to wonder if Southern Baptists are actually blind or simply blindfolded. Our Convention is being transformed before our very eyes and I wonder if it is even being seen for what it is. Over three years ago, in a blog post entitled Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conversatives: The Battle for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention I wrote these words:

When are people in the Southern Baptist Convention going to stand up and say enough is enough? The Southern Baptist Convention is now moving toward a time when everyone must look the same, talk the same, act the same, believe the same on the non-essentials of the faith, or else you will be removed as "not one of us." Today it is private prayer language vs. cessationists and the proper administrator of baptism vs. biblical baptism. Tomorrow it might be Calvinism vs Arminianism or dispensationalism vs. preterism. Where will it end?

The nature of independent, fundamentalist Baptists - Baptists who claim their true Landmark heritage through the ana-baptists of Europe and not the particular Baptists of England - is to separate from everyone who is not the "pure" bride of Christ. These separatists desire no cooperation, demand conformity, and are cock sure that every word they breathe is the mind of God. After a ten year personal slumber, I woke up three years ago and saw that this separatist, Landmark spirit is controlling our Convention and agency boards. I knew that if somebody didn't speak out against the narrowing of the definition of what it means to be a Southern Baptist, then those who "control" the SBC would wind up excluding, removing, and disfellowshipping anyone who didn't look like them. I spoke out for those who believe in the continuation of the gifts, but were removed from our mission field. I have spoken out on behalf of women who taught at our seminaries and were fired for being women. I have spoken out against the extraordinary efforts to turn the SBC into one giant Fundamentalist Baptist church.

This week I pointed out that the architect of the Southern Baptist Convention is now going after Calvinists. Dr. Paige Patterson has expressed his intentions to administrators and professors at SWBTS to not have anyone on faculty at Southwestern who holds to five-point Calvinism. This is not conjecture; it is fact. It is also consistent with his actions of removing anyone who doesn't believe like he. People like Sheri Klouda, who saw nothing wrong with a woman teaching a man Hebrew. People like trustee Dwight McKissic, who believe his gift of a private prayer language is from the Holy Spirit. People like certain professors who believed in the continuation of the gifts. Now Dr. Patterson has turned his eye of disunion to five-point Calvinists.

Ironically, the defenders of this purge in the Southern Baptist Convention, those who are closed-communion, Landmark, separatist Baptists, like Patterson himself, defend Dr. Patterson to the nth degree. Their ideologies line up with his. Unfortunately, the Calvinists are waking up at the time they are the ones in the cross hairs. At some point, the Calvinists who didn't believe me will come back and say, "You were right." I, however, am uninterested in being proved right. I am only interested in people removing their blindfolds and seeing what is happening in our beloved Convention.

I have no problem with Landmark, independent, closed-communion, separatist, fundamentalist Baptists participating in the Southern Baptist Convention. Their anti-women, anti-charismatic, anti-Calvinist, anti-cooperation, and "anti-everthing they are not," does sometimes give me a head ache. But, I do not want them gone.

I want them to stop removing Southern Baptists from ministry and service who aren't like them.

Patterson's Intentions Clear and Consistent

In a taped conversation with Paige Patterson last night, a young pastor who idolizes Dr. Patterson and holds to the same ideology to that of his mentor, asked Dr. Patterson about the "rumors" that he desired to remove the Calvinists from the faculty at Southwestern. The questions and answers, courtesy of the transcript provided by New BBC Forum, are as follows . . .

Interviewer: "I've been asked recently about a rumor that these economic challenges have been used as an excuse uh... to weed out certain professors at Southwestern who hold to a soteriological viewpoint with which you disagree. Is there any truth to that rumor?"

Paige Patterson: "Ummm... eh you... you know... eh uh... I certainly hope not. Uhhh... eh uh... eh... I've lived my entire life... of life in a goldfish bowl... and... as boldly as I know how to do it. Uhhh... we're not certain at all that we're going to have to eliminate any professor. We have been working very, very hard to... ummm... to cut everything else in the world so we don't have to cut professors and... uh... we don't know yet what we're gonna have to do, but we... we're hopeful that we don't have to cut any professors. If we do... ummm... I will not use a... uhhh... screen... uh... to do that with. Ummm... if if if... every decision that I make regarding faculty would be made with a view to assisting the school to be the best school it possibly can be. Ummm... we have every conceivable soteriological view on the campus... uhhh... in terms of five points of Calvinism. We have one-pointers, two-pointers, three-pointers, four-pointers, and five-pointers. Uhhh... I will say this. Uhhh... Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." If there is a problem there, then I believe there's a problem that Southern Baptists would not want to fund.

Interviewer: "True."

Paige Patterson: "And so uhhh... uhhh... that would be the case, but I wouldn't be hidin' behind a screen of economic matters... if I had to deal with that".

Interviewer: "Sure."

Paige Patterson: "And uhhh... uh... God willing... ummm... if He's gracious to us... God's people continue to give... maybe we won't have to lay off anybody else."

Interviewer: "That's what we're prayin' for. Yes."

The Confirmation that Calvinists are Targeted Is in the Tape

Other than the interesting fact the interviewer expresses agreement on three separate occasions in his little "interview," it strikes me that Dr. Patterson doesn't deny his agenda, but rather confirms it.

Listen to his words: Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins."

Uh, Dr. Patterson, that is precisely what a five-point Calvinist will not do. A Calvinist will not tell just "anybody" that "Christ died for your sins." He will, however, look anybody in the eye and say, "Christ died for sinners. Do you know yourself to be a sinner and in need of a Savior? If so, Christ died for you."

Again, a five point Calvinist will never look just "anybody" in the eye and say "Christ died for you." He will not say that to the man who loves his adultery and scoffs at repentance. He will not say that to a woman who loves herself and will not bow to the Lordship of Christ. He will not say that to Adolph Hitler as Hitler takes Jews to the gas galleys. He will not say that to the sinner who has no sense of his sin. He will not say "Christ died for you" because he doesn't know if Christ did or not.

That's five point Calvinism.

The Calvinist believes that those for whom Christ died evidence Christ's death for them by their faith in the Son and their repentance of sins. God delivers, completely and eternally, only the sinners for whom He gave His Son. This is what Calvinism teaches. As Charles Spurgeon, the great Calvinist preacher of over 150 years ago, so eloquently declared about the elect and the reason God passes over them in judgment:

God will, God must, pass over us, because He spared not our glorious Substitute

The Calvinist is not a universalist. He believes that some sinners will be judged and condemned for their sins. These are those sinners for whom Christ did not die. It is the essence of five-point Calvinism, and these are the people Patterson wishes to purge from Southwestern. If Southern Baptists cannot see that the purging in the Southern Baptist Convention continues, and that anyone who doesn't agree with a particular ecclesiological, soteriological, pneumatological and eschatological ideology of those currently in charge and their vocal sychophants, then we are in a very dangerous place as a cooperating convention of autonomous churches.

There are a few Southern Baptists who do get it. Their blindfolds have been removed. Hopefully, more will follow.

In His Grace,



1 – 200 of 612   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Thanks for this post.

I listened to the interview as well. Wes Kenney boldly declared that Patterson "disproved" these lies. Either Wes doesn't understand theology himself, or he is blinded by his love for Patterson. The interview confimed everything you have said.

When I finished listening I thought that they had really blown it. Now they have the agenda on tape.

Good grief.

greg.w.h said...

The solution to the problem is very easy. Any organization that suggests Civil War within the SBC should be immediately and forcibly dismantled. In its entirety. And the ground that it stands on should be sowed with salt.

Greg Harvey said...


Profound. Prophetic.


Civil War violates the spirit of cooperation.

W said...

Obviously many of you have never worked in the "back rooms" with Paige Patterson. He is only holding true to his nature. I have seen it in person and am not surprised.

My granddad once told me that "once a dog sucks eggs, he will always suck eggs."

We shouldn't be surprised.

Joe Blackmon said...


For me, the issue is what constitues a non-essential. If someone does not agree with me as to the doctrines of grace, I can easily agree to disagree on that. I refuse to die on the hill of Calvinisim. However, if a church has a woman for a pastor, that is an essential. I would be surpised if I found out that most Southern Baptists do not consider that to be an essential.

In any case, the SBC nor any church or organization decides for me what is or isn't essential. We should not be willing to declare as many things non-essentials as possible just so we can be seen as co-operating. There are some lines that should not be crossed.

Anonymous said...

For a clear understanding of what the theological issue is at the center of Dr Patterson point.

What 5 point Calvinist doesnt believe this!
He would be at the maximum.....4 point

From the Southern baptist Geneva
Robert i Masters said...


Did you speak out for the missionaries? Did you speak out for the professors? Did you speak out for the other Southern Baptists who have been removed?

I didn't hear you.

Now you are disturbed about the Calvinist agenda.

BUT, you want to point out "women" pastors as a "problem."

Wake up Joe. I am a complementarian as well. You are MISSING MY POINT.

When a cooperating convention gives to leadership papal authority and forgets that THE CHURCHES are supposed to be the highest authority, then we get leadership wanting to "disfellowship" from any church that disagrees with any ideology of those in control.

You don't agree with "women" pastors? Fine. Don't be a part of a church that calls one. BUT DON'T DISFELLOWSHIP from that church.

Soon, they will be disfellowshipping from you.

Anonymous said...

Where is Dr. Welty?

His silence is deafening.

If he didn't sleep because of your post, he ought not sleep a week because of Patterson's interview.

Where is he? Dr. Welty? Please, tell us what you think of the words of your President.

We are anxiously awaiting to hear from you. Where are you?

Tim Marsh said...

Pastor Wade,

Though I do not hold to Calvinism I understand your position. I think that most SBC'ers, as well as many church-goers, are simply unaware that anything has changed in Baptist life.

However, from a sociological perspective, you MUST agree with a fundamentalist, or they will interpret your disagreement as an attack. That is the spirit of Fundamentalism. That is the darkside, the inability to think for themselves motivated by fear. There cannot be cooperation with fundamentalism.

Being a little more moderate, I know that people interpret the term "fundamentalist" as an attack from a "liberal." However, that is just a diagnosis. There is a difference in being conservative and fundamentalist.

Which is Dr. Patterson? said...

Fundamentalist, without question.

Bob Cleveland said...

If you're taking a vote, I'd have to say "Blindfolded", with the proviso that it's the DIY variety of blindfold.

Say, should I mention that frog in a pot, again?

Joe Blackmon said...


I've only recently become aware of these Baptist controversies. Guess I needed to get out more. Heck, I hadn't even heard of the CR until about 2 years ago.

Further, I'm not the least bit disturbed about the Calvinist agenda. If Paige "Original Recipe" Patterson wants to get rid of 5 pointers like me, let him.

I would not cooperate with a church that has a woman pastor. To say that disfellowshipping from a church with a woman pastor is just as wrong as firing Calvinists is not a statement I would agree with. I am fine, actually encouraged, with seeing FBC-Decatur on the verge of being told they are not part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I would be saddened to hear that a Calvinist had been fired for holding to 5 point Calvinisim.

You asset that the two are the same. I totally disagree. You assert that we don't need to narrow the parameters of who we will cooperate with too narrow. I agree up to a point. If I, who would refuse to cooperate with a church that had a woman pastor, found myself being excluded because I'm a Calvinist some day my life would go on unabated. In fact, they wouldn't have to disfellowship me. I'd leave because of my conscience.

Anonymous said...

Honestly your Iam a getting kinda old.
Nothing I have seen in your writings or your praxis would indicate that fact at all.
Iam talking about your blog writing.Thats why people are convinced you have a agenda that they not completely comfortable with for now!

From The Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...


Thanks for keeping us informed about these extremely important matters. Without your blog, I would be ill-informed about the changes taking place under our noses in the SBC.

As a Christian who does not fit in either the Arminian camp nor the 5-point Calvinist camp (I consider myself to be squarely in the middle of these two theological viewpoints), I do have a serious concern.

Will there come a day in the SBC (say if Al Mohler is ever elected SBC president), when the 5-pointers will be as exclusive as Patterson and his disciples? What assurances do we have that history will not repeat itself in the SBC but with Calvinists "in charge" and forcing their doctrinal position on congregations and seminary faculties?

Just wondering . . .

Tim Marsh said...

Pastor Wade,

Then you know the direction that they are taking the convention. They will not stop until conformity is ensured, or if your side "wins" (which I know is not your objective) then they will break away.

It is that simple.

You are correct to point out their inconsistencies, etc. Their problem with you is not a theological one, it is a sociological one. I can "accept" Landmarkists, independent Baptists, etc. I can agree to disagree. I can shuffle through the available literature, but the problem is that they cannot, out of fear.

You must agree with them or they interpret it as an attack. How far down the road will the fundamentalist movement go before it unravels the work of the pioneers of the Baptist heritage?

