Saturday, June 16, 2018

The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Is Selectively Ignored by Southern Baptist Pastors and Churches

The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is a poorly thought out document on several fronts. I've been saying this for years.

The 2000 BFM is supposed to be "the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist missionary cooperation," but the truth is, most Southern Baptists ignore the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message except in the areas they wish to emphasize.

It's more a confession of convenience than it is a confession of conformity. As it should be. Baptists place preeminence on the Scriptures. God's Word alone is infallible. Our confessions are not.

We ought never to mistake our interpretation of the Bible with God's inspiration of the Bible.

So, as I point out to you where many Southern Baptists ignore the 2000 BFM, keep in mind that I'm glad the Bible is our infallible guide and am just reminding you that the 2000 BFM is a fallible interpretation of the Bible in which we believe.

Southern Baptists have changed the Baptist Faith and Message three times in the last 100 years (1925, 1963, and 2000), and a fourth time will come soon.

Let me give you a couple of examples where the current 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is mostly ignored by Southern Baptists.

Example One: Article VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper 

 Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
If your church doesn't dismiss everyone who is not a "member" of your local church before observing the Lord's Supper, you are in violation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.  Many Southern Baptist churches, if not a majority, do not dismiss everyone before observing the Lord's Supper in an attempt to exclude non-church members.

Our church does not dismiss our guests from other churches because we believe those who name Christ as Lord from other denominations will be around the Lord's Table in heaven (Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.), so why should we exclude them from the Lord's Supper now? "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

We place the Scripture above the BFM at our church.

Example Two: Article XVII. Religious Liberty

Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.
When Vice-President Pence spoke at this year's 2018 Southern Baptist Convention, he spoke about the United States government bombed the Taliban and other radical Islamicists and how "the radical Muslims are now running from us."

I tweeted the following:

Several Southern Baptists were offended with my tweet. One responded by saying, "You are so ignorant! Both are needed. The government paves the way for our missionaries by getting rid of the radicals." 

Anyone who thinks like that violates the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

But I would fight for the right of those Southern Baptists who stood and applauded Vice-President Pence's statement that the United States government was bombing the radicals, and "and they are running from us."

You may be violating the 2000 BFM, but your conscience and freedom to interpet the Scriptures as a “priest unto God” are a much better guide for your life.

The Baptist Faith and Message Always Changes Over Time

Again, Southern Baptists have changed the Baptist Faith and Message three times in the last 100 years (1925, 1963, and 2000), and a fourth time will come soon.

Why does the BFM change? 

Because at a point in time a majority of messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention think they understand the will of God, but one day the majority wakes up and say, "Ooops. It is possible to see things another way."

Let me show you what I mean.

The 1963 Baptist Faith and Message on the Lord's Day

The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, and by refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, work of necessity and mercy only being excepted.
Sunday football in 1963 was just beginning. Back in 1963, very few "worldly amusements" tempted Southern Baptists on Sunday. Theaters were shut down.  Sports activities were minimal. Southern Baptists were "firm" in their belief that the Bible demanded worship and spiritual devotion on Sunday, with the work of necessity and mercy only being excepted (police, fire, hospital, etc.)

It's amazing the changes that occur in the Southern Baptist Convention after a couple of decades.

 The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message says about the Lord's Day

The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private. Activities on the Lord's Day should be commensurate with the Christian's conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
It's amazing how the NFL can change a command of God into a matter of conscience.


The Next Changes Coming to the Baptist Faith and Message

The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message greatly erred in matters of "male authority" and "pastoral authority." 

The writers emphasized "a wife's submission” yet ignored “mutual submission." (Ephesians 5:21).

The BF&M 2000 committee - rejected every appeal to include Ephesians 5:21 which commands men and women to be mutually submissive to one another.  

In an attempt to battle perceived "feminism," the Southern Baptist Convention has fallen into the opposite pit of "patriarchalism." Both errors destroy families, churches, and conventions.

The Bible requires all Christians to pursue relationships of mutual submission and of reciprocal servanthood. Feminism and patriarchalism both desire to control by power.  A biblical Christian desires to serve others first through humble character.

My wife tells me that I am a visionary. She is usually always right. 

Mutual submission will be part of the next Baptist Faith and Message.

