Wade Burleson: The Brightest Star Among The New Baptist Liberals

Wade lied.  That’s a fact.  Read it for yourself.  Some could say he was only mistaken; he got bad information.  No.  That’s not true.  Someone mistaken, when given the facts by the very ones about whom he was mistaken, would have resulted in correcting the error.  Wade didn’t. 

The very one about whom Wade lied corrected him on Wade's own blog.  Read it for yourself.  And, just what did the benefit-of-the-doubt mistaken Wade do?  Well, Wade did not blink in embarrassment, that's what.  Nor did he bow in shame.  Instead, Wade blew him off like a pitiful little fly, insisting that the professor better thank his lucky stars Mr. Wade was there to stop the fly swat from striking its prey!  Mr. Wade to the rescue...

No.  It was not a mistake.  It was a lie.  Tragic but true, Wade lied.  For whatever reason he deemed justified, Wade lied.

I was gleaning through some books I’d taken for my little writing getaway and ran a across a passage worth a quick post.  In their book, Relativism, ethicists Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl begin making their case against moral relativism by exploring the predictable outcome spawned by ethical systems (p.30).  They write:  “Another way to assess the validity of a moral system is to see what kind of person it produces.”  Interesting project.

For example, if we consider the ethical principle “Love your neighbor as yourself” living out that principle consistently would produce say, a Mother Teresa.  Or, the non-violent passive resistance principle may find its brightest star (among mortals) in Mahatma Gandhi, etc., etc.  Presumably, you get the picture.

Beckwith and Koukl’s point is to query precisely what moral relativism--if followed consistently by its brightest stars--would predictably spawn.  Their answer is frightening:  “In our society we have a name for these people; they are a homicide detective’s worst nightmare.  The quintessential relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience; this is what relativism produces” (p.31).

My, my.  So much for moral relativism. 

Nonetheless, Beckwith and Koukl are hardly finished and their next statement is relevant here:  “Something is terribly wrong with an alleged moral point of view that produces a sociopath as its brightest star.”  I could not agree more strongly.  Something is wrong indeed.

I might also point out that something is terribly wrong with a theological point of view that produces a liar as its brightest star.

With that, I am…

Peter 

 

Comments

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I am through. I have no interest in continuing to morally argue the sky is blue.

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.

To many of my readers here, thank you for your kind words. You did not have to say them. That you did means much to me. I am humbled by them. I am especially encouraged by Katie's comment, an M on the field. May our Lord grace your ministry further still!

To other regular readers who actually attempted to defend untruths, I am embarrassed for you.

And, finally, to those praying for me. Thank you. I very much need your prayers.

With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. Shop is closed until further notice...

[Byroniac]

I apologize for my caustic tone (which is wrong). I am frustrated on this issue, and with fundamentalism in general, and have been for some time. But that doesn't give me the right to be caustic about it. These are still my brothers and sisters in the Lord.

[Dave Miller]

I think that Wade's post was wrong. I believe Greg Welty's evidence. I have written a post on my site critical of Wade and his journalistic ethics.

I believe the problem is publishing opinion and unsubstantiated rumors as fact.

But, when people start the name-calling it turns me off almost as bad as Wade's post.

I don't think Wade lied. I think someone contacted him and told him the information he reported. I believe it is possible Wade was duped by someone who knew his prediliction to publish anti-Paige information.

But to say that Wade out-and-out lied defies logic. To report something like that as a work of fiction would be self-defeating.

I believe that kind of name-calling is not only wrong, but it costs credibility.

[Katie]

I posted this at Scott Gordon's blog. It is relevant here as well.

From Grace and Truth to You, October 23, 2007
“Disagreement is not a Sign of Corrupt Character”

1st Comment:

Wade,

On behalf of the over 5,000 International Mission Board missionaries who serve around the world, please let me express our gratitude for you.

We feel your support. We hear your passion. We love your courage [blah, blah, blah]…
pacrim church planter

Later in the comment stream:

To Comment #1 (Pacrim church planter):

Please do not assume that you speak for all IMB missionaries. There is at least one (myself) who disagrees with you.