I simply hope that you along with many friends of mine can swing the pendulum back. But God only knows how long it will take, what it will cost, and if the SBC can remain relavant and vital as a ministering and missions force in the world.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

a five point Calvinist will never look just "anybody" in the eye and say "Christ died for you." He will not say that to the man who loves his adultery and scoffs at repentance. He will not say that to a woman who loves herself and will not bow to the Lordship of Christ. He will not say that to Adolph Hitler as Hitler takes Jews to the gas galleys. He will not say that to the sinner who has no sense of his sin. He will not say "Christ died for you" because he doesn't know if Christ did or not.

It seems that Spurgeon does not agree; "Whosoever." That means the black man, and the red man, and the yellow man, and the white man. It means the rich man, and the poor man:, and the man who is not a man. It means everybody of every sort, and those who are of no sort at all, or of all sorts put together.


Anonymous said...

Wade - Before all the politics get going too strong on this post, let me just say that I love your preaching. Your theology is right on brother.

It's been said before on your blog by someone (maybe me?) and I think it's true. If they come after the "calvinists" on the mission field they are going to have a rude awakening as to the negative impact.

And thanks for the update on Ben Cole on the other post.


Anonymous said...

Tim - Surely your reading comprehension goes deeper than that? Read it again and see if you can pick up on the key words you are missing.

Spurgeon and Wade agree and they speak of the same "whosoever".

Anonymous said...

Is the taped interview with Dr. Patterson available anywhere online?

Anonymous said...

Many Calvinist prefer the term "Doctrines of Grace" or Reformed theology because it
encompasses more than the five Soteriological points.

I care not what one call himself but rather what the Bible teaches on any given doctrine.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert i Masters

Strong Tower said...

"with seeing FBC-Decatur on the verge of being told they are not part of the Southern Baptist Convention."

This is not what is happening. They are being censored by the Georgia State Convention and on the verge of being disfellowshipped. The SBC retains no such authority to disfellowship a church based upon that cause.

One question that I have in all of this, does the SWBTS have the authority to establish policy independent of the SBC, or not? The answer is they do, but that is not really the issue here. It is the violation of the spirit of cooperation. A follow-up quetion, was Mohler and his board right when they required their staff to sign on to the Abstracts? Is Abstractism a sound basis for qualifying professors? Or is it just as fundamentalistic to go that way. I agree with the thrust of Mohler's intentions. But, what is the difference? According to the SWBTS statement of faith and their decidely anti-Calvinistic bent, is seems only consistent to expect their teachers to be on board with their beliefs. Are they not allowed to set their own policies as Mohler did? I do agree, that this kind of censorship goes against the statements in the BFM concerning education. On the other hand, entities of the SBC are fully within their rights under the SBC Constitution and by-laws to do so.

It seems that Spurgeon does not agree; "Whosoever." That means the black man, and the red man, and the yellow man, and the white man. It means the rich man, and the poor man:, and the man who is not a man. It means everybody of every sort, and those who are of no sort at all, or of all sorts put together.

Tim, this doesn't say anything like what Wade pointed out. One thing you anti-Calvinists ought to do is quit misquoting Spurgeon. That is Allenesque, and he has been shown to have been played for a fool by siting other's faulty research. Quit playing the fool with him.

Anonymous said...

Here is the interview said...

Uh, Tim, it is

Whosoever will.

Once again, you miss the point and misinterpret Scripture.

The adulterer who loves his sin will not come to Christ. The woman who loves herself and refuses to bow to Christ will not believe on Jesus. Hitler taking the Jews to the gas chamber will not look to Jesus. The Calvinist never gives any of these "who will not" repent of their sins and look to Christ assurance that Christ died for them.

The Calvinist will tell you that God has his elect from every nation, every tribe, every kindred and every tongue (yes, Tim, including "black" sinners, whatever you mean by that). But the Calvinist will not give the non-believer or the non-repentant that Christ died for Him.

The Calvinist will proclaim to everyone Christ died for sinners, but will only press home the role of Substitution for the broken sinner who sees his need of a Savior.


Wade said...

And, Tim, "In the day of God's power, His people shall be made willing.

Unknown said...

If you want to see where Paige Patterson is taking the whole of the SBC… just look to “Liberty University”… and you will find the mold in which Patterson is attempting to force/stuff/cram the SBC.

Everyone stood and applauded the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence (Paige Patterson) when this Landmark University was brought into the Southern Baptist Convention.

Remember the warning of Jesus “… a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump.”?

Soon it will no longer be know as the SBC… but the LBC.

Grace Always, said...

Greg Alford,

Insightful. I hope people understand what you have just said. said...

Strong Tower,

Strong Comment. said...

Strong Tower,

Amen, and Amen said...

Exclusionary policies cut both ways, and I would argue against all Calvinists removing the Landmarkers as well.

Paul Burleson said...


I can count on one hand the number of times I've commented to you personally about a post you've done. Several times I've responded to others for good or bad. But I've refrained from what would obviously be seen as partiality on my part because of my being your dad. Whether someone sees what I'm about to say as that or not, I'm throwing to the wind for the moment.

I simply must say, if what you've been pointing out for the past three years is NOT seen by someone now, they may not be WANTING to see.

You've been called a liar, liberal, rabble-rouser, fear-monger and several other choice titles. None of which has stuck to you because of your purpose being NOT to protect yourself from accusation but to simply write what you know to be the truth.

The price of taking up causes that are worthwhile is high. The cause you've championed [Not allowing the leaders of the SBC to force upon others a particular list of non-essentials or force out those who do not share that particular list of non-essentials.] is worthy and perhaps worth the price you and many others, such as Dwight McKissic to name one, have been and are willing to pay.

Whether the cause is successful or not time will reveal. You have always been optimistic in print publically and in words privately to me about the Convention eventually seeing the dangers. But I must say...this seems to me to be a defining moment. Never has there been a clearer statement from a leader of that desire to eliminate those who do not hold to his list than is this statement given in this interview.

I know of your love for and willingness to cooperate in missions with even those whose philosophy and theological world-view would refuse to cooperate with you. Whether they ever will cooperate or not.. I doubt. Whether the Southern Baptist Convention will awaken to the danger they pose as leaders.. I hope. Whether You've done well in sounding the alarm..I know.

You have.

Dad said...


I know I am biased, and freely admit it, but your comment has lifted my spirits more than any I have read in a long time. You have nailed my motives, my thoughts and my rationale for all I have said, written and done over the last three years.



P.S. Off for ministry. Will be out most of the day.

Unknown said...

Tim Rogers,

I knew you are “lurking” around here somewhere… Two things:

1st – Are you truly a “Universalist”? Do you truly believe in “Universal Atonement”… as apparently Paige Patterson does? If so then you would fit right in with the little group that meets down the road from where I live that teach that there is no need for repentance as Christ has died for all the sins of the World / “Whosoever”, and that in reality there is no such thing as salvation as we Evangelicals teach because no one is really lost. Yep - they are free from all condemnation… as the Atonement of Christ is “Universal”. Yep - they are free to sin all their hearts desire (and trust me they desire to sin a lot)… as the Atonement of Christ is “Universal”.
2nd - Did you know that the “vast majority of Southern Baptist hold Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another…”

Grace Always,

Anonymous said...

As a recent SWBTS graduate, I have to say that I am shocked by the last 3 posts. I haven't been keeping up with what's happened at the seminary, mostly because it disgusts me. There was/is a strand of students at the seminary who hold to more "Reformed" views on many doctrines, and we knew from which professors to take classes. I thought it odd when one of my favorite, and in my opinion one of the most gifted profs, left the seminary 4 years ago for another seminary. Maybe he just saw the writing on the wall. I sat through literally hundreds of our president's sermons/talks, knowing that our theology was different but deciding that that difference was not worth breaking fellowship over. Now it seems that he wouldn't have wanted me to attend his seminary because of my theological convictions. Sad to say, and correct me if I'm disillusioned right now, but I'm not happy my diploma says SWBTS on it. I feel like it's cheapened because I know WORLDWIDE Christianity is much broader than the SBC and I want to be associated with Christ's global purposes. Now if I tell someone where I graduated I might be seen as a close-minded person who has no desire to display the unity among believers that Jesus says will bring others to CHRIST. (John 17:20-21)

Chris Poe said...

In "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God" D.A. Carson states that he has no problem telling any particular sinner that Christ died for him. I suppose then his Calvinist credentials should be revoked?

I am only a Southern Baptist by the force of circumstances during this point in my sojourn. So I am not wrapped up in that identity as are others who were born and raised in Southern Baptist. I am a baptistic believer who happens to be a member of a Southern Baptist church at this time. That's not to say that I have no interest in what happens to the SBC.

I do know one thing. This Calvinist has no interest in cooperating with feminism, evangelical or otherwise. I doubt I'm the only one for whom Wade's continued protestations of "I am a complementarian too" ring hollow.

I do think Wade (as well as Tom Ascol, etc.) were basically right on the IMB baptism guideline. My baptism (immersion) was in a Wesleyan church subsequent to my conversion. I emphatically reject that the liberal SBC churches in my area (or the shallow "conservative" ones) somehow had more authority than this gospel preaching Wesleyan one to baptize. (This was the only kind of baptism performed by this church. But because they officially don't affirm the "security of the believer" my baptism would be rejected under the IMB guidelines.) But I have no problem whatsoever with the PPL guideline. In general IMO the parameters are too wide as it is. For example, I know of at least one paedobaptist (as well as paedocommunionist) church that is in "cooperation" with its state convention and the SBC. This church has such a Romish view of the "sacraments" that it wouldn't be welcome in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) of which I used to be a member. It's absurd that it is a cooperating church in the SBC and its state convention! Basically any church that wishes to send in the money and doesn't hit one of the hot buttons like women or homosexuals in the pulpit is given a pass.

Perusing the posts on this blog, one wonders what era of Southern Baptist life Wade would be most comfortable with. Anyone who knows anything about Southern Baptist history knows that the parameters of cooperation were far narrower in the 19th century than today. (Read Gregory A. Wills "Democratic Religion" for a primer.) Given Wade's criticism of SBTS on complementarianism, etc. it would seem that the days in which the so called "moderates" were in charge would be preferable from his and his fans point of view to any other period on SBC history. Those who think Calvinists were any more welcome during that era should consult Dr. Estep's diatribe against Calvinism for a little reality check.

A man need not be a liberal to enable liberalism to triumph. That's the lesson of history and it's happened over and over again. I spent several years as a Presbyterian, although I rejected their views on baptism and church government about a year ago. One example with which I am very familiar is the Northern Presbyterian church and how it was lost to liberalism in the 1920's and 30's because the "moderates," many of whom were personally orthodox, refused to move against the liberals, and eventually pushed the conservatives to the sidelines or out of the church altogether, as in the case of J. Gresham Machen, who was largely responsible for the founding of Westminster Theological Seminary as well as the OPC. Baptistic ecclesiology of course is different, but the moderate "Why can't we all just get along" mentality is the same. Someone in an earlier comment thread asked "Why does it always have to be a fight." This person needs to familiarize himself with the NT, starting with 2 Tim 4:1-5, Acts 20:25-31 and Jude 3.

If Wade & co. want to call me a fundamentalist for my "narrow" views, coming from them I'll consider that moniker to be a compliment and will own it as a badge of honor.

Anonymous said...

It's been a while, Wade.

Hope all is well with you and your family.

I've quoted it before, and I believe recent events deserve it to be quoted again...

"...But wisdom is proved right by her actions." - Matthew 11:18

As a SWBTS grad, I find this turn of events sad.

I would also wish to point out that sometimes comments can be taken out of the context of the actual person.
As a former student of Dr. Welty, I can vouch from personal experience he's an intelligent man with a big heart. Perhaps the previous statement is random, but please understand Dr. Welty is, from all I ever saw, an obedient servant of the Lord.

Paul Burleson said...


I would think all of us who name the name of Jesus as Lord are able to wear the only badge of honor that really means anything. GRACE.

All other ideas and interpretations as to theological issues are good and profitable for growing, knowing, teaching, and debating, but are not to be a substitute badge in my opinion.

I have a feeling you know this so pardon the response. Maybe I'm just reminding myself.

Anonymous said...

Proverbs 18:10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe.

Anonymous said...


One thing is for sure. If sinners don't hear of Christ's sacrfice for their sin, then certainly they will not repent. If, as you contend, 'he will not say to the...', then he is a disobedient christian.

If you truly believe that "He will not say "Christ died for you" because he doesn't know if Christ did or not,", and you teach this, then, in answer to your original question, YES, some Southern Baptists are blind- to the truth of Scripture. Beginning with you sir.

I am praying dilligently that you might lay down your pen of malice and hostility toward Dr. Patterson and others in our convention. The jealousy and hatred are making you a bitter man.

JS Houston

Anonymous said...

Well written...Amen!

Anonymous said...

Wade, it is always refreshing that you aren't against people; you are for Christ. May more arise who have the same heart.