But what about "women pastors?" The answer to that question should always be: "What saith the Scriptures?" As has been shown in this post, Southern Baptist churches and pastors disagree among ourselves as to our interpretations of the infallible Scriptures. 

If Southern Baptists truly believe in local church autonomy (and we do), then answering that question should be up to the local congregation, not a national denomination. We are not Roman Catholics with a top-down hierarchy. We are Southern Baptists with grassroots leadership.

We have a problem with "authority" in the Southern Baptist Convention. 

Listen to Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, Professor Emeritus of Wheaton College - and take him up on his challenge. 
The practice of ordaining select people to hold positions of authority in churches should be viewed as an ecclesiastical tradition rather than as a biblical prescription. Thus, Paul and Barnabas were already among the recognized prophets and teachers of the church in Antioch when they received the laying on of hands, not to make them prophets or teachers but to commission them for a short-term sub-ministry (Acts 13: 1-3). It was their recognized spiritual gifts as prophet/teacher that had validated their ministry, not the subsequent laying on of hands.
The organization of the Christian community is never described as a gender-based hierarchy in the Scriptures. To the contrary, it is the doctrine of the community of oneness that sets the norm (Matt. 19:4-6; John 17:11, 20-23; Acts 4:32; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Eph. 4:4-6; etc.).
There is no text in the Bible forbidding women to be ordained because, according to the New Testament, all believers without exception are ordained by God to do ministry on the basis of their spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:7, 11; 14:31; Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:11, 1 Peter 4:10-11).
The Scripture absolutely forbids racial, class and gender discrimination by reason of the oneness of the church as a body. This oneness is consistently defined in the New Testament as full participation of the total constituency in the ministries of the church. This and other teachings of Scripture rule out gender-based hierarchy as a structure for biblical oneness.
I predict Southern Baptists will one day wake up and say, "Wait! There's another perspective on this issue!"

Just like we did the Lord's Day. 


Aaron said...


The way that I read Article VII is that baptism is a prerequisite for church membership and that it is a prerequisite for the Lord's Supper, but not that church membership is a prerequisite for the Lord's Supper.

In other words, I could permit a baptized member of another church, or perhaps a baptized person not currently a member of any church, to partake of the Supper.

Am I missing something?

David Cecil said...


In the next paragraph of the BFM, it states, "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming."

Now, does that mean members of the local congregation or members of the universal church? I would think that the reading means the local congregation, since we don't normally consider baptism being necessary to be a part of the universal church - that baptism is done by the Holy Spirit. Additionally, the privileges of church membership are generally focused on the local church, which again would put the emphasis on a local congregation instead of the universal church.

I do, however, fully support you in your understanding of the Lord's Supper and would encourage you to follow your conscience as you follow Jesus.

Wade Burleson said...


The way it is written (and Baptist polity of the past) is that membership is a prequisite for the Lord’s Supper. However, your “interpretation” of the 2000 BFM is a legitimate one.

It is ironic, however, that we are reduced to intepreting the 2000 BFM instead of Scripture.


David Cecil said...

I think the greater issue is that a strict reading of the BFM can make rebels out of the best of us. Imagine, being in rebellion to (violation of) a document like this because one is striving to follow Jesus. The language we use is quite telling...

A person or church may desire to cooperate with like-minded followers, but the document is written and used in such a way as to push people out instead of drawing them in. The like-mindedness becomes narrower and narrower.

Wade Burleson said...



Instugator said...

I go with the 'Open Table' interpretation. Even Judas Iscariot partook of the last supper.

Philip Miller said...

It seems to me that the issue of women as pastors is a local church issue. Any local church that believes the biblical model includes endorsing as women as pastors can, and should, do so. Of course that would mean they're no longer a cooperating Southern Baptist Church, but surely that wouldn't prevent them from following the biblical model as they understand it. Or at least I would hope it wouldn't. That would indicate that they choose membership in a convention over biblical fidelity.

Wade Burleson said...


My point is you can disagree with the 2000 BFM and remain Southern Baptist. It happens all the time.

Philip Miller said...

But it seems to me you're going further than that. You're also advocating for changing the BFM to reflect your position. My question is, why not advocate for that change in your own local church? And if your local church and the SBC don't make changes in such on important biblical point, why stay there? Wouldn't staying there indicate that to you it isn't a very important biblical point?