I have read this blog for over a year and am frequently dismayed at the way the IMB BoT is portrayed. I have written to Wade about this, but my concerns have fallen on deaf ears…

-Eastern Europe M
24 October, 2007 05:42

The very next comment in the thread:
Anonymous Eastern Europe M,

I live near you. I know you. You definitely do not speak for even those of us fellow missionaries in your region. I can guarantee you that you in the 1% or less range of IMB missionaries. I would encourage you to listen to your husband and your regional coworkers and not a couple of your friends back in the states. (See, I know what I'm talking about.)

Anonymous M
24 October, 2007 09:45

Immediately following this comment, Wade Burleson posted this comment:

I think the battle of anonymous M's is a little silly myself.

My secretary files and catologues letters and emails from missionaries around the world. I have a minor in business statistics. I have two letters from missionaries who have identified themselves to me that are critical of me (while very respectful)and one thousand eight hundred and forty two (and counting) letters or emails from missionaries who have identified themselves to me and are very supportive of the IMB and myself. I respect the words of every missionary who writes to me, including the anonymous missionary from Eastern Europe. The second anonymous missionary from Eastern Europe below sent me the comment in an email - knowing that I would not allow it to stand without verification. I appreciate his thoughtfulness. I personally not a fan of anonymous comments, particular since I have redhanded caught 'flamers' lying about their identity. However, I give allowances for missionaries because of security.

If you notice the comments in this string, the missionaries who have personally identified themselves have either retired or gone into the pastorate.
24 October, 2007 09:54

I am the IMB missionary serving in Eastern Europe who posted the second comment above. As soon as I read the anonymous comment following mine, my suspicions were raised. I’m not sure how it is in Wade’s world, but IMB missionaries do not talk to each other that way. When you have sold or given away almost all of your worldly belongings, uprooted your family and moved to what most of our friends would call the ghetto; when you’ve gone through culture shock and had all your pride stripped away from you; and you realize that everyone of your colleagues has done the same, you don’t talk that way to one another.

When I emailed Mr. Burleson questioning this post from the anonymous missionary who responded to my comment, he said,

Absolutely I will ask this missionary to contact you personally. I already have. He says that you are arrogant and should know better than to send out anonymous commentary from the field. However, he may be lying as well about who he is. I don't know either of you personally.

But, in the comment on the blog he said, “The second anonymous missionary from Eastern Europe below sent me the comment in an email - knowing that I would not allow it to stand without verification. I appreciate his thoughtfulness.”

After this he deleted both comments.

Lies? Manipulation? Deceit? It sure looks that way to me.

K.F.

[Byroniac]

Darby Livingston, I think fundamentalism can more often be a harsh, inflexible mindset than the high standard of doctrinal purity it is claimed to be. Sometimes I wonder if fundamentalists can ever be happy or satisfied when there is no one to fight, or if they can still tell the difference between conservative and liberal. I am not saying that Christianity has no non-negotiables, because those who are truly in Christ will agree on such issues as the virgin birth, deity of Christ, and truthfulness of Scripture and so forth. But I fear this constant narrowing of fellowship parameters. Christ is more loving and forgiving than this standard, in that He saves any of us wretched sinners at all, and harsher and stricter when He does judge, because He sees the heart and all its hidden and dark motives.

When Christ first saved me, I used to wonder about the Pharisees and just what was the attraction anyway. Now, after having spent time as one and often among many of them in my personal life, I can understand. But there comes a time on the merry-go-round of Borg-like fundamentalism when you grow tired of being assimilated and think, "Stop! I want to get off!"

[Darby Livingston]

Byroniac,

You might be right about the fundy utopia. The SBC might be like the politically liberal in America who keep aborting their future constituency and hoping that's going to work out well for them. I keep reading and hearing about the lack of involvement of younger generations in the SBC. I don't think there is much of a southern baptist future, for several reasons, but I know the Kingdom of God will keep right on trucking.