Anonymous said...

Tim Rogers,

Charles Spurgeon quote below:

Another says, "I want to know about the rest of the people. May I go out and tell them—Jesus Christ died for every one of you? May I say—there is righteousness for everyone of you, there is life for every one of you?" No; you may not. You may say—there is life for every man that comes. But if you say there is life for one of those that do not believe, you utter a dangerous lie. If you tell them Jesus Christ was punished for their sins, and yet they will be lost, you tell a wilful falsehood. To think that God could punish Christ and then punish them—I wonder at your daring to have the impudence to say so!

God Bless,


Anonymous said...

Joe, I don't understand how women pastors has anything to do with the essentials. But it seems there are Southern Baptists who share that view.

Dave Miller said...

Greg Alford,

Calling Liberty University landmark is ignorant. My son is about to graduate from that school. No, in the seminary, Caner is not sympathetic to Calvinism, but the school of theology undergrad is a great school.

You need to get your facts straight before you speak.

volfan007 said...


Maybe we'd have an easier time accepting what you say if you'd tell us...

a)who your sources are?

b)who were the "preacher boys" at the big "dinner" interview with Dr. Patterson?

c)what restaurant did they eat at?

d)what did the "preacher boys" eat?

Let's see just how good your informants really are?


Dave Miller said...


You said, "This is not conjecture; it is fact."

A fact is established by evidence, not opinion. Until you provide evidence, reasonable people cannot accept this report as a fact.

New BBC Open Forum said...

Minor edit if you'd like to correct it on the front page, Wade:

Paige Patterson: "And so uhhh... uhhh... that would be the case, but I wouldn't be hidin' behind a screen of economic matters... if I had to deal with that".

Wayne Smith said...

Josh in FL said...

As a former student of Dr. Welty, I can vouch from personal experience he's an intelligent man with a big heart. Perhaps the previous statement is random, but please understand Dr. Welty is, from all I ever saw, an obedient servant of the Lord.

I have a friend who is the Most Highly respected Seminary Professor there is and He too would say AMEN AMEN AMEN to what you have stated.


Anonymous said...

Hi Bryan,
I think Mark Devers explanation of that is the best I have seen at T4G.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Kay said...

I am a 2004 grad. from SWBTS. I did not attend SEBTS because of Dr. Patterson and my belief he want to produce copies of himself. You might understand my fears as I realized it was in the bag, a done deal for Dr. Patterson to become my president at SWBTS. (All you have to do is look at who appointed the search committee and who recieved the first two big jobs. I sat in the crowd of that board meeting.)

While I do not consider myself a Calvinist. I don't like what seems to be happening. My mentor and friend is still a professor at SWBTS who is a 4 point Calvinist. But we are bound under the love of Christ who called us and died for us to serve Christ not our theological view points.

The reality is that since the CR movement there has and continue to be a narrowing of the lines of those who can stand within the ever changing othodoxoy of the SBC. We saw it with the BFM2000, the seperation from the Baptist World Alliance, the new policies at the IMB from private prayer langue to what is an offical baptism.

You can say anything you want but if you step back and look at our recent history as Souther Baptist you must agree we have made it harder to fit in to a narrowing frame work today than you did 25 years ago and it continues to get narrower. When will the people, pastor and lay people who truely believe we are all part of the Boby of Christ, the Chruch, who will become the Bride of Christ and say it is OK if we disagree on somethings but let us work together as Christians?

I don't agree with KJV only people but I believe they are still Christians. I think Dr. Patterson, who I'll admit I personally don't like him or his motives but yet still see him as a Christian (just misguided at times). There are many post on this blog that I have read on both sides of many different debates and I don't agree with, but am I ready to throw them out of the kingdom of God. Just as with the question of Grace, it has been debated and discussed for a long time, and personally I don't think it will be decied this side of heaven but I still believe my Calvinistic friends will be in heaven.

Scripture said we as the believers make up the church and are body. Why can't we act like the body as opposed to trying to cut off our arm or head just so we can fit into one groups theological ideas. It is time for us to come together as Christians and say these are some core beliefs as to who God, Jesus, salvation, and learn to disagree on some the the less important stuff as to was Jesus death for the choosen or for all. We can proclaim that Jesus came to die on the cross so that people could be saved. Because no matter your opinion there are peole going to hell everyday as we fight among ourselves and not focus on the mission of the Church. Because if we are not paying attention we will look more like the pharisees than the Christians we are called to me.

Pastor John

Anonymous said...

Wanda asked: "As a Christian who does not fit in either the Arminian camp nor the 5-point Calvinist camp (I consider myself to be squarely in the middle of these two theological viewpoints), I do have a serious concern.

Will there come a day in the SBC (say if Al Mohler is ever elected SBC president), when the 5-pointers will be as exclusive as Patterson and his disciples? What assurances do we have that history will not repeat itself in the SBC but with Calvinists "in charge" and forcing their doctrinal position on congregations and seminary faculties?"

Wanda: I am a five point Calvinist who teaches but never forces Calvinism. I am relieved to go to a church where we have both Calvinists and non-Calvinists who co-exist quite well. I welcome you in the SBC and I would speak up for you if the scenario you painted above were to occur.

This is what this type of exclusion on non-essentials does. It drives everyone to fear they may be next. Under the current mindset, one may well be right.

Anonymous said...

Hi Dave from Siouxland,

Have you heard the interview....its pretty clear although maybe not given recently.

Rob formely from LeMars

Anonymous said...

Do you go to Wades Church?
Do your elders all subscribe to one theological position?

Rob from Geneva

Joe Blackmon said...

It appears that those who suggest that there is too much "excluding for non-essentials" would describe lots of things as non-essentials. With that in mind, would anyone care to articulate what the essentials are?

volfan007 said...


still waiting on comments about this...


Maybe we'd have an easier time accepting what you say if you'd tell us...

a)who your sources are?

b)who were the "preacher boys" at the big "dinner" interview with Dr. Patterson?

c)what restaurant did they eat at?

d)what did the "preacher boys" eat?

Let's see just how good your informants really are?


Anonymous said...


Thanks for being willing to speak up for my position should the time ever come when that would be necessary in the SBC. I'm still trying to decide whether I'm a 3-point or 4-point Calvinist, but I'm certain I will never be a 5-point Calvinist.

My fear is that not all five-pointers in the SBC are as accepting as you. I hope I am wrong.

Pastor John,

Thank you for your thought-provoking comments. Well said!



Bob Cleveland said...

I wonder .... has "Christ died for you" become another creed we all must subscribe to? Has it somehow become the script that must be followed in sharing Jesus?

How could a lost person possibly discern the finer points of who was and was not included in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus? All he can understand is ".. his eternal power and divine nature...", and "... guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment...". Other than those things, which God says are either clear in the creation, or the Holy Spirit will convict the world of, the natural man can't perceive the things of the Spirit, can he?

Dr. Patterson's statement "Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins." sounds like an excuse, to me.

Anonymous said...

Pastor Wade, thank you for keeping us informed. I would not have known about all that is going on if my mother hadn't called me and told me to read your blog.
Quite frankly, it is appalling to hear news of a professing believer in Jesus Christ, who also is in full agreement with the BFM, be relieved of his duties (granted this has yet to happen) of a BFM affirming institution because of his theological beliefs, specifically in the area of soteriology. Yet, there is nothing about such a situation that would call for an objection, for given the proper circumstances, there would be nothing in our "Creedal" BFM that would prevent such an event from happening.
In the case of someone not affirming Christ's deity, a termination would be appropriate. In the case of reformed doctrines of grace however, there is nothing about the beliefs of SBC and SWBTS doctrines that would encourage the hiring of a believer of this sort. Thus, such a reason could not and should not encourage the termination of such an individual's ministry.
The official stance of the SBC in the topic of soteriology is one that is neutral in nature. It is not something that our convention comes to take a stance on. It is left up to the individual. Thus, any belief (be it theological, philosophical, or historical etc) that is not specifically outlined in the BFM does not and should not have any effect on our institution in the corporate agenda.
Whether Paige Patterson believes in the doctrine of limited atonement or not, he has no right to arrange Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's faculty around such a belief.
This is one of those sticky (yet important) issues that we as a congregation have decided not to discuss in our only "Statement of Belief", and now it is biting us in our butts.
As a young (20 yr old) Southern Baptist who is debating on where he should pursue his theological education, it is not encouraging for me to see my denomination's leaders seperating themselves from eachother when they should be focusing on the message of the Gospel. The point of the body of Christ is to be diverse yet unified. "We who are many form one body".

Anonymous said...

Hebrews 6:4-6 (King James Version)

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Bob Cleveland said...


So .... let me understand this .... you want Wade to name his sources, even if it would be detrimental to them?


Kay said...


I would say there are many more essentials than I listed in my post. But I was trying get a point across. For example I would ask you do you believe in a literal 7 day creation? I do, but I don't think it changes who God is (Creator, before all) if it is 7, 24 hour days or 7 ages. God is still the creator.

As for the essentials I would want to have some things that are clear. Such as Who God is,Jesus and the importantance of His Death, The Holy Spirit. Salvation - faith. The understanding of the Bible (given to us as a guide inspired by God) - and I think we have understand there are going to be some differences of opinions on things such as end-times...I believe we need to define the church and it's purpose to bring about disciples, both new believers and growing beleivers to look more like Christ every day. I believe we have to say there will be a judgement (not everyone is going to heaven). Your faith and our salvation is personal not because I belong to a church membership. (I don't think this is a complete list by the way)

And you could go on and on listing things. My question is when we find something we disagree on, for example Limited Attoinment or His blood was shed for all but only some will accept His offer of Grace. Have I changed who God is and His purpose to see man reconciled to Himself? If the answer to that is NO then I think we can be in fellowship together.


Chuck Andrews said...


I don’t understand why it is so hard for some to believe that Dr. Patterson would desire to purge SWBTS of Calvinism. In the early 1980’s he stood before the student body and faculty as President of Criswell Bible College and said if student or professor wishes to espouse Calvinism they could withdraw from school immediately or pickup their paycheck and walking papers immediately.

Some may argue that there was a spirit of hyper-Calvinism at work within CBC at the time. I would argue that to Dr. Patterson et al. any 5 pointer would be considered hyper-Calvinistic.


greg.w.h said...


Is it essential that Christians not drink alcohol in order to get into heaven?

Greg Harvey said...


I have been at the hospital visiting several sick members of Emmanuel.

One of the pastors in Frisco Association emailed me and said Wes some "preacher boys" would be eating dinner. They wanted Patterson to join them so Wes could "interview" Patterson.

I do not know who the preachers boys are, for the pastor did not name them. If Paige's schedule didn't permit dinner, that is understandable.

I am grateful Wes interviewed Patterson. It confirms precisely what I have been writing. Wes has done a huge favor to us all.

Ironically, I posted my comment about the interview before Wes posted his comment about it, but Wes comes back later and says somehow I "tricked" the process and put my comment before his. The simple fact of the matter is that I knew about the meeting between Patterson and Wes before Wes posted about it because one of the preachers in the Frisco Association emailed me to tell me about it.

All you wish to do is assault my credibility. All I wish to do is help the Convention resist the efforts of closed-communion, Landmark, Fundamentalist, anti-charismatic, anti-Calvinist, anti-"everything I'm not" people from separating and disfellowshipping from people who are not like you.

And thank God, we have thousands of people in the SBC who are not.



volfan007 said...


Ok, let's throw out the first question...I'd be satisfied with answers to the last three...

b)who were the "preacher boys" at the big "dinner" interview with Dr. Patterson?

c)what restaurant did they eat at?

d)what did the "preacher boys" eat?

Yall should go to Scott Gordon's blog for a further analysis about this.

Scott's blog is....


Joe Blackmon said...


I could not in good conscience drinnk alchol but no I don't think if you drank a beer this afternoon that all of a sudden you forfeit your salvation and are going to hell.

Actually, true story, I had an English teacher with bad kidneys. One of her kidneys didn't work and one worked like less than half capacity. Anywhoo, this was in the 80's, and the medicines they had out really didn't work well at all. The doctor told her she needed to drink a beer a day. She couldn't stand the taste but was able to tolerate drinking wine. She would have a glass of wine every day per doctors orders.

Unknown said...

David Miller,

Saying “Caner is not sympathetic to Calvinism,” is like saying “there may be some truth to the rumor that the Pope is Catholic”. Ya Think!

“Calling Liberty University landmark is ignorant.” Really, you might want to come up for air a little more often there David. You do know that Liberty University was/is the flagship university of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement right? And you do know that they have not been a part of the Southern Baptist Convention very long right? And that when Dr. Farwell was criticized by the Fundamentalist movement for joining with the Southern Baptist Convention he is quoted as saying “I have not changed, but the Southern Baptist Convention has changed” right?