Anonymous said...

It would be more honest to issue blank pages as the next BFM. It is not binding, and it is unenforceable. Local autonomy trumps all.

Before I left the SBC I wrote the various denominational (sic) people asking for the official definition of a Southern Baptist Church. No one knew.

The BFM isn't much. Compare it to the Westminster Standards, and you will see why.

Wade Burleson said...

No Philip.

Keep the tertiery issues over which we disagree out.

Anonymous said...


First of all I want to say I really appreciate the grace you have shown in light of recent ugly things said about you online. I also appreciate how you have extended forgiveness to others.

I think there is a misunderstanding. If you notice again, it does not say to exclude members of other churches on the article concerning "baptism and the Lord supper". I think this post misrepresents that article.

Believer Baptism being a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership (which entails the Lord supper) is an historic Baptist confession. Look at the New Hampshire confession of faith, The Abstract of Principles, or the Secon London.

Baptists have always believed that baptism is a point of obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. And, other denominations such as Presbyterians believe also that their view of baptism is a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and the Lord supper. The Baptist Faith and message on this point is only standing were Christians have historically stood. The article also allows for local churches to permit other denominations to join them at the table.

In our southern Baptist churches, baptism of a believer should be the prerequisite to membership in the local church which gives also the privilege and access to the Lord supper which is held accountable by that local church and administered by its pastors.

Just my two cents-

Garrett Conner

Bob Cleveland said...

From the Preamble to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message:

"3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so." And remember .. the Preamble is an integral part of the BF&M.

And then there's "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man.". whereas the 1963 version states: "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God's revelation of Himself to man." That takes the emphasis off the deeds and actions of God and puts it on the writing. It also says God doesn't reveal things to us any more.

Plenty of reasons not to like the 2000 version.

Anonymous said...

Why complicate church?

Our SBC church has no covenant, no creeds, no rules and most members don’t even know what the BFM is. We ignore most
Denominational decrees. We give, we minister and we love. The Bible works for us and since it teaches to love everyone
we reject labels, exclusions and dictatorial leadership. Works for us. Try it. :)

Bob Cleveland said...

Incidentally, one of my most memorable Communion services was one in which the pastor, at the conclusion of the sermon, led the people who wanted to be saved, in the "sinner's prayer".

After which, he said what was the next thing to do after being adopted into a family? He said "Having a meal!" So they served communion to all who would partake, including those who obviously didn't have time to be baptized first.

It was a great experience!

Jon L. Estes said...


Can you share with us the name of 5 or 6 churches that put the BF&M2K over the Bible? I’m unaware of any.

I will glad to contact them and see how they respond to you naming them as doing such?

Jon L. Estes said...


Who gets to decide what is a tertiery issue?

Who has the spiritual authority to say what is and what is not... in where Christians must place themselves under such authority to be harmony with other Baptists?

Samuel Conner said...

With the apparent ascendancy of neo-calvinism in upper reaches of SBC, I wonder whether there may eventually be a move in the direction of more rigid forms of creedalism.

Samuel Conner said...

Re: tertiary issues

If one defines "tertiary issues" as "those things which do not hinder salvation or sanctification", perhaps the example of Paul may be instructive. He had an astonishingly small list of non-negotiables -- belief in the resurrection, allegiance to Jesus as Lord, high ethical standards but release from other aspects of the yoke of OT Law.

Imagining that Paul were time-travel and visit a present-day conservative church, baptist or reformed, I reckon that he would perceive his four non-negotiables, but he would be distressed with many other things, including the authority structures and the suppression of the Spirit-giftedness of much of the congregation.

Bob Cleveland said...

Jon Estes: How about the requirement to be a baptized believer to take communion?

Sallie Borrink said...

Re: tertiary issues

How many issues are you willing to go to the stake over?

I can think of a whole list of things Christians argue and bicker over and I wouldn't go to the stake over any of them.

Samuel Conner said...

Bob C. said:

"How about the requirement to be a baptized believer to take communion?"