My wife was saved in a fundamentalist baptist church (yes it can happen). Her pastor railed against calvinism, refuting the specific doctrines with rigid surety, questioning the salvation of calvinists. That is, until he became a calvinist. I saw him online a few years later railing against non-calvinists, refuting the specific doctrines with equally rigid surety, questioning the salvation of non-calvinists (and apparently forgetting he used to be one). My point is, there are some who know they're right even when they're wrong. They refuse to acknowledge that other people, equally saved by Christ, could come down on the opposite side of an issue as them, and yet be okay with God. They're always at war with those who differ, even when they change coats.

[Byroniac]

Tim Rogers, so I speak a few words in support of Wade Burleson, and poof, I'm a blind follower? How does that work exactly? Thank you for your assumption, but it is wrong. But that's not the point of your comment towards me.

Secondly, exactly what does that email prove? Now I am not saying I know one way or the other concerning this SWBTS issue; I don't. But what other response to that email would you expect? Guilty as charged? Secondly, I am not sure what Thomas White means by "Doctrines of Grace" but it does not seem to be accurate.

I'm still amazed at Wade Burleson being called "liberal" and "wild-eyed liberal." Are there no other categories besides Fundamentalist and Liberal? Are the terms Fundamentalist and Conservative synonyms? There are true liberals out there, and Wade is simply not one, no matter how inconvenient and annoying he might be to fundamentalists at times (this is not to say that I have anything against PP, as I do not know him except what I read).

For me, I'm afraid the future of the SBC is heading towards a Baptist fundy utopia. I have read enough straight from the Baptist Identity side of the fence (and not just secondhand) to believe that well-intentioned people can still be sincerely mistaken and needlessly legalistic. This isn't the future I want; please count me out of it.

["Bob"]

It is interesting that the person called "Bob" refered to in comment 11 is an anonymous commenter. I guess everybody assumed that it was a person named Bob that comments regularly and displays credibility. I would hope that this "Bob" does not have an isp server in Enid.

[Darby Livingston]

David,

I have no reason to believe or disbelieve Wes or Wade on the dinner issue. The SWBTS issue is up in the air in my opinion, but I don't think it matters all that much either way. It's not as though it's a secret that calvinism is hotly debated within the SBC. I think the burden of proof about the dinner falls on Wade, but I doubt anything definitive will come concerning that issue either. Wes pretty much laid down the gauntlet by calling him a liar. We'll see what becomes of it.

[wade burleson]

Wes,

One of your friends emailed me and told me that you and several "preacher boys" were going to get with Dr. Patterson at dinner to "interview" him in an attempt to discredit me. The fact that his schedule did not permit him to spend an extended amoung of time with you is irrelevant. Your friend's email only spoke of intentions, and likewise, my comment only spoke of intentions. Thanks for the link.

The fact that you seek to continually discredit me, and join Peter, in calling me a liar, is an issue between you and Jesus, not me. All "liars," Scripture says, shall have their place in the lake of fire, so I can assure you that I am careful to only write intentionally truthful words. It seems that your goal is to discredit me, your brother in Christ. I am confident, however, that my words will stand the test of time.

Another example of seeking to discredit me is in the same comment stream. After I received the email from your Frisco Association friend, who tipped me off that you were excited at the opportunity to try to discredit me through an interview with Paige Patterson, I went to my blog and posted a comment about the impending interview. I posted my comment before you revealed on SBC Today that you had been granted such an interview with Paige. You came to my blog, after I commented about the interview, and posted a comment of your own, announcing that you had posted the interview at SBC Today. I guess you didn't see my comment that I already knew about the interview, for you later came back to my blog, and said this about me commenting on the interview before you posted anything about it:

"By the way, nice trick with the time stamp there. The "preemptive" comment did not exist before my comment linking to the "dinner" interview. Thu Feb 05, 02:38:00 AM 2009

Again, you accuse me, Wes, as is your custom, of deceit.

Bob, wrote a response to your accusation that I was playing tricks:

Wes, you wrote:

"By the way, nice trick with the time stamp there. The "preemptive" comment did not exist before my comment linking to the "dinner" interview."