Ignorant? Laughing… even Dr. Caner admitted the truth that Liberty University was/is a Landmark Institution.

Grace Always,

Tom Parker said...


Wade said to you:"All I wish to do is help the Convention resist the efforts of closed-communion, Landmark, Fundamentalist, anti-charismatic, anti-Calvinist, anti-"everything I'm not" people from separating and disfellowshipping from people who are not like you."

I'm not even convinced you could get along with yourself muchless anyone else.

You are a divisive individual!!

If I have to choose between Wade's credibility and yours it would not even be close as to who I would choose--Wade's.

Strong Tower said...

It is time for us to come together as Christians and say these are some core beliefs as to who God, Jesus, salvation and learn to disagree on some the the less important stuff as to was Jesus death for the choosen or for all.

Jesus, salvation... the less important stuff as to was Jesus death for the choosen or for all.

First Pastor John, I don't know how you separate these. It is precisely the soteriological question that impinges upon what are those so called "core" doctrines where the division resides. Or, perhaps you don't follow the lines of reasoning past Hebrews 5 and go on to 6. Our soteriology is intimately connected to who God is, who Jesus is, and the intention and extent of the covenant of promise as it expresses the nature of God. If it were a matter of indifference, there would be no arguments at all.

Have I changed who God is and His purpose to see man reconciled to Himself? So my answer to this is yes, and I could still have fellowship with you.

Second, the theological questions are not really essential to this discussion. What is germane is the cooperative agreements of the SBC. Which bring us to square one: are we a denomination or a convention. If the former, then exclusionism would be proper because we would be an ecclesiastical structure with a defined confessionalism. But, it is the second which is the case. And at least since the end of the 19th century, we have been a "big tent" doctrinally speaking. Doctrines are secondary in the SBC, really, and the autonomy of the local church exalted above all else. Cooperation is geared toward the Great Comish. And what that means, is up for grabs as defined by the local churches, not the convention.

Wade is correct in this. The spirit of cooperation is betrayed when entities of the SBC craft for themselves exclusionary rules. However, to disallow them to do so would also violate the same spirit. Herein is the conflict. It is a matter of opinion whether one entity does one thing as opposed to the other and where there are dissension there are fights. The voices though who hold sway in the SBC are exerting pressure to codify their prejudices at the convention level. So, when Pattersonites take affirmative action such as the John 3:16 anti-Calvinism convocation, and make moves to exclude based upon what hitherto has been acceptable within the ranks of the SBC, when voices begin to deny the cooperative funding of messenger-sent-missionaries who come from diverse backgrounds with diverse beliefs, when mouths are stuffed full wadding to silence dissent, and when it is known that those voices hold the majority, then it is of great concern to those who hope to hold the cooperative spirit of the BFM in tact. It is because the SBC has no true confession, which by definition would exclude, that we can cooperate so broadly. What the BI'ers, like those at SBC Today, would love to impose is what I call Barberism, because their form of Baptist Identity smacks of an ecclesium that violates the very foundation of the current cooperative stature and structure, of the SBC.

See, there is a lot on this dinner plate that Patterson served up in his inteview. A lot more than meets the eye. And far more than most can stomach.

Thus, any belief (be it theological, philosophical, or historical etc) that is not specifically outlined in the BFM does not and should not have any effect on our institution in the corporate agenda. Whether Paige Patterson believes in the doctrine of limited atonement or not, he has no right to arrange Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's faculty around such a belief.

Actually Mark, no entity of the SBC has to sign on to the BFM. In the words of Barbosa, "Thar more guidelines" than any thing else. Whether according with the BFM or not, each entity can craft for itself its own confessions of faith and its own policy guidelines. That is the gounding of controversy but not the reason for the outcry against landmarkian attempts to establish an ecclesium.

Anonymous said...

"Whether Paige Patterson believes in the doctrine of limited atonement or not, he has no right to arrange Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's faculty around such a belief."

What are his 'discretionary powers' or are they 'unlimited' ?

Are there any known guidelines that his 'trustees' cannot violate?

Steve said...

No, no, no, no way, naw. What, you crazy? No no way, & no how. No no, ain't gonna, ain - well, maybe once or twice, but no, no, no, no. I mean, I'd have to be for the right reason, of course - but no, no, not gonna do it, no, hope it don't happen, no, no, we ain't, I ain't, fugeddaboutit, no. Uh-uh!

Any questions?

Kay said...

Strong Tower,

I don't want this to be about Calvinist on non-Calvinist. That discussion will rage on. What I struggel with is we are seeing people (Christians, I assume) who can't get along or work together because of narrowing of the belief system of orthodoxy. As I was told by one of the theological professors, when I was touring SEBTS (Dr. Patterson was still the president) if you would even consider Blank, (school not from the SBC), you don't belong here. It showed the narrow mindedness and the ability to consider any idea that did not conform to their own. If we don't stand up and say stop we will see that there is no place in the SBC for many of us.


Anonymous said...

I recently discovered your blog. (I don't really keep up with the SBC very much anymore.)

I feel like I am in a time warp and it is the late 80's/early 90's again.

It seems like I am back in the coffee shop at SWBTS. (Is it still there?)

I remember when men like Winfred Moore and Daniel Vestal were labeled infidels. I remember when Dr. Dilday was fired. I recall when the votes were 50.2-49.8 but the appointments were 100%-0%.

I remember when those of us warning of fundamentalism and the unavoidable narrowing of all future parameters were labeled liberals irregardless of our theology.

I ultimately concluded that the SBC had left me. But I'm sure that was fine; it picked up men like Jerry Falwell.

I now read your words with sadness and hope. I had a 40 year love for the SBC; how I wish the pendulum could swing back.

How I wish I could be proud of SWBTS again.

And a personal note to Paul Burleson... During my seminary days I preached on Sundays miles away from Ft. Worth. However, I attended your church on many Wednesdays. You greatly blessed me.

Dave Miller said...


My son is about to graduate from Liberty with a degree in theology. He is a calvinist who has never been hassled about his calvinism.

Liberty may once have been what you described, but it is not now. It is a great Christian university. The remnants of its legalistic past have pretty much gone.

You are simply wrong about Liberty. However, I am aware that you will not listen to truth on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Speaking, David, of listening to the truth. You seem to have your fingers in your ears a great deal as well.

Joe Blackmon said...

I personally know a SBTS graduate with a doctorate who was in the process of getting hired as a professor. One day he recieved a phone call from someone pretty high up on the food chain there who point blank asked him "Are you a Calvinist?" When he said "Yes" they all of a sudden decided not to hire him.

He did not name who he spoke to so I can't say who it was. I'm not naming him because he's asked me not to.

It's like Ripley's---Belive it or not.

Anonymous said...

Dave is right about Liberty.
Are you aware Jerry Sutton is going to teach at Liberty. Now you might not like him but he is no fundamentalist or landmarkist.

Rob from Geneva

Anonymous said...


They will shortly be coming after you. It would help if you started listening to what Wade is saying just a tad closer.

Anonymous said...

And I should add, "Thank God."

Anonymous said...

Has anybody else noticed the anger, bitterness and vitriolic nature of the attacks from Peter Lumpkins, David Volfann and Wes Kenney toward Pastor Burleson? It's one thing to disagree, but the venom from these men makes me concerned for their states of mind.

Are these men pastors?


Wes Kenney said...

"One of the pastors in Frisco Association emailed me and said Wes some "preacher boys" would be eating dinner. They wanted Patterson to join them so Wes could "interview" Patterson."

This paragraph is false. Either Wade is being lied to, or he made it up himself. Only one person in the association knew of the planned interview before it happened, and that person is not a pastor. There was never any group of "preacher boys," and there was never any planned dinner. I ate two cheesburgers from McDonald's before I headed to the conference.

Anonymous said...

If you subscribe to the belief the cause of Christ will be harmed by a smaller, leaner SBC then you will be alarmed at narrowing parameters.

But I believe this narrowing is a GOOD thing.

Let's do divide up!

Why not a convention each for liberals, moderates, conservatives, fundamentalists, and landmarkers.

Why not delineate between the dispensationalists and the calvinists?

Would it not be more honest in our witness to the world to advertise clearly where we stand on these divergent issues?

Could we not do this and still reach the world for Christ?

I believe we can, and personally believe we should.

But rather than fight for the right to "own" the convention or worrying about bragging rights over numbers, we need to do this peacefully, lovingly, and with due care for all.

At the moment, it would seem to me ALL sides are guilty of power hungry posturing.


rebbep said...

Southern Baptists are neither blind nor blindfolded---they have simply elected to be tunnel-visioned. Or less succinctly, they prefer to be right as opposed to being righteous.

The leaders present trajectory reminds me of Peter's obstinance beore his confrontation in Acts 10. While the deacon boys Stephen and Phillip were carrying the gospel messaqe to the ends of the earth (Samaria and Africa via the Ethiopian eunuch), Peter and the other apostles remained in Jerusalem disproving of the Spirit's command to other to evangelsize. Peter was having trouble accepting the ethnics as equals until he was converted by the Spirit.

Peter had problems with God moving without his stamp of approval until a vision of God arrested him from his prison of ecclesiatical bigotry. By chapter 11 Peter understood enough to take the blinders off or at least look at the reality that God was effecting a Promise community with or without him.

As an African American pastor of an SBC church, I would not be suprised to hear that particular SBCers still hold to the notion that their congegations should not be integrated or hire a "black" pastor. What's more frightening is that such feelings would become policy and that I would not be surprised based on the Klouda case if the SBC is not far from ocassioning the same.

A careful re-reading of Acts 10-11 might help us all get past our jaundiced practice of faith for one that models transformation such as Peter's. Perhaps this will save us from the implosion that is taking place in the convention at present.

Anonymous said...


bought and paid for, I'd say.

Darrin said...

I don't know how many of you are interested in the theological issue here, rather than merely SBC politics and prideful one-upmanship on each other, but regarding Wade's original post: If Paige has indeed said, 'Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, "Christ died for your sins."'
What a great concern this is. As StrongTower referenced, this ideology was thrust out there openly in the "John 3:16 Conference". In fact, Andrew addresses this SBC claim about universal atonement at that regrettable conference specifically in his last post on

Joe Blackmon said...

Timmy Not Guthrie

Buddy, I have said it before on this blog and I'll say it again---If Paige "No one can eat just one" Patterson or any other people decide I'm not (whatever) enough for them or they try to push me out they won't have to push hard. There may be people who don't like me (my mother in law, etc...) but everyone who knows me knows where I stand. I'm don't bend or compromise on what I believe.

So, if you allege that I should be worried about them coming after me, my response would be "Let 'em".

Strong Tower said...

"If we don't stand up and say stop we will see that there is no place in the SBC for many of us." -Pastor John

Precisely what Wade is saying, I think.

By the way I attend a PCA church now because my former SBC was of the mindset that even if their constitution required it, they weren't gonna teach the doctrinal history of the SBC. We have several former SBC families who attend, and recently an SBC Pastor left our fellowship for employment with the state in another town. I work and worship with people who disagree over what the BI guys demand is first tier doctrine. But, the PCA folk are not affraid of their history, nor affraid to entertain the fact that someone else might be right.

Anonymous said...

I think we should elect a different President this year at Louisville.
How about Eric Redmond.
Any seconds on that vote.

Rob from Geneva

Anonymous said...


Most SBC clergy are men, but as of December, 1997 there were 1,225 ordained women in the Southern Baptist Convention.

[Source: "Ordained Southern Baptist Women", article on the Way of Life website; URL:]

Anonymous said...


I don't know why you insist on calling my husband a liar. I sat beside him as he read the email on his blackberry from the person who told him about the meeting between you and Dr. Patterson. My husband did not know this man, and only his first name was given, but Wade was informed of everything you were intending to do to discredit him. If you continue to call my husband a liar, then you must add me, his wife, to the list. I know what I saw with my own eyes.

Rachelle Burleson

Anonymous said...

Wow Wes. Shakespeare once wrote something about a woman scorned.

You better put your big boy britches on because you've just been spanked.

And found out.


Anonymous said...


Someone once told me that he who screams the loudest is the one with the soiled character.

You've yelled "liar, liar pants on fire" all over the internet.

Now, you've been exposed as a liar.

Sheesh, my momma was right.

Unknown said...


I am glad your son was able to come through Liberty without being “hassled about his Calvinism”.

I’m listening David…

“Liberty may once have been what you described, but it is not now. It is a great Christian university. The remnants of its legalistic past have pretty much gone.”

If this is true (and yes David I take your word for it) then this is wonderful and encouraging news to hear.

Grace (and Peace) Always,

Anonymous said...

Maybe Wes in Wades informant....conspiracy!

Rob in Geneva

volfan007 said...

Wade or Rachelle,

What was the man's name? That would settle it.


Anonymous said...

I second Eric Redmond!

Kay said...