The reasoning in conservative Presbyterian churches for this requirement is worth contemplating. As I understand it, the elders are concerned about the possibility that someone might partake improperly, with dire consequences, and so insist on membership in order to have authority to oversee the person well enough to satisfy themselves that everyone who approaches the Table is indeed not in danger of drinking judgment on themselves.

But what Paul wrote to Corinth was simply, "a man ought to examine himself..."

This is perhaps a really good example of the kind of authority structures that might distress Paul were he to time travel and visit present day conservative churches incognito.

Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

Dear Anonymous @ Sat Jun 16, 08:34:00 PM

You asked the question, “Why complicate church?”

Your experience is our experience.

Somewhere around 2003, my wife Alexis was in a lunch room at Southwestern Seminary where there was an intense discussion about the BF&M 2000. Alexis was curious about the ruckus, so she innocently asked, “What is a Baptist Faith and Message?” There was a stunned silence in the lunch room for a time, times, and half a time.

Finally, someone asked her a question. “Are you a Baptist?” Alexis replied, “Heck no, I am a Christian!”

You know what? Even after a response like that, Jesus still talks to her!

Through it may be hard on the flesh, relationship is really very simple.

Thank you for your encouragement,

--Alexis’ husband

Jon L. Estes said...

Bob Cleveland,

Can you say that those who hold the position you mention do so because it is in the BFM2K and it is not how they interpret scripture?

Bob Cleveland said...

Jon, I have more positions that a Chess Match. Which one were you referring to?

child of grace said...


I appreciate your service, but on Father's Day 2018 we've got far bigger problems than the BFM2K IMHO.

Children are literally being ripped away from their families by a government whose chief law enforcement official quotes scripture for their ungodly actions and - if polls can be believed - continues to enjoy overwhelming support of Evangelical Christians, many of them who are also Southern Baptists.

This breaks my heart for many reasons and makes me question whether many of those I believe are brothers and sisters in Christ are, in fact, Christian.

In any event I shall continue to pray that God lifts the scales from their eyes so that they can see what is being done in their names to "the least of these."

Finally, on Father's Day 2018, I will conclude by praying for the family of Marco Antonio Muñoz and those in office I believe will have to stand in judgement for what happened to him & those who would use scripture to justify it.

If you do not recognize his name, a google search will tell you what you need to know.

Jon L. Estes said...

Bob C. I am referring to the position mentioned in the question you asked me.

Bill said...

We in the United Mathodist church practice open communion The pastor always reminds us that it’s not a United Methodist table but Gods table and anyone who wants to participate is welcome to do so. It really is as simple as that with UM.

Bob Cleveland said...

Jon: Gotcha. No, I cannot say how others think. I have enough trouble explaining how I think.

I do know what Scripture says about it, though, and don't see anything there on that. PErhaps you could point out some stuff?

Christiane said...

"My wife tells me that I am a visionary. She is usually always right.

Mutual submission will be part of the next Baptist Faith and Message."

Now THAT would be 'biblical' and 'Christian' and 'orthodox'. Misogyny never was a page out of Our Lord's teachings, no. I'm not even sure how Patterson got away with all the patriarchy mess, because at the same time, he is preaching 'inerrancy' of sacred Scripture, so I guess he meant his own interpretation was 'inerrant'.

Well, we saw what his own interpretation led him to do to innocent women, and it was NOT 'of Christ', no. The truth of Christianity is always in the way it is lived out: watch what people do, not what they say. And if any 'interpretation' of the Bible leads to harming innocent people, it's a wrong interpretation.

I hope you ARE a 'visionary', Wade. I hope the SBC has a chance, if nothing more for the sake of its missions. That is something worth saving. And in a future SBC, no one will be able to injure innocent Christian women and say they are holding up the teachings of Christ. :)

Christiane said...

Hello Child of Grace,
you wrote:
"Finally, on Father's Day 2018, I will conclude by praying for the family of Marco Antonio Muñoz and those in office I believe will have to stand in judgement for what happened to him & those who would use scripture to justify it."

I believe you are right.
Just with the damage of the last two months, I think it will take our country thirty years to get over the images and the shame Trump has brought upon our land. Already, other countries are asking 'why?' are Americans doing this to children! So Trump is in control, but we as a country will lose our moral credibility over something so evil that there are no excuses for it. Thank you for speaking up.