As a matter of fact, the trick is on you. The "preemptive" comment did in fact appear before yours because I read it and it was the last comment in the thread at the time. Yours was nowhere around.

Nice attempt at discrediting Wade by trying to insinuate deception on his part. You end up (as usual) being the one discredited and seen as deceptive.

Bob

I do not agree with Bob. I don't believe you were being intentionally deceptive. I think you honestly believed I was playing a trick. I wasn't Wes. I was letting you know I that I knew what was coming in your continuing attempts to discredit me.

I don't know why you feel the need to assault my character Wes. Like Peter, I feel pity for you. I will continue to pray for you, your family and your ministry.

In His Grace,

Wade

P.S. I have no desire, nor do I intend to respond, to any further character assassinations on this site.

[Greg Alford]

Peter, David, Wes, Tim…

You have reached a new low… I know your mothers taught you better than this… this is very sad to see this character revealed in each of you.

Like Wade, I have and am praying for you.

Grace Always,

[volfan007]

Darby,

Respond to Wes' comment in #6.

David

[Darby Livingston]

This is a quote from the above-mentioned response from SWBTS to Les Puryear: "If the President intended to release everyone who believed in the doctrines of grace, he would have to dismiss himself. In fact there is no one here who does not teach that creation and salvation are both totally and solely by the grace of God."

First, it's ridiculous to think that anyone will admit to Wade's accusation if it was true. "Are these rumors true?" "Well, I certainly hope not." "Alright then, we didn't think they were, but now we know the truth for sure because you told us." Second, in Dr. Patterson's interview on SBC Today, he did come right out against limited atonement in a subtle way that could be plausibly denied in the future by saying, "Well, that's not what I meant and some are twisting my words." I caught it as soon as he said it, and thought is was very disingenuous. Third, the above quote is just not fitting for a seminary representative. It's the kind of juvenile doublespeak I have to keep my eleven-year old wannabe lawyer son from trying to get away with. If Thomas White doesn't know full well what someone means when he says, doctrines of grace, then he shouldn't be speaking on behalf of a theological seminary responsible for precise scholarship. Everyone knows there are professors that don't believe in the doctrines of grace, including Dr. Patterson. The answer was an evasion. Period. One side accuses the other of starting rumors, and counters by doubletalk and evasion. Neither side is exactly convincing to someone on the sidelines.

[volfan007]

Wes,

I have asked Wade...over at his blog...two or three times to explain his "preacher boys" and "dinner" comments. He has yet to respond to it. In fact, it seems that the kool aid drinkers at Wade's place are avoiding my comment like the plague as well.

Interesting.

David

PS. I, too, have come to find that Peter is a trustworthy and honest man.

[Wes Kenney]

Peter,

Further down in that same comment stream is another example of a bald-faced lie told by Wade. So apparently he even lies liberally. He posted a comment about the interview I conducted, a comment in which he simply made things up about the details of how the interview came about. Here is a permanent link to the comment in which Wade blatantly lied about me, and about the circumstances of the interview.

In the fantasy land he inhabits, there was a group of "preacher boys," of which I was the leader, who asked Dr. Patterson to accompany us to dinner so I could "interview" him. I hate to miss a good meal, so at first I was disappointed at reading this, until I realized that it was simply Wade lying. There was no group, and there was no dinner.

I emailed Dr. Patterson on Tuesday and asked if he would agree to an interview. He replied that he would try, but it was not certain due to the fact that he was preaching a funeral that day, then preaching at our conference, all of which would require something like 600 miles of driving. He arrived a few minutes before the conference started, and after the service, he and I sat alone in the (vacant) pastor's office at the church where we conducted the interview. After the interview, Dr. Patterson reluctantly declined a dinner invitation from our Director of Missions, and hit the road for Fort Worth.

So what is clear from this episode is that Wade has no problem simply making things up in order to further his agenda. If he will lie in something so mundane as the circumstances surrounding the conducting of an interview, why should anyone believe he won't lie concerning weightier matters?

I've suspected it many times in the past, but this is the first time I have had clear, personal, irrefutable confirmation that he is a liar. And though not surprised, I am saddened.