Strong Tower,

Amen, While I may not be the most inteligent guy posting here or having these discussions. I know that I may not get it all right and I'm not opposed to me being wrong. I'll admit I don't want to be wrong though. But the idea that any of has all of this exactly right is absured. I would rather focus on what Christ has called us to do. Thanks for making me think and treating me like a brother in Christ.

As for Wes, you should know there are never any secrets in SBC life. If I were you I would double check who I'm defending.

I'm out, I've got to finish this sermon and go watch my child play basketball.


Unknown said...


Thank you so much for your comment… How very refreshing to see a godly wife defending the integrity of her husband.

O, and thanks for “spanking” Wes’s hinny… he’s been needing that for quite some time now. (insert big smile)

Grace Always,

Anonymous said...

Don't forget to add Scott Gordon to the list...throwing the L-word around can be troublesome when you don't have all the facts. Wes & Scott & Co. are workin' double time for the man. I wonder if there will be any clandestine meetings in Lousville like there were in Indy to plot against "the Calvinst threat" this year?

Anonymous said...


You wrote... "My sources are really, really good."

Yet your wife has written... "My husband did not know this man, and only his first name was given..."

Which is it Wade? Is it true what your wife has written? Have you spread gossip from people you don't really even know? And what is with this introduction...

"To all my readers:

I would like everyone to pay attention to the content and time of this particular comment: Wednesday night, 11:44 p.m. Central Time, February 4, 2009 (the actual comment time stamp runs two hours ahead for posting reasons)."

I have never seen you do that before. Why did you feel the need to write that? And isn't it odd that Wes posted 6 minutes later? said...


Put the sentence in context.

My sources at SWBTS are "very, very good." You are quoting a comment about the SWBTS meetings between professors and Patterson.

My wife is commenting about my sources who know Wes Kenney. I freely admit, those sources are very, very poor.

:) Grin.

For heaven's sake, it's little dixie in Southern Oklahoma. Very few people live there.

Anonymous said...


Sorry, I thought the comment was in context. You wrote it at the end of the "11:44pm central time post". said...

Joe White,

Sorry, didn't see your last question. I wrote that particular comment because I had just received the email about the meeting. I had not paid much attention to my blackberry buzzing (I get WAY too many emails) and after I read the email about the meeting with Patterson, I knew that there would be a post to discredit me, so I won't the "preemptive" comment, to let folks know I knew it was coming.



P.S. Joe, do you work for a living?

Anonymous said...

I am Bi-vocational. I work as a Data Processing Administrator (on the computer a lot) :) said...

Okie Dokie.

Have a good evening.


Bob Cleveland said...

Hey folks .. pay attention ... look at the time stamp on your own remarks.

There's your two hours.

Anonymous said...


As I understand it the issue is not just the time stamp, but rather the possibility that Wade's comment was not there when Brother Wes posted his.

Rex Ray said...

007, Dave Miller, and Wes will never accept a rational explanation because they want a ‘miracle in the sky’.

Wes…a word of warning: the way ‘rule makers’ are going, your junk food of TWO cheeseburgers will soon condemn you to hell.

“Is there any truth to that rumor?”

Up to that point, Patterson’s replies were smooth as silk, but in using 285 words to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, his six “ummm”, four “eh”, five “uh”, and eight “uhhh” reveals his brain was going a mile a minute trying to keep from lying.

Regardless of all his stalling and wiggling, his “hope not” was still a lie.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray,

Why, sir, can you see it, but others cannot?

volfan007 said...

A simple name would help us to see the truth about the "preacher boys dinner" stuff...a simple name of someone who is supposedly a friend of Wes.

But, another anonymous source... that settles it, doesnt it?



Scott Gordon said...

Anon (Whomever...),

Thanks for the comment acknowledging me as another of those who will not stand for out-right untruths to be told!

Which leads me to your comment...I must've missed the meeting to "plot against the Calvinist threat"...being a Calvinist & all, I'd have loved to be in that meeting. I'm always up for a good dust-up!

NOW, I did make it to the "keep our convention Southern Baptist meeting." Boy was that a good time!

Sola Gratia!

Anonymous said...

What with the King of Hearts over Pecan Manor yelling 'Off With Their Heads" or with sundry knaves running around on the web shouting 'Wade is a liar , we'll prove it later,' . . . . have fallen down the Rabbit Hole into a very strange world indeed.
You really couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

stranger and stranger . . .

Lin said...

"Again, a five point Calvinist will never look just "anybody" in the eye and say "Christ died for you." He will not say that to the man who loves his adultery and scoffs at repentance. He will not say that to a woman who loves herself and will not bow to the Lordship of Christ. He will not say that to Adolph Hitler as Hitler takes Jews to the gas galleys. He will not say that to the sinner who has no sense of his sin. He will not say "Christ died for you" because he doesn't know if Christ did or not."

AMEN! I sure wish this was taught in all baptist churches.

Tom Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Scott and David and all you Baptist Zealots like Wes and others ----

Please stay away from this blog. You guys give me a royal headache. I read this blog between patients, and I need to go see my own pyschiatrist after I read some of your comments. But it's like crack. I keep coming back, and back. All because I honestly can't believe Southern Baptists pay stupid idiots like you to teach the Bible. Are you guys actually paid? Do your church members think you are actually ministering to people? Do any of them know what it is you are writing? Isn't the possum supper about ready for you guys? Stay away. Please, for my sanity, stay away.

All my counsel above is free of charge.

Dr. Phil

I know Pastor Burleson will not let this comment stand, but I can't help myself. I feel better already.

Tom Parker said...


Please be quiet. You are becoming an annoying pest.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Phil,

Thanks, Doc, for ending my day on an up note.

Thanks for saying what I am feeling.

greg.w.h said...

Joe Blackmon wrote:

I could not in good conscience drink alchol but no I don't think if you drank a beer this afternoon that all of a sudden you forfeit your salvation and are going to hell.

I think that your response is perfect, Joe, for illustrating what are and are not essential doctrines. There is absolutely no biblical basis for a complete prohibition on alcohol. There are individual Christians that for reasons that are essentially faith related or even environmental believe as a matter of conscience that it is wrong to drink alcohol.

The NT deals with the eating of food sacrificed to idols with exactly this delineation. Those whose consciences tell them not to eat food sacrificed to idols should not as it would be sin to them to do so. Those who do not feel the same restrictions should be conscientious in not flaunting the freedom they feel they have.

That was an imposed compromise so that an non-essential discussion could be resolved without forcing one group to accomodate the other. It is a perfectly biblical way to resolve non-essential disagreements.

Soteriology that delves further than John 3:16 in trying to explain how salvation occurs is, honestly, at the level of whether you eat food sacrificed to idols or not. Whether or not we understand exactly how faith results in salvation is irrelevant to believing Jesus Christ is the source of that salvation.

The question is really not a matter of what the non-essentials are, but whether Jesus intends that we should try to elevate them into essentials in order to create dissension and division. Pick any specific "belief" you have and do your own analysis of it. At the bottom line, imagine two congregations in your home town that take opposite view points. Under what circumstances do you justify treating them as if they committed gross immorality which is the source of the key biblical passage on disfellowship.

I'd argue that some of the following do not rise to that level (of course others would disagree with me, but that is exactly the point unless those reading my comments over almost two years have concluded I'm actually a pagan):

1. baptism by immersion

2. consumption of alcoholic beverages (we actually have had several votes on this at the national and state convention level in the past three years)

3. Calvinistic v. traditional Southern Baptist soteriology

4. Ordaining women as deacons, ministers, and senior pastors

5. Using hymnals or praise worship (I'm not kidding: I had an organist that would accompany Wednesday night prayer service that was about my age in College Station who refused to play music not in a humnal).

6. Speaking/praying in "tongues" or a "private prayer language."

7. Cessationist v. continuationist positions (related to #6, but a bit more technical)

While we can find room to sharpen differences on each of these points, the question is why we should? And whether these non-essentials--you can be saved without even understanding or being aware of ANY of these issues--can in any way shape or form be justified as causes of division.

I really appreciate your admission that drinking a beer can't result in a loss of salvation. If you can admit that, then you can probably admit that neither does a woman stepping into the pulpit to preach a sermon.

We can take issue with other, deep specifics, but we inevitably use them to construct strawmen that we then conveniently topple. So IF Jerry Rankin were to pray in public with his private prayer language without an interpreter, CLEARLY that would be against Scripture because it fails to edify the body. So we sneak in the body blow of but since he doesn't have an interpreter in private, MAYBE his action is against Scripture as well? That's a strawman that got toppled, not an actual argument.

That it's very similar to the hedging that Jesus accused the Pharisees of should be a pretty stern warning. And that the NT church resolved the "problem" of eating meat sacrificed to idols in a very flexible way that put the onus on the individual believer both to follow his own conscience and to respect the conscience of others also provides a very careful caution against elevating non-essentials to essentials.

I can actually speak to the benefits of Calvinism/doctrines of grace, Arminianism, and the traditional Baptist position. I lean towards the Calvinistic explanation because--as I've commented before on Wade's blog--it provides the best deflation of my own pride on the subject of how I got saved. And it leaves me with a great confidence that God's love for me isn't accidental or arbitrary but deeply considered.

If I were to describe that confidence using an illustration, it would be this:

When I was about 8 and my dad was pastoring at Trinity Baptist in Sweetwater, Texas, when I didn't remember to bring my Bible, I would go to his office and ask to borrow one. He usually had an extra New Testament that he'd let me borrow as long as I promised to bring it back.

In this one New Testament, he had marked it with the Roman Road references that started with kind of a treasure hunt of "turn to page #X". On each of the pages he had a marked verse and a short explanation of the meaning of the verse. Then at the end he moved the reader to the back cover (this was all clearly in his writing) where he summarized and asked for a decision.

In his summary, he made the claim that "even if I were the only sinner in the world, I believe Jesus Christ would still have been willing to die for me." Now, honestly, that isn't a Calvinistic position and he isn't a Calvinist. But the thought that God would make that sacrifice and go to the trouble of making sure I could understand it and accept it IS consistent with the Doctrines of Grace.

That we see things from different perspectives is a better explanation about the differences in doctrine than that one group is "right" and the other group is "wrong". Even liberals who do not hold to Scripture as inerrant may very well believe sufficiently to be saved.

And that God would permit some of them to complete their life on this side of the River Jordan without correcting that viewpoint may simply mean that he succeeded in conforming them to the image/eikon of Christ Jesus in the way he intended.

I'm not presenting an argument that we should seek out a particularly liberal denomination to integrate with. (Again, that would be a strawman that someone would present who is only trying to discredit me and not to actually respond to my reasoning.) That's why the 1925 and 1963 BFMs should be accepted in addition to the 2000 BFM. We have no interest in creating divisions and we trust the Holy Spirit to conform each of us to the image of Christ Jesus. So we debate in Christian love the understanding that the Holy Spirit gives to each of us and seek to incorporate (literally make part of the body) the perspectives that conscientious, careful believers are led to through the power and direction of the Holy Spirit.

Those who seek to disdain this anti-legalist, pro-freedom view of the New Testament inevitably point out how they really are just trying to "follow Scripture". And maybe the Holy Spirit really does insist that we divide, though I have to wonder what the heck Jesus was praying about in his High Priestly prayer in John 17 if that was the case.

I'm convinced that the disunity that we created as a convention in the late 70s was done with good intention, but should have been handled differently. And when I hear people like Paige intentionally misrepresent what others believe in order to create division (believers who can't say to anybody that Christ died for you, for instance), it grieves my soul. That's what Wade means when he addresses the issue of nonessentials: intentionally seeking out points of division in order to create political advantages in this earthly association we call the Southern Baptist Convention.

Greg Harvey

Anonymous said...

Use of language is confusing.

Was Jesus 'punished' or did He willingly offer Himself ?

Was Adam's sin more powerful
than Christ's Atonement?

Was Christ sacrificed for our sins,
or because of them?

Use of language confuses us.
Some people use it to confuse others. No wonder there is so much division.

Is our faith shaped by our words or are our words shaped by our faith?

Joe Blackmon said...


I read a lot of what you wrote...after about the 5th paragraph I started to get a headache with these new glasses I picked up today.

Anywhoo, we disagree on what would be considered "essentials" with regards to women pastors. I'm not saying that a woman who is preaching isn't saved I'm just saying I would not cooperate with a church that had a woman as the pastor. If you or anyone disagrees with me then your mileage obviously varries. C'est la vie.

Bob Cleveland said...

Did a little snooping around. Here's what I found about Wade's stated timeline:

A) The time stamp on comments here is 2 hours later than when I post it, on every comment I've made.

B) Wade's comment about the Frisco meeting deal was this really at 11:41 pm on 2/4, as it shows 1:41 am on 2/5.

B) The post by Wes about the interview with Dr. Patterson is, on the website itself, identified as " -brief-..."; that seems to have been posted the 5th, whereas Wade's comment was on the 4th.