As for those who quote Scripture to justify child abuse, I leave to God to sort them out as only He can and will do. This is a very painful time for our country, and for Trump to choose the months of May and June (Mothers Day and Fathers Day) to hurt these children and their parents just makes his evil-doing more vivid.

Rex Ray said...

Our church stands with the 1886 “Baptists General Convention of Texas”, that abides by the BFM 1963.

The BFM 2000 deleted from the BFM 1963 that states: “In no case has it sought to delete from or to add to the basic contents of the 1825 Statement.”

BFM 1963 states: “Baptist emphasize soul’s competency before God, freedom in religion, and the priesthood of the BELIEVER.”
vs. BFM 2000: “We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of BELIVERS, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.” [Rex ask: Does BELIEVER vs. BELIEVERS means the priesthood of individuals must abide by the majority?]

BFM 1963 states: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”
vs. BFM 2000: “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.”

BFM 1963 states about the church: “Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.”
vs. BFM 2000: “Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons…the office of pastor is limited to men…”

BFM 1963 states about the church…”committed to His teachings…”
vs. BFM 2000: “…governed by His laws…” [Rex ask: “Does “governed” suggest a ‘top down rule’?

BFM 2000 adds The Family: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the leadership of Christ.” [Rex ask: Does that mean she’s the church and he is Jesus?]

Is anything wrong with the BFM 1963? If not why can’t the SBC switch to it?

Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

BFM 1963 states: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

What does that mean?


Jon L. Estes said...

Bob C.

Wade was making the case that there are churches out there putting the BFM2K over the Bible. I asked him to name some and I would make contact to see.

I also asked who gets to decide what is tertiary and what is not because he inferred that such things like baptism shouldn’t be in the BFM2K.

For those who think this is a primary issue for their church and not a tertiary one, who gets to decide for the autonomous church?

This decision on baptism... membership... Lords Supper was around before the BFM2K

Who says we can work together with when we differ on these things? Wade does. But why would anyone want to work with someone who continually tells the one they say they are want to work with, they are wrong?

Christiane said...

"BFM 1963 states: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”"

Hello Wallace,

For me,
it means you can't use the Bible to justify taking a little child away from its mother. The Royal Law of Christ supersedes ALL unjust laws.

Wade Burleson said...


It's not CHURCHES putting the BFM 2000 over the Bible. It's the CONVENTION.

Rex Ray said...


“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ”; to me, it means interpreting the Bible through the eyes of Jesus.

Jon L. Estes said...

Wade -

I disagree. The BFM@K is a product of how those who understood and accepted the truths of od's Word. Just because you disagree with parts and they do not... does not mean they put it over scripture.

You are making a huge accusation of some of God's finest in being anti-scripture simply by producing the article and asking the convention to have a statement of faith. An understanding of our basic position on specific subjects in scripture.

Having such a document closes the door to those who say they believe the Bible but interpret it completely in ways that we would say is off base.

I get it... you don't like certain parts of it. You think those parts are in error to how you read scripture. You must believe men like A Rogers (using him since he was chairman of the study committee) were clueless as to how God speaks of men and women in ministry... baptism and Lord's Supper...

That's fine if you do. Though I think most people would disagree with you on this.

I think I have read you on we all could be wrong on things... even you. I agree and will double down and say you are on this one.

Using the BFM2K to explain our position on doctrinal issues is not making it superior to scripture... even if you want to make it sound as if it is.

Rex Ray said...


All I could find on your link is: “


You said, “Using the BFM2K to explain our position on doctrinal issues is not making it superior to scripture... even if you want to make it sound as if it is.”

At one time our Sunday School Material had: “The BFM 2000 is our doctrinal guideline.”

I complained to IMB President, Rankin, that the Bible is our doctrinal guideline. He replied we couldn’t say that because the Church of Christ had that as their slogan.

Will anyone answer why can’t the SBC use the BFM 1963?

Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

Good Morning Christiane,

You said

"For me, it means you can't use the Bible to justify taking a little child away from its mother. The Royal Law of Christ supersedes ALL unjust laws."

I am in full agreement with your comment!

How did we get to this place of misusing Scripture in this way?

Thank you for your response,



Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

Good Morning Rex,

Thank you for your response.