Thanks for your post. Now get back to work... :)

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Byron,

Ask Les Puryear if SWBTS was silent until the interview. He did something that you and others that blindly follow WB have not done, and I doubt that WB did it, but Les contacted SWBTS to ask about the charges. Below is the email he received from SWBTS

From: TWhite@swbts.edu
To: lespuryear@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:36:58 -0600
Subject: RE: Question About Calvinistic Professors

Dear Rev. Puryear,

Thank you for your email request sent to the President’s Office. I must confess that I have not viewed this post personally, but as a general rule, it is wise not to trust everything you read on the internet. Someone did email me a copy of this post, and the excellent refutation of it by one of our faculty members in the comments section. If the President intended to release everyone who believed in the doctrines of grace, he would have to dismiss himself. In fact there is no one here who does not teach that creation and salvation are both totally and solely by the grace of God.

The Southern Baptist Convention has always had room for various opinions on the matter and has managed to cooperate for the Kingdom of God. At Southwestern, we will continue in the way of our Baptist forefathers with emphasis on sharing the message of God’s grace to a lost and dying world. I hope you find this response helpful.

Because of Him,

Thomas White
Vice President for Student Services and Communications
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

So much for the deafening silence from SWBTS.

Brother John,

For those of us involved in the SBC over the years, but who do not know personally the people involved in the current controversies...

I have had interaction with both Rev. Burleson and Brother Peter. I can tell you that after interaction with both the words of Brother Peter are words that one can rely. The words from Brother Burleson are words that are much like eating a green persimmon. It looks like it will taste ok, but when put to practice, it produces only bitterness.

Blessings,
Tim

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

I know you are busy with your writing deadlines, but thanks for chiming in. Sine you have been at the forefront of the Calvinist debate in the SBC, I wanted to post what I wrote on Bart's blog here. Hopefully our Calvinists brethren will see this for what it truly is:

I believe that this is a calculated attempt to exploit SBC Calvinists. Wade wants to continue to wage a war against Paige Patterson. However, most of those who agreed with him a few years ago have abandoned his Captain Ahab whale hunt. By provoking the fears of Calvinists of a "witch hunt" he can once again raise up an army to go after Paige Patterson. One would be hard pressed to find better warriors than Calvinists defending the "Doctrines of Grace". I have to give him credit, his exploitation of the Calvinism debate in the SBC is a very shrewd and cunning strategy.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[J. Martins]

Peter,

For those of us involved in the SBC over the years, but who do not know personally the people involved in the current controversies, your post and Pastor Burleson's comment to you helps people like me see who has true Christian character in our Convention.

You have given us an example of the ugliness so prevalent in Southern Baptists, but you have also provided us an opportunity to see how Pastor Burleson responds to such ungodly tactics.

Thanks. I now know who I believe. And, if you still can't see what you have done for me, let me be clear.

You have convinced me of the integrity of Pastor Burleson, and your need for personal brokenness.

John

[Wade Burleson]

There are times when I feel I must offer a defense when someone seeks to impugn my character. There are also times when I simply feel pity for the impugner and offer a quiet prayer for the person who feels the need to denigrate. I feel the latter for you, Peter.

I have already prayed today, and will continue to pray, for you, your family and your ministry.

In His Grace,

Wade

[Byroniac]

Peter,

It's not a certainty at all that Wade lied. There is no proof. There is also no proof that he is a liberal; in fact, quite the opposite is the case.

First of all, I believe you are referring to Dr. Welty making an appearance on the blog. Yes, it was very interesting. But his total silence afterward, as well as the silence of SWBTS up to the interview, is even more interesting. And then you have the interview, which I have not heard yet, so I'll refrain from commenting on it for now.

I also find it interesting that Bart Barber called Wade a "wild-eyed liberal" and wonder what planet Bart Barber lives on, with all due respect. Now I read you calling Wade a liberal. I do not think that is accurate at all (I'm more liberal than Wade is, and I personally would accept the label, but I do not believe it applies to him).