C) Evidence says Wade's timeline is accurate.


Bob Cleveland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Cleveland said...

And, incidentally, I posted a comment on SBC Today a couple minutes ago. Its time stamp indicates the actual time the comment is posted.

ps: I learned the alphabet A,B,B,C,D, etc .. but that was 65 years ago and they may have changed it by now, I suspect.


Anonymous said...

just a little bit

Anonymous said...


Uh, how do you know untruths have been told? Yes, I know you are a professing Calvinist..maybe of the "uncle Tom" variety. :-)

The meeting hasn't taken place yet (Louisville). That was not the agenda in Indy because the "Today gang" was forced to "cooperate" with people they don't have an affinity toward (on one resolution). They just loooved the Jn. 3:16 conference with its pitiful presentations. Its going to be on the agenda soon. You'll be the token Calvinist and they'll say, "see, even Scott agrees with us" (insert perjorative language and worn-out arguements that will be used on whatever issue that will be brought up to target Calvinists.

greg.w.h said...

Joe Blackmon wrote:

Anywhoo, we disagree on what would be considered "essentials" with regards to women pastors. I'm not saying that a woman who is preaching isn't saved I'm just saying I would not cooperate with a church that had a woman as the pastor. If you or anyone disagrees with me then your mileage obviously varries. C'est la vie.

Why wouldn't you? Why treat the woman or the church as if they've risen to the level of gross immorality? Why not treat it instead as a matter of conscience like eating meat sacrificed to idols? Or are you saying that when your conscience doesn't permit you to drink alcohol, that you feel it also doesn't permit you to fellowship with others whose consciences do?

If that's the case, then--by extension--you've elevated a non-essential based solely on your own conscience to the level of an essential. There is no model in the NT for taking that stance. And even when Paul gives advice to Timothy on letting women teach, he carefully couches it as his own personal feeling on the subject...a matter of conscience if you will.

It really isn't a matter of a flippant "C'est la vie", by the way. If Christians intentionally divide the body with no support from the Holy Spirit, then they arguably aren't of the body but are wolves in sheep's clothing. I'm not saying you're doing that because you've been pretty clear as to how you divide the line. I'm asking how you just say "hey, I'm right and I'm really not open to accommodating the opposing position."

It's one Bride, not 10,000 fragments of a Bride, after all. And I always have wondered if the unprepared virgins were not the ones that were too light on doctrine, but the ones that got so wrapped around the axle on specific doctrinal interpretations that they became an impediment to true faith of the Matthew 25 and James type.

Dr. Estep--I questioned the use of this term when I sat in his class--referred to that kind of attitude with respect to the Bible as bibliolatry. Whether the term is appropriate or not, it should be a warning against substituting visible faith acted out in works for a claim of "superior" theology. Wouldn't you agree that James, especially, warns us against that approach to our faith?

Greg Harvey

WatchingHISstory said...

I rushed home after work and immediately went to the Internet. To my pleasant surprise Wade's post was "Are Southern Baptists Blind or Blindfolded?"

"Oh my goodness Wade is gonig to deal with Bellevue's disaster!"

But I was dissapointed he did not deal with it. I mean has there been a blinder people than Bellevue Baptist and by extension all the SBC about what took place there about 20 years ago?

Paul Williams an associate pastor committed egregious deviant sexual sins (I want say the real sin) against his own young son. He did this about 1987 for about 12-18 months. By day he was the associate pastor and by night he was a deviant pedophile in a house paid for by believers' tithes and offerings.

Never have more people chose to turn their eyes away from an awful crime like this. I am certain if a liberal church in Memphis had an associate like this we would still hear about it. "How awful are these homosexual pastors!"

But no, no one will address this in the SBC. The rule seems to be "less said better."

Where is the outrage? I have witnessed churches quickly and quietly securing their children's ministries against pedophiles. Doors that once were accessed easily are now locked and access denied by the public.

Three post about women pastors each over 200 comments and now two dealing with Calvinist by people who wouldn't know a Calvinist if it bit them. No one even knows what a five point is! Hypothetical universal atonment people call themselves five pointers. Now they will go over 200 comments with hardly anything said.

How blinded can people be? My momma would say, "we're just living in the last days, Charles!"

Oh well, Paul Williams now attends another church outside of Memphis and I think it is an independent Church, thank goodness.

Joe Blackmon said...

Greg Harvey

Count it all joy. Have a good one.

Unknown said...

Greg Harvey,

I saw you mentioned College Station in your comment. My pastor's father in law and mother in law lived in College Station until last month. Unfortunately, they were in a car wreck on January 10th and father in law was killed. Pastor's mother in law has come to live with pastor and his family.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know Paul Williams was a homosexual. I thought he was just a pedophile. But then, its refreshing to know that some people are glad he's not now going to a Southern Baptist church.

Anonymous said...

The Cold Within

Six humans trapped by happenstance, in bleak and bitter cold;
Each one possessed a stick of wood, or so the story's told.

Their dying fire in need of logs, the first man held his back,
For of the faces round the fire, he noticed one was black.

The next man looking cross the way, saw no one of his church,
And couldn't bring himself to give the fire his stick of birch.

The third one sat in tattered clothes, he gave his coat a hitch;
Why should his log be put to use to warm the idle rich?

The rich man just sat back and thought of the wealth he had in store,
And how to keep what he had earned from the lazy, shiftless poor.

The black man's face bespoke revenge as the fire passed from his sight.
For all he saw in his stick of wood was a chance to spite the white.

The last man of this forlorn group did naught except for gain,
Giving only to those who gave was how he played the game.

Their logs held tight in death's still hand was proof of human sin:
They didn't die from the cold without -

They died from the cold within.

by James Patrick Kinney


Anonymous said...

For those professors and any others who find they need this:


God, our Father, I turn to you seeking your divine help and guidance as I look for suitable employment. I need your wisdom to guide my footsteps along the right path, and to lead me to find the proper things to say and do in this quest. I wish to use the gifts and talents you have given me, but I need the opportunity to do so with gainful employment. Do not abandon me, dear Father, in this search, but rather grant me this favor I seek so that I may return to you with praise and thanksgiving for your gracious assistance. Grant this through Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Anonymous said...

I am AMAZED at the bitterness and anger against Bro. Burleson. Guess I shouldn't be anymore, but the "screaming" of liar on several other sites, and Volfan and others here, is just SAD.

I don't know much, but I do know the best approach when being criticized is to be quiet...which Bro. Burleson's foes can't seem to do.

If you all truly believe him to be so off base, just present your views and IGNORE him. Bro. Wade should do the same with you.

Claims of "liar" are so unbecoming - especially from those called to preach God's loving, gracious, precious Gospel to a sinning world.

Charles Brazeale
Neosho, MO

WatchingHISstory said...

Here is the example I was waiting for! Head in the sand up to the ankles.

"I didn't know Paul Williams was a homosexual. I thought he was just a pedophile." anon

This was man/boy (his own son) rape. It is a gay/homosexual rape so he is a homosexual pedophile.
Young children are not SAFE around him especially young boys.

Anonymous said...

Greetings in the name of our Sovereign King,

I am skipping on cloud 9 today. :) I received a called from my admissions rep. at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis and the first words out of his mouth were "congratulations!" :)

And so, Lord willin' an'da crik don'rize, I will be starting this June and plowing through to the end. (3-4 if I behave) ;)

A part of me is a bit sad that I will not get to attend Southern. It has been my dream for some time. But I really believe I am following the Lord by going to Covenant. He will provide--He always has. Covenant, while a strong and conservative PCA entity, has approximately 30-40% (don't quote me exactly) of her students from the SBC/Baptist background. I am excited to begin my M.Div. at Covenant. The faculty are equal to none save their counterparts at Southern. True Pastor/Scholars teaching with a desire to be ever faithful, ever learning and growing, and ever mindful of the calling which God has given men and women for His glory alone. At my ordination last Sunday, my mentor G. Scott Perry made the remark in the charge that something like only 30-40% of those who are ordained retire (or finish life) from(in) ministry. Sad. I desire this work not out of vain glory, but because it is no different than the oxygen in my blood. I desire to exalt our God, edify His people, and listen ever so closely to the man from Macedonia. And lastly, but most importantly, I never want to get the text wrong. God scold me if I preach a wrong interpretation of Your Word. God grant me the wisdom necessary to do that which you would have me do. Also grant me compassion for those who do not hold to the definiteness of Scripture and to those doctrines which magnify your sovereignty. Grant me a spirit of discernment, yet a spirit of cooperation with the knowledge that I will never hold the keys to neither your church nor your kingdom. You are the Door, the Butler, AND the Master of the House and by Your good pleasure alone do I dine at Your table. May I not snub Your guests Heavenly Father. May I not frown at those who do not clean their plate, nor eat the vegetables. Forgive me for blacklisting those who eat too much dessert. For You alone are King and Judge. You have provided for me a place to study Your Word. May I give to You my life for your glory and for Your Kingdom forever. Amen.


Anonymous said...

Congratulations, Kevin. What a great, upbeat note about serving our KING on this otherwise, gloomy day in the Blogosphere.

Thanks for sharing!

Charles Brazeale
Neosho, MO

DL said...

If anyone is afraid of the kind of disciple that is produced from being a close follower of Grace and Truth to You over a period of time, I give you Kevin M Crowder.

Unknown said...

Parts of the statement of doctrine from a Fundamentalist Independent KJV Baptist church in the town which I live:

The knowledge, belief, and practice of the truths as stated in this Statement of Faith we deem necessary for sound doctrine and thereby require its acceptance for church membership.

We further believe that the Scriptures plainly teach that Christians should not marry or have other entangling alliances with unbelievers; that Christians should not fellowship with those who deny the faith. We do not associate with nor embrace liberal Neo-Orthodoxy, Neo-Evangelicalism, the Charismatic tongues movement, Ecumenicalism, Calvinism, Armenianism, and the ungodly philosophy of Humanism.

Do we, as Southern Baptists, want to go here? I don't think this church associates with any one other than other Fundy Baptist churches! They're even against Promise Keepers and Billy Graham.

Paul Burleson said...


Congratulations. I'm proud for you.
And proud of you for your written prayer. May God grant your requests is my prayer for you.

Anonymous said...


CONGRATULATIONS ! (it's me, L's)

I am thrilled for you.
I checked out the site for Covenant Seminary in St. Louis and it looks like they are Christ-centered, which is wonderful.

Your prayer is filled with hope and joy, as I know that you must be also.

Remember this: you will be immersed in Christ and surrounded by His Peace, from which you will draw great strength to serve Him.

God Bless You Forever and Ever !
Love, L's

Scott Gordon said...

Misser Anomalous...

Yous betta be careful. Masser don like dat kinda talk...

I realize that it would be a strange thing over here for someone to express differences from the basic belief structure here and still be dealt with cooperatively. Trust me, I get it.

I also realize that a Calvinist who doesn't fall in line with Founders or the Anti-Calvinist Bogeyman Watchdog Society is also a strange phenomenon for many to grasp. Don't get me wrong, I have friends who are whole-sale Founders guys...I love 'em dearly. I just don't quite understand the campaigns they undertake sometimes.

I also have a strong, heart-felt conviction that a convention begun by Southern Baptists should remain Southern Baptist rather than trying to be the next PCUSA or UMC or the like. That is why I am where I am.

At the convention, I had the distinct privilege of a most timely joke. After the passage of the Regenerate Church Membership resolution, I turned to my friends of the BI variety and shook their hands to welcome them all to the newly formed F-BI Coalition (Founders-Baptist Identity Coalition). We all got a hearty chuckle out of it!

Anyway...I bess be gittin back now! See y'all later!

Sola Gratia.

Anonymous said...


This church probally favors the Turkish massacre of nearly million Armenians around WWI

Anonymous said...

Crowder, Congrats and my prayer is that He will keep you on the narrow road always.

May your tribe increase...uh wait...we need to find you a wife first! :o)


Anonymous said...

I see that my comment in which I used the word narcissitic in reference to Burleson was deleted. Therefore, I will omit the multiple choice and state the point again.

Burleson has created a paradigmatic equation. If profs are released from SWBTS, he will claim he was right all along. If no profs are released from SWBTS, he will claim that his actions saved lives and jobs. He has created a strawman in which he is the hero regardless of the outcome for real people who possibly might wish he would just shut up.

He has created a heads I win and tails you lose scenario. And no one has called him on it.

DL said...

"He has created a heads I win and tails you lose scenario. And no one has called him on it."

Where have you been for three days? Oh, no one would know where you've been because you're anonymous. Everyone is calling him on it, just not very convincingly.

Anonymous said...

I think that Wade has probably given some professors some time at least: if they are secure, fine, but, at least they have seen by now the video of Patterson and they know that the handwriting is on the wall.

Likely, the knives will be out for their jobs in future. Will they be picked off one by one, or in batches? We hope not.