You said,
"“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ”; to me, it means interpreting the Bible through the eyes of Jesus."

I am not sure what 'through the eyes of Jesus'means. Are you saying we should read the Scripture, the way Jesus reads the Scripture?

This is NOT a tertiary issue for me! I can not support a BFM that is not clear to me on this issue.

Understand, that I do NOT agree with the BFM2000.

Thank you again,


Christiane said...

Hi Wallace,

you wrote: "How did we get to this place of misusing Scripture in this way?"

I think some people do believe they have to 'follow orders' or 'obey the law' EVEN when the law is unjust or the orders are cruel and hurtful to innocent people . . . .

it doesn't work that way in the Kingdom of God . . . goodness, it didn't even work that way at the Nuremberg trials after WWII

I think the 'inerrancy' teaching might be a part of the problem also: if those who teach that THEY are inerrant when they interpret sacred Scripture . . . and if the way they interpret it contradicts Our Lord's teachings, then you can imagine what kind of abuse these men can try to get away with . . . Patterson got away with it for years, before he went too far and was caught out

I think people with consciences know that the harming of innocent people is immoral. Or as some are now saying:

'We Americans have a 'zero tolerance policy' for child abuse.'

Wallace, like I said once, you ask good questions. Please know that I am very opinionated/upset over what is happening to our immigrant children, so just take what I say with a grain of salt. :)

Wade Burleson said...


"Having such a document closes the door to those who say they believe the Bible but interpret it completely in ways that we would say is off base."

So you are making "male authority over women" a doctrine as important as "the Person and work of Jesus Christ?"

Just asking.

Christiane said...


try this:
1. Highlight both lines and 'right click'
2. Then 'left click' on the 'Go to http . . . '

let me know if this helps :)

Rex Ray said...


Sorry, but I couldn’t find where a child was taken from her mother; just the girl was crying as her mother was being searched.

Can you tell what happened? I know you write truth.

Christiane said...


I found this:
"In the case of the 2-year-old Honduran girl, the mother told me they had been traveling for a full month and were exhausted. They were taken into custody with a group of about 20 immigrants, mostly women and children at about 11p.m.," Moore tells FOTO. "Before transporting them to a processing center, transportation officers body searched everyone and the mother was one of the last. She was told to set the child down, while she was searched. The little girl immediately started crying. While it's not uncommon for toddlers to feel separation anxiety, this would have been stressful for any child. I took only a few photographs and was almost overcome with emotion myself. Then very quickly, they were in the van, and I stopped to take a few deep breaths."

I'm not sure if it is known what happened to the mother and the little girl after this photo was taken, but it looks like they were put into a van and taken to a 'processing center' . . . if the mother was 'detained' at the 'processing center', likely the little girl would have been taken from her under the new policy . . .

I think we may find out soon, though, because a LOT of people want to know about this little girl . . .

Likely, Fox News may not be covering this issue, but try the national news reports or CNN for more info on it. Believe me, if I find out the child is safely with her mother, I will let you know via Wade's kindness (ie., I'll write to you here)

If you find out first, then you can write to me here about the child. How's your medical trouble going?

Christiane said...

REX RAY, here's the link, scroll down to find the photographer's input

Christiane said...

I'm going to withhold judgement until I hear from more of the sources I trust, but
another link says this:
"It's 11pm in the US border town of McAllen. The cries of a two-year-old Honduran asylum seeker in a bright pink sweater pierce the night air. She is being taken from her mother."

REX, I'm looking for a major news network to report on what happened to this child.

Rex Ray said...


If the little girl was separated from her mother, it would be like when slaves were sold that separated families. It’s sad enough to make the Lord cry.

My ankle problem still has me on a cane.

Christiane said...

I've been upset for a week over what is happening to these children. This is a moral crisis for our country. We can do better than this, surely.

Your ankle, what else can be done to help you get better? Have they tried physical therapy, or are they still trying to get it to heal? Some things take time. At least you can walk with the help of a cane. Do you need to lose some weight in order to ease the strain on your ankle? (not my business, but it's good advice anyway)

These days, they can do knee replacements and hip replacements, maybe someday they can do ankle replacements . . . who knows?

Have they tried cortisone shots?

Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

Dear Christiane,

I what to apologize for that question about ‘why’ we misuse Scripture? A few hours after I sent it, I thought it that was unfair to ask such a broad question and expect an answer in a blog. Especially of someone I don’t know. (Now for those I abuse regularly, it doesn’t bother me much).

I have been asking myself that question for 50 years. If someone were to ask me, to give my opinion in half a page; I don’t know where I would start. But, you handled it masterfully and with grace. If you would allow me to read in between the lines, it reads like you know a lot more about this.

As for the children on the boarder, I didn’t know anything about that until today. Lex and I watch very little TV. Thank you for your influence. I did hear the inflection in your writing. Sorry . . . but I did not take your thoughts on ‘inerrancy’ with ‘a grain of salt!’

This is interesting because as I was writing a response, to your response, to my unfair response, I began thinking about why and when I ask some of the questions I do. They are due, in part, to what happened to us in Baptist churches as children and teenagers in the 50’s and 60’s. SOME of these questions come out of my pain due to religious manipulation. That mean religious spirit of the scribes of Pharisees spares neither gender nor age.

It is little wonder that some of us are wounded leaders in the SBC today.

Thank you for your time,



P.S. Christiane, after I read your post, I did jot down a couple pages of thoughts while I was at work. So, your considerations were not unpondered.

Jon L. Estes said...


You ask me...

"So you are making "male authority over women" a doctrine as important as "the Person and work of Jesus Christ?""

No... But...

1) What Doctrine do you make as important as the Pweaion and work of Jesus Christ?

2) Seeing scripture teaching that God sees genders as equal but has given us different roles to fulfill in His Kingdom does not negate the value or importance of a woman. I have been very clear where I see God showing equality in worth, value, and talent but He determined the different roles, not man.

3) If this is a tertiary issue to you, why are you making so much of it? If you want there to work with people who hold the opposite of you... claiming they are wrong over and over does not make your case. All it does is say its ok for you to be wrong and I am willing to let you be wrong but the end of the discussion is you are wrong so don't ask me to even accept your wrongheadedness (sp?) just let me continue to let everyone know how wrong you are. What you really want is for them to compromise their belief in how scripture speaks to this, as you see it. Bot a good foundation to build a working realtionship.

Maybe that is not the end goal you seek. It's just a way to show you want to be the nice guy.

Jon L. Estes said...


You made the following comment to me...

"It's not CHURCHES putting the BFM 2000 over the Bible. It's the CONVENTION."

1) Do you mean by convention everyone in the SBC? If so, this means you too.

2) Do you mean certain persons, entities or committees? If so, this would be easy to find out.

3) Do you mean... what do you mean? Please tell me.

I will attempt to make contact with any person, entity or committee you claim does this in the convention and get their response to your accusation.

More than likely anyone I contact in the SBC will say no... scripture first and you will probably say they do exactly what you accuse them of but they just don't know it.

Your accusation... your proof to back it up.

Christiane said...

Please pray for these children to be returned to their parents

Anonymous said...

"It's amazing how the NFL can change a command of God into a matter of conscience." That sums up a lot of the power politics we have been subjected to. Only in questioning do we shed light on the contradictions and bring sanity to our life as a community of believers.

Anonymous said...