But what a great heads-up Wade has given them. And they know it.

Anonymous said...

watchinghisstory??? nobody's listening...get it?? DING! DING! DING!!!!! OHHHHhhhhhhhh!

Anonymous said...

I write this anonymously to protect myself and my family from further persecution. Although I am not a "5 pointer" I do believe in the total sovereignty of God in all matters. I do agree with Wade and his warnings of the takeover of the SBC. A great example of some of the things is ongoing in Missouri. This week the state Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the trustees of one of our organizations had the right to appoint it's own trustees and the takeover bunch who had taken over our convention and called themselves the convention were wrong in saying the trustees did not have the right. Also, some years back we hired a great man named David Clippard to head our Executive Board. The Takeover bunch didn't like that as David was not their man. At the same time all those years ago I told friends, pastors and DOM's that the take over bunch didn't have a leg to stand on legally and they would waste millions of CP dollars in a lawsuit and then loose. It has now proven true. I also told the same friends, pastors, and DOM's that the takeover bunch would not quit until they got their man in the Directors Chair at the Executive Committee. This to has now came true. Gee, maybe I am a prophet! Better yet, it is just that these types of takeover people are so predictable. Oh by the way, I was slandered, attacked and ostracized from the take over bunch, some of the pastors and some of the DOM's. See there is still the spirit of Judas among us, Have you ever noticed in the paintings of the Last Supper that Judas has a knife? Seems like some that want control and favor have always had a knife. I would trust the demoniac who became an evangelist before a man who is a proven schemer like Judas looking for gold and prestige

Wade is right, folks better wake up. Oh, and don't get caught being like Judas.

Anonymous said...


Wait...before you return to the plantation...Can you give an example(s) of someone who is reformed in theology in the SBC wanting to make us the next PCUSA? Aren't they liberal?

You say you're not with the "calvinsts are the boogeyman group"-but you sure do associate yourself with several who fit that description. I don't remember any commentary from you on the John 3:16 Conference- were you delighted with the presentations? Does any attack in the past 4 years on anyone who is a Calvinist in the SBC disturb you at all? (And please don't opt out by saying Wade disturbs you more, that's not the question).

There are many, many pastors like you who do not affiliate with Founders that share your theological position. Beleive me, that's not the point. There has been consistent antagonism from leaders both at the National and State convention level that has called for appropriate responces. Are you like the guy in the picture, Scott, or can you honestly recognize there have been some unwarrented attacks?

BTW, I'm not in agreement with all opinions represented on this blog. But based on what I'm hearing this current concern is plausible.

Anonymous said...

Anon poster from MO -

As a fellow Missouri, I am - apparently - not as prophetic as you. ;)

However, the amount of money that we, as the MBC, have spent to recover these agencies is disappointing. Over $1 million that could have been spent on ministry....

BUT, those agencies were forcibly taken from the MBC. NO DOUBT about that. I'm just willing to let what has been stolen remain in the hands of those who took it, rather than continue to use CP dollars to continue to FIGHT.

(Of course, we Southern Baptist are REALLY good fighers!).

Charles Brazeale
Neosho, MO

Anonymous said...

Bro. Wade,

Please forgive my off-topic post regarding the MBC. I realized after I posted it, that it's not really relevant to this discussion.

Charles Brazeale
Neosho, MO

Anonymous said...

Charles Brazeale, walking out of my office after my last client spent 60 minutes whining to me about her new Bentley and the lack of give in the power steering, I couldn't wait to get home. I spent most of the afternoon, even during appointments, reading the same things you read. I banged my head on my own steering wheel all the way home as I thought about the comments and posts to which you refer. The world is absolutely nuts because it is filled with nutty people. I agree with your assessment of Scotty No-Flash Gordon - Wesley Pain in The Kidney - David Give Me Your Source or I'll Give you a Kick in the Volfann - Peter Bumpkin Lumpkin - Bart I Need a New Barber - and all the wackos that have said such crazy things today. As a trained psychotherapist in the Seattle area, I think I know the problem these boys have and can help. If any of the afore named wackos are reading this comment, then let me suggest you click on my name. You have cried crocodile tears claiming to be concerned about truth, so let me help you see the truth about yourselves. Remember the words of Jesus, You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Anonymous said...


FYI: To date, zero CP dollars have been spent in the recovery efforts. Dr. Tolliver (our new Executive Director) has stated both publically and in a letter to my church, that this year will likely be the first year that CP dollars will be spent. I seem to recall the figure of 250k might be used this year. The MBC has been blessed by churches and individuals who have covered the cost of recovery up until now, as well as insurance.

Here is my opinion.

Cut our losses on Word & Way and Windermere. (i.e. drop both suits)

Put all our resources and energy in recovering MBU, the Foundation, and the Baptist Home. (In that order).

Then we need to work on replacing our Executive Board with folks who do not fight and squabble over the stupidest of things, while praying that Dr. Tolliver can bring a new era to Missouri Baptist Life.

Of course that is just my opinion…


PS: my word verification is: poophi


Anonymous said...

Now, Dr. Phil, I do not intend to call ANYONE names.....So even though I suspect we MAY agree on the issues, I cannot agree with your post as it could certainly be construed as an attack on the persons who are attacking our esteemed host.

Charles Brazeale
Neosho, MO

New BBC Open Forum said...

Dr. Phil,

I thought the "test" you referred to before was more relevant.

Anonymous said...

New BBC Forum please remember that good doctors offer a continual progression of treatment therapies. If one doesn't work, another is offered. Two of the town criers have already contacted me and I've offered an alternative treatment plan for them.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Phil,

I don't thank Pastor Burleson will like your posts.

Michael Ruffin said...


As I have said many times before and as I will always say, I suppose: those who supported the fundamentalist takeover/conservative resurgence sowed the wind and now the SBC is reaping the whirlwind. It's too bad but it is so, so predictable.

Anonymous said...

I know he won't. He has already deleted several of my best ones. But, I figured as long as he lets those morons comment I'll comment as well. The truth is he can't handle the truth. I can, so I tell it.

New BBC Open Forum said...

Dr. Phil said...

"Two of the town criers have already contacted me and I've offered an alternative treatment plan for them."

Probably scared them when they scored so high on the test.

Word verification: sbrant

Dave Miller said...


If you are still tracking this, I want to say something which I hope you will read.

I have serious doubts about the veracity of your report, and will continue to until there is better information than you have provided.

That having been said, a lot of my blogging buddies have been calling you a liar. I think that is unfair and unfortunate. I wish they would stop doing that.

I do not agree with your decision to post this, and until better proof is provided than I have seen, I will continue to believe that this report is false. I have written challenging your report and (as you do) I stand behind my criticism.

But, while I have not found myself agreeing with anything you have said in several months, and am willing to say so, I do not think the appellation "liar" is either fair or Christlike.

Byroniac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ramesh said...

Dr. Phil: Are you related to Dr. Loney?

Byroniac said...

Dr. Phil, I don't think your comments are called for. I think I probably disagree just as strongly as you do with the people you've mentioned, but one thing is for sure, they are NOT idiots. I don't know why they can't seem to see what we're seeing, but I digress. I think deep-down they feel threatened and/or hurt, perhaps by proxy.

Anonymous said...

Byronmaniac, Wes Kidney, Peter Bumpkin, David Wolfman, Scott Boredom, and Tim Gutme aren't idiots? Says who. They cry like women, they whine like coyotes, and when they don't like somebody they call them liars, liberals, lunatics, Lindsey Lohens, and any other L word their pea sized brains can think of. Where I come from, if those spineless critters called somebody those names we'd take em out of their misery before sundown. But these pansies claim to be Christians and nobody on this blog, including the owner of it will say anything to put them in their place. Idiots is the nicest word I can think of to describe all of em.

Byroniac said...

Dr. Phil, are you responding in the flesh right now, or in the Spirit? Your words would be far more profitable if they showed evidence of Christian grace and charity. I am not saying there is no place for sharp rebuke when needed. But I am saying that ad hominem attacks win no arguments, address no issues, and basically solve nothing. If that's the best you can do, don't expect any of them to be impressed. Truth is its own defense; stick to that.

Anonymous said...

People go look at SBC Today and notice how Wes Kenney and the comments about the Patterson interview and notice what Wes has done. He takes down comments that say he and others ought to apologize to Wade Burleson for calling him a liar, then has an anonymous "John 3:16" person come on at 12:16 am and write - "May I ask a favor from the editors of SBC Today? Would you please consider closing the comment stream in order to allow people to listen to Patterson directly without distracting (and what some might legitimately consider to be rumor-mongering) catcalls from the gallery? SBC Today is a reputable blog that does not need to become intertwined with less reputable blogs." Less than one minute later Wes Kenney himself comes on and writes one word - "Granted" If Wes is so naive to think we can't see he is the one who wants to shut down his blog comment section because people's eyes are being opened to the truth and are now calling him on it, then he is lost in space.

Byron, unfortunately I am starting to find myself agreeing with Dr. Phil. These guys are acting like weasels. When things begin to turn against them, they shut down all comments. And, if you read the John 3:16 comment (make that Wes's last comment), the gushing praise of Dr. Patterson and excuses for why he sounded like he was a stutterer on the tape make Wes look like a brown noser. People, Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up. It's a dang soap opera.


Byroniac said...

I lost my patience tonight, succumbed to the flesh, and wrote a comment I had to delete. I have to agree with you Andy, concerning that they shut down all comments when things are not going their way. And I think Dr. Patterson let the cat out of the bag, intentionally or not, in the video interview. And I'm still flabbergasted that some people actually think Wade is a liberal. But I forget, the grass is orange and the sky is purple in some comic book fantasy worlds too.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Phil, when the REAL Dr. Phil gets his hands on you, it's going to be you-know-what to pay.

You need to come clean and drop that 'pseudonym' .
How about choosing something like:
'Prof. Dumbledorff' of Pickle fame.
Wait, no, if you do that you might end up in a batch of pickle jars.

Rex Ray said...

Dave Miller,
You said to Wade: “I have serious doubts about the veracity of your report, and will continue to until there is better information than you have provided.”

You have expressed a lot of intelligence in the past. I don’t mean what I am about to say as criticism, but to look at your doubts from a different prospective.

Let’s supposed there's a rumor you suck raw eggs.

You're asked: “Is there any truth to that rumor?

Would you answer?
1. Yes
2. No
3. I hope not.

I realize if you chose number 3, you would be making a joke out of the ridiculous question.

But Patterson knew the question was sincere, and he answered sincerely.

Patterson beat around the bush as politicians do, and his “hope not” was a very weak denial.

If the rumor was false, Patterson, not being a timid person, would have yelled: ‘No! There’s no truth in it’?

If that’s too hard to see, you're portraying a shining example of Wade’s post.

Anonymous said...

Somebody talked.
Then Wade talked.

Pretty good drama.

Anonymous said...

It's safer to be on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan than serving as a
professor with Calvinist leanings over at SWBTS.

Anonymous said...

Rex, I now bestow upon thee a doctorate of wisdom. From this moment forthwith you shalt be called Dr. Ray. You put Miller Lite back in the keg. Byron, I now remove the maniac from your name since your last comment exposed some sanity. It's past eleven here in Seattle, so I shall bid you all a good night. I request of the blog owner that he not delete these my heartfelt comments as he did the others this afternoon. I am not hopeful though, and if you no longer see my writing on the morrow, in the words of my favorite General of all time, I shall return.

Anonymous said...

dave miller (hair splitter), go back and read your last post. what is the difference in "not telling the truth" and being a "liar??" you try to separate yourself from your "blogging buddies who are calling wade a liar" but that is not possible. if you are truly saying that you are not calling wade a liar, well, hmmm, guess that makes you a???? (liar) ding, ding, ding!!! ohhhhhh

Anonymous said...

Jonah told the people of Nineveh that bad things would happen to them. They repented and the bad things didn't happen. Jonah got upset because the bad things he said would happen didn't.

Wade said bad things were expected to happen. They haven't happened yet, and MAYBE won't because he raised the issue. I don't think Wade will do like Jonah and go sit outside and lament if what he predicted doesn't happen.

I wonder if some people called Jonah a false prophet.


WatchingHISstory said...

I don't believe that women should serve as church elders according to how I read the Bible but if all available SBC men were preaching variations of wesleyanism, keswickism, enablement, semi-pelagianism and one lone woman preached Calvinism I would go with an option and bend the rule on women pastors.

I would want to stay as true to the Word as possible if I could not have perfection. said...

Dr. Phil,

I am asking as nice as I know how that you refrain from posting at my site.

I deleted your comments all day yesterday until I left late yesterday afternoon to go be with my son.

Logging on this morning, I see that you have made several additional comments that are inappropriate.