My most sincere & heartfelt THANK YOU! Pastor Burleson for ALL your efforts & hard work in making the Biblical case that Ordination is not a matter of gender but instead a calling of God & gifting of the Holy Spirit. With every fiber of my being, I truly believe EVERY societal ill we are currently experiencing stems from the Church's erroneous teaching that women cannot be fully redeemed from the 'eternal curse' placed upon them by God as a punishment for Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden. (Either because God created women as 'inferior' to men as the church fathers’ taught -or- now as 'enlightened' church leaders teach God actually really created women equal in status to men just different in permanent roles He assigned to them.) As a women I have struggled to try to understand & make peace with this evolving doctrine my entire life. After years of searching for solid Biblically-grounded & clear direction from God's perspective, a little over a year ago, the Lord graciously led me to website which pried my eyes wide open to how shockingly flawed the Church has become (or maybe has always been since the Apostles' didactic New Testament letters needed to be written). It was through The Wartburg Watch website I found your site which helped me understand that perhaps man's interpretation of God's Inerrant Word may be flawed because of man's sinful nature. Then as I did more research God led me to the website. *** Pastor Burleson, have you ever been to Dr Witt's site? *** On the site, there is a series of articles centered around Biblical support for the Ordination of Women. ( My understanding is that Dr Witt, who is an Anglican scholar, wrote the articles because of pleas from a dear sister in Christ though he did not have any deep professional interest in the topic. Yet I found the series to be one of the most comprehensive, thorough, & compelling set of writings from a Conservative ‘Evangelical’ Christian perspective that I have come across to-date. As a result I have been in continual prayer that someone of stature & influence in the Conservative Christian Community like yourself might be able to persuade Dr Witt to compile his article series into book form and even perhaps convince Dr Witt to become a much needed active participant in supporting Ordination of Women so that the Church might full-heartedly begin to train up wise women pastors to shepherd Christ’s flock; paying particular attention to guiding young women who are being led astray & endangered by the false teachings bombarding them from every direction today. Again Pastor Burleson, thank you a thousand times over re: your support of women pastors!!! May God Bless Your Ministry! With Love in Christ, KD

Christiane said...

Rex Ray, I guess I'm not the only one who cares about that little child. She has become iconic but we still don't know what they did with her. Very concerned.

Rex Ray said...


I got this from Google. I believe it’s like Mark Twain said, “Those who don’t read newspapers are not informed and those that do are misinformed.”

“The widely shared photo of the little girl crying as a U.S. Border Patrol agent patted down her mother became a symbol of the families pulled apart by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy at the border, even landing on the new cover of Time magazine.
But the girl’s father told The Washington Post on Thursday night that his child and her mother were not separated, and a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed that the family was not separated while in the agency’s custody. In an interview with CBS News, Border Patrol agent Carlos Ruiz, who was among the first to encounter the mother and her daughter at the border in Texas, said the image had been used to symbolize a policy but “that was not the case in this picture.”
Ruiz, who was not available for an interview Friday, said agents asked the mother, Sandra Sanchez, to put down her daughter, nearly 2-year-old Yanela, so they could search her. Agents patted down the mother for less than two minutes, and she immediately picked up her daughter, who then stopped crying.”

Rex Ray said...


So much news is ‘fake news’ against Trump. Time Magazine said they knew when they put the picture of the little Girl and Trump saying “Welcome to America” on their cover that the story was not true, but it was too ‘good’ to pass up.

If some of this ‘fake news’ got sued for slander, there might be less of it.



Rex Ray said...

Gerald Poimateer,

You said, “With a diversity of opinion there is scholarship.”

Can you give examples of that?

The “diversity of opinion” produce countless religions, divorce, arguments, fights, murder, and even war.

Rex Ray said...

Gerald Poimateer,

If all your questions are examples of “With diversity of opinion there is scholarship”, what’s the point? In other words I don’t see “scholarship” in any of your questions; I just see confusion.

Rex Ray said...

Gerald Poimateer,

I think you hit a ‘home run’.

Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

Dear Professor Polmateer:

I would really, really like to ask you a question, but I don’t yet know how to frame it. I was afraid you might leave this blog before I could sort it out. So, if you can, I humbly request that you might check back for another couple of days.

The quandary in my mind has to do with the relationship (or lack of) between institutional churches, The Great Commission, and 2nd Timothy 2:2.

In the meantime, if you would like, you might ask yourself some intriguing questions on my behalf and then answer them. You may be as gentle or as smackdown as you like.


Wallace Rowland

Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

To Gerald Polmateer,

Sorry, that I did not get back sooner. I have a whole flock of oxen in the ditch.

An undeveloped question:
Are you presently aware of disciple making in depth (as you understand 2 Timothy 2:2) in an institutional church?

I have experienced duplicating discipleship (as I understand 2:2) outside professionalism, but not within.

You may consider this a rhetorical question if you like.

For your consideration,



PS . . . I’m headed back to the ditch.

Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

Gerald Polmateer said:

"A few weeks ago I had a discussion with a man not much older than me. We discussed why some groups have done well and why others have not. He said the difference is some say "come join us and we will make you a leader." One other one we noted says, Come join us we will help you to follow." We don't make leaders. We help others to follow Jesus."

Wallace says . . . thank you!