You may not agree with what has been done by Wes Kenney, Peter Lumpkins, Dave Volfann, Scott Gordon and the others, but I would ask that you refrain from calling them names or making personal character assassinations

I do not know how to block ISP's but yours does not show Seattle. It is, however, orginating from a U.S. armed forces base. If you have had some connection with me in the past, either through Vance or our church, please know that I appreciate you as a person and yuor concern.

But it is absolutely inappropriate to belittle. Do not come back, and if you do, please tell us who you really are.

In His Grace,


Tom Parker said...

Wade said:
"You may not agree with what has been done by Wes Kenney, Peter Lumpkins, Dave Volfann, Scott Gordon and the others, but I would ask that you refrain from calling them names or making personal character assassinations"

The above reveals Wade's character.

WatchingHISstory said...


Has NASS's posted opinion of me been character assasination?

Are you inclined to think that I am a perverted pedophile? Do you think that I "get off" posting about Paul Williams' sin? If you or anyone does then you have come under her influence!

Has Dr Phil hinted that anyone is a perferted pedophile?

Gram said...

"it's a dang soap opera." of course! why do you think i rush home from work and can't wait to tune in?

wade's restraint and "silence" and refusal to get involved in the back and forth mud-slinging shows his character and the depth of his commitment to Christ-like behavior. i would be proud to call him my son.

John Daly said...

I have Scott, Peter, and Wes for Facebook buddies, and I have Wade. And I wouldn't have them for buds if I didn't genuinely like each one of them. The way this week has been with the comments, I think Chef Ramsay (Hell's Kitchen) could serve as our role model in how we treat folks. Yea, I confess, I watch it from time-to-time; I like the UFC too so don't make me mad :) said...


Please show me the comment and I will delete it. I am unaware where it is.

Charles, you have a way of coming to a web comment stream and throwing stuff out that has nothing to do with the post, which I have taken the time to write. That sometimes elicits comments from others, toward you, with which I disagree.

I am asking nicely. I will delete anything that assaults your character if you will save your written agendas for your own blog, and not mine.

I believe in this manner I am being respectful of you as a person and you are being respectful of me as a writer and a blog host.



WatchingHISstory said...

I am not covertly anonymous. I am trying to open up an issue about Paul Williams. I believe there is a connection between Adrian Roger's theology and Paul Williams' crime. Rogers' pelagianism created the ground for this to take place. There is a providential hand in this and I would like to see it discussed.

WatchingHISstory said...


Sat Jan 31, 09:46:00 PM 2009


Anonymous said...

watchinghisstory, you have "opened the issue" but the fact is, based on what is written in this blog, that no one wants to engage. 'nuff said. said...

Your welcome. Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Pastor Wade, thank you for your grace and civility, and for correcting Dr. Phil.

Please delete this comment if you feel it is inappropriate.

I have observed from the sidelines for a long time, but decided it was time for me to post after I saw the ungodly behavior of Christian men who, as far as I know, are pastors. I have discovered where each person pastors except for Pastor Lumpkins.

I read Pastor Lumpkin's post where he outright calls you a liar and a liberal. I read Bart Barber's post where he calls you a wild-eyed liberal. I read Pastor Wes Kenney's post and comments where he also calls you, outright, a liar a slanderer and a host of other names. I read Pastor Scott Gordon's blog, where he puts both the word liberal and liar in the title as a description of you. I could go on, but you get the drift.

What really chaps me is what these men have done now that others who are usually quiet, like me, begin to call them on their unchristian and ungodly behavior.

First, they delete comments that take them to task for their lack of character. Pastor Wade, has any one of these men contacted you personally to ask how you know what you know before they write you are a liar? I would really like to know because of what I have chosen to do today while I am at work. I will be contacting these men personally today, unless you tell me differently. I am self-employeed, so it is not a problem for me to get things done.

Well, back to my issue. These pastors assault your charaacter, publicly call you a liar worse, then delete comments that take them to task for their ungodly behavior.

Worse, now they are shutting down their blogs. Pastor Lumpkins shut down his blog, completely, with these words on the last comment -

"And to those who think I'm quitting on this one after I "denigrated" and "slandered" a man's "integrity," my encouragement to you is to keep right on thinking exactly as you wish. When pointing out a person's immoral action becomes classed as sub-Christian, by so many in the Christian community itself, it's time to go do something else."

Pastor Lumpkins seems to be telling me that my thinking of what he has done should continue. And, he is offended that I believe his actions are "sub-Christian." There, he is wrong. I believe his actions are anti-Christian.

Pastor Wes Kenney does the same thing. He deletes comments that take him to task and basically say Dr. Patterson affirms, on tape, precisely what you said he was intending to do - remove the Calvinists from his staff.

Then, Pastor Kenney shuts down the ability to comment. Pastor Bart Barber writes what he writes, and then is taking to task multiple people, and Bart defends himself, closes out that forum and moves on. Pastor Scott Gordon has not shut down his blog, but it is obvious by his words and open assault on your character, that he is not displaying a Christ like spirit.

Pastor Wade, when I read what you write, you simply challenge someones actions. You never attack character. You don't call Patterson deceitful or a liar. You are simply pointing out that he is living out, with consistency, his principles, which are far to the right of most Southern Baptists. What angers me is that these men who admire Patterson seem to be able to get by with their tactics with no accountability or very little impunity.

So, today, I will be writing letters to the chairman of the deacons, the head of the Personnel Committee, and open letter to the each of the churches these men pastor, requesting that my letter be distributed to all their members.

I have already drafted a biography of you and your ministry, and with your permission, will be using computer generated photographs of your family to attach to all my letters. Then, I will be printing off what these men have written about a fellow pastor. I will use only their words, nobody elses, and I will ask the church leadership where these men serve five questons:

(1). Were you aware of what your pastor is writing for public consumption?

(2). Did your pastor contact Pastor Burleson before they publicly accused him of being a liar, a slanderer, and other words associated with the ungodly?

(3). Do your pastor's words represent what you as a congregation wish in terms of your church's representation in the community and Christendom at large?

(4). If the answer is "no" to the above three questions, will you consider approaching your pastor and request he remove the public and ungodly writings of your pastor?

(5). If you approach your pastor about his ungodly tactics, and he is unrepentant, you will follow the injuction Scripture and fire your pastor for ungodly, public behavior?

The Bible says a man must be above reproach, and these men have demonstrated a lack of character in their treatment of a brother pastor.

I am currently at work. I am emailing you my private cell phone number and my work number. I would ask that you call me. I am not asking your permission to do this. I am simply needing guidance on how to proceed without letting my anger seep through the letters.

Thanks, Pastor Wade, for all you are doing for the SBC.


Anonymous said...

Pastor Burleson,

I receive your sharp rebuke. I see you are a bit of a detective as well. You do not know me, but you are correct, I have profited from your ministry. One of these days I might even share with you how.

I am a Dr, however, and though I can't promise I will never return to your blog and post again, I will leave for now by offering some help for the men mentioned above by brother Steve. Just click on my name.


Dr. Phil said...


Thanks for your willingness to help. I really appreciate your concern. However, I would ask that you not involve the churches of these men. I realize that you say you are not asking for my permission, so I am simply making the request that you not call these churches. I have not, either, received your email with phone numbers. When I do, I will be more than happy to call and visit with you about it.

I believe the Holy Spirit has enough of an influence on these men to convict them, and I am not in favor of you involving their churches.

In His Grace,


Anonymous said...


For the record, I cast my lot with Dave Miller. I too... "have serious doubts about the veracity of your report, and will continue to until there is better information than you have provided."

I do not think that you are guilty of lying. I do think that you are guilty of passing along hearsay. said...

Dr. Phil,

Thanks. Adios to you.




Anonymous said...

Christian Ethics

"The Holy Spirit indwells each believer, and part of His role is teaching us how to live: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26). “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him” (1 John 2:27). So, when we pray over Scripture, the Spirit will guide us and teach us. He will show us the principle we need to stand on for any given situation.

While God’s Word does not cover every situation we will face, it is all-sufficient for living a Christian life. Most things we can simply see what the Bible says and follow the proper course based on that. In the cases where Scripture does not give explicit instructions for a given situation, we need to look for the principle behind it. Again, in some of those cases it will be easy. Most of the principles Christians follow are sufficient for most situations. In the rare case where there is neither explicit Scripture nor seemingly clear principle, we need to rely on God. We must pray over His Word and open ourselves to His Spirit. The Spirit will teach us and guide us through the Bible to find the principle we need to stand on so we may walk and live as a Christian should."

Anonymous said...


Do you believe that you are guilty of passing along hearsay?

hear⋅say   /ˈhɪərˌseɪ/ [heer-sey]


1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:

2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:


1. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.


1. heard through another rather than directly; "hearsay information" said...


When the information comes from a person(s) in the meeting, who is (are) directly affected by the decisions, it is not hearsay.

It's called first hand testimony.

In His Grace,


Anonymous said...

Actually Wade; it is called first hand testimony only when that person(s) in the meeting, who is (are) directly affected by the decisions speaks... and we haven't heard that yet. By definition, it is hearsay information when you repeat it.

Anonymous said...

A List of 10 Bloggers:

1. Les Puryear
2. Paul Burleson
3. Dave Miller
4. John Farris
5. Greg.w.h
6. Tom Ascol
7. Wade Burleson
8. Stephen Pruett
9. Bob Cleveland
10. C.B. Scott

I might have my disagreements with all of these men. All of these men might have their disagreements with each other.

All men are liars according to Scripture [Rom. 3:4].

However, I do not believe that any of these men would intentionally make something up of this magnitude and post it on the internet [there are other names I could have given as well].

3 out of these 10 men have spoken.

Wade Burleson--in his Feb. 3 post

Paul Burleson--"Everything stated in the post had to do with the actions of a man and was stated correctly and I know that for a fact..."

Tom Ascol--in response to a question asking if the reports were true said "Some. But I can't verify all."

In accordance with a biblical standard we have three witnesses.

However, I guess these might all be secondary witnesses [at the least] and not primary witnesses.

The O N L Y way I can see someone arguing against the idea that even "some" of what Wade posted is not true is to say that all three of these men received faulty information.

However, we do have the primary source statement of Patterson who said "Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, 'Christ died for your sins'" that people can interpret for themselves without any dependence on others.

My encouragement to all--don't get caught up with the "personalities" in the controversy, but look at the number and nature of the witnesses and the data.

God Bless,

Benji said...

By the way, the man in Frisco who emailed about the Patterson interview apologized for believing there would be a dinner. He just assumed when he head of the "meeting" wiht Patterson after the Conference that it would involve something to eat, but said he should have known better since the only place open after 9:00 p.m. is Sonic. Anyway, the point of his email was to let me know the interview was coming. That's not hearsay either. He knew of the meeting first hand. He also said the EC was good. The Evangelism Conference was split between two churches, Oak Grove hosted the adults and children and FBC Hugo hosted the youth. The attenance was 550 at Oak Grove and over 300 at FBC. Down just a tad from the Frisco EC last year. The largest Frisco Evangelism Conference was a few years ago when Mac Brunson was the speaker. Mac accepted the invitation of Frisco Baptist Association, thinkging it was in Frisco, Texas, just a few miles from FBC Dallas. To his credit he didn't cancel when he found out a 30 minute drive was going to be a 3 hour one.

So, Joe, it is not "hearsay" when someone involved is telling the story.

Get to work! Your boss is watching. said...


When there is a climate in the SBC that anyone who speaks out against current leadership is called a "wild-eyed liberal," "liar," "slander," "sociopath," etc . . .

It's best to hold your tongue, particular if your livelihood depended on it.

I have nothing to lose, nor nothing to gain.

Therefore, nobody controls my pen but God.

In His Grace,


Stephen said...

Yes, most Southern Baptists are blind......or rather, severely visually misguided. We practice cultural Christianity.....hanging on to the myth that God ordained America as a modern Israel...a nation that embodies what Winthrop called "a citty upon a hill." We couple that with a narrow literal interpretation of the Bible that reinforces the racism, sexism, and other "isms" and we want laws to favor our brand of Christianity. Yet, we hypocritically reject other literal interpretations of scripture that are not part of our "Baptist" tradition. Our version of being "salt and light" is to force behavior by laws rather than change behavior by God's power. We have bumper stickers that read "Keep the Ten Commandments", but none that read "Keep the two commandments" of our Lord. We are too focused of legally preventing non-Christians from buying alcohol on OUR Sabbath, but not on making sure that government does not do our job as Christians. We rally behind the Republican Party, as though salvation for our nation depends on who is in the White House.

We are indeed blind.

Anonymous said...


You wrote, "it is called first hand testimony only when that person(s) in the meeting, who is (are) directly affected by the decisions speaks."

By that definition, there isn't a preacher who uses the Bible who isn't preaching hearsay every Sunday. Each of them is passing on information that they received from someone else but to which they were not eyewitnesses. Is all preaching really hearsay? Or is your definition a little off?

Anonymous said...


That's funny.

And dead on.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 612   Newer› Newest»