In the final instructions the inspired Apostle offers to Rome, he sees fit to warn the believers there to "watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." (Romans 16.17-18, ESV).
The admonition Paul offers here seems out of sync with the rest of the letter. Heretofore, the Apostle has been content to not get into the interpersonal wranglings of a Church he himself did not found. But he chose to break that silence before placing the postage stamp on the epistle and sending it on its way. And, while Paul did not specify precisely the wares the division party was peddling, he felt compelled to address it. These guys were smooth operators who knew well how to divide the ranks by delivering divisive messages.
Again, the Inspired Author cautioned young Titus with these words: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." (Titus 3.10-11, ESV). The four-fold divisive issue Paul has already identified: foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, all of which, he argues, "are unprofitable and worthless" (Titus 3.9, ESV).
Unfortunately, the latest thesis our friend and brother, Wade Burleson, has nailed on the Wittenberg door at Enid Castle may very well be evident of the Apostle Paul's description of a divisive man. That is, one who "who stirs up division" creating "obstacles" through "smooth talk and flattery." His post? Building an Unnecessary Theological Argument That Is Doomed to Later Destruction. The main point? Wade, it seems wants us as Southern Baptists to debate Complementarianism. He writes:
"I wonder if dogmatism against women in ministry might one day be viewed the same as we now view Southern Baptists former dogmatism in defending slavery. I don't know. I'm just asking. It's one of the reasons I refuse to be dogmatic on my complementarian beliefs and will listen to my friends who are egalitarian."
All things being equal, that's not a bad idea. Indeed I have not the slightest problem about dialog with my egalitarian friends. It's an enriching discussion. Yet, listen to our Wade once again:
"Let's dialogue about the issue. Let's debate the issue. Let's disagree over the issue. But we should never DIVIDE over the issue. There are far more important doctrines that UNITE us."
As I've followed Wade's thinking for the last year and a half or so, the message he has been publicizing works well with interdenominational relationships. I've worked with dozens of denominations over the last few years envisioning and networking specific evangelistic projects. Interestingly, the strategy I used, employing as broad an evangelical acceptance as possible without milking out the clear, unadulterated gospel, possesses many similarities to Wade's stated philosophy on his blog. It wreaks of interdenominational acceptance.
The inherent problem arises, however, because Wade is definitively not calling for interdenominational tolerance. Rather, he's speaking to Southern Baptists as Southern Baptists. Thus, this call to "dialogue about [complementarianism]. Let's debate [complementarianism]. Let's disagree over [complementarianism]. But we should never DIVIDE over [complementarianism]..." has got to qualify for one of the most confusing statements I've ever encountered anywhere.
Does Wade expect Southern Baptists to take this statement seriously? Does he not think that there are at least some Southern Baptists out there who actually are familiar with the Baptist Faith and Message? Understand: at this point I'm definitively not saying the Baptist Faith and Message is our final nor sufficient guide. Scripture alone fits this mold.
What I am saying is that our statement we've acknowledged as our interpretive guide, especially when we're speaking of our voluntary cooperative efforts at global evangelism and other ministries via The Cooperative Program, is the Baptist Faith and Message. And, while the Baptist Faith and Message is not the only guide, it surely rests as a major one.
What now does Wade wish? Does he wish we set aside a major portion of the Baptist Faith and Message which clearly and definitively accepts gender complemetarianism and, hence necessarily rejects gender egalitarianism? Are we to dialog, debate, disagree but never divide about it? Is it possible Wade does not understand Southern Baptists have already dialoged, debated, discussed and disagreed about it? And the result? We most certainly did divide. The latest statement of the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 vindicates the division. We possess an unmitigated complementarian doctrinal document that describes this is who we, as Southern Baptists, presently are.
From my perspective, Wade's antics border on simulating the quintessential divisive man Paul referred to in both Romans and Titus. He fans the flames of foolish controversy, creating arguments where there are none, causing division where there's substantial unity, creating obstacles where there's clarity and feeding the frenzies of dissension within the Southern Baptist Convention.
My hope and prayer is that the Southern Baptist Convention will be better, stronger and more spiritually vibrant for our future. One hindrance to that hope is a needless quarrel or a petty division over an issue long ago settled.
With that, I am...
Peter
Oh my! I'll have to go check out the latest groovy post by that way cool Enid dude. Wade and his groupies don't want there to be a Southern Baptist Convention - they'd like it to be the Southern Non- Denominational Convention. What feeeeeels right for you today? It never ceases to amaze me the extremes we as humans can go to. It's rather ironic how they hate Paige Patterson when Patterson is probably to the left of Al Mohler and Founders on the issue of Women's ministries, but not a peep about how those far right hybrid Calvinist are taking women back to the "a woman's place is in the home and she should learn everything Biblical only in the presence of her husband. But hey can't disagree with those great Calvinist can ya. After all on the issue of Calvinism it's perfectly acceptable to accuse people of heresy left and right as long as you don't use the actual word heretic.
Posted by: Mary | 2007.10.04 at 10:09 AM
peter,
very good insight. i've been saying from the start that wade and his boys are stirring up strife and division....then, accusing all of us conservatives of being the divisive ones when we dont go along with thier agenda.
i'm glad to see you write what you did here.
david
Posted by: volfan007 | 2007.10.04 at 10:28 AM
Peter:
Now you know why I bid adieu long ago to that blog.
Blessings
Joe
Posted by: Joe Stewart | 2007.10.04 at 01:44 PM
You my man have hit this one out of the park! I listened to a sermon of his the other day and found that he even took a jab at the SBC from the pulpit - out of nowhere. Division is his game!
Posted by: Tim G | 2007.10.04 at 04:50 PM
Rather, let's consider self exaltation...reminds me of the quote:
"I'd rather reign in hell than serve in heaven!"
Sometimes the lust for fame and power outweighs one's loyalties to conservative or calvinistic "friends", for what friend uses someone for their own aggrandizement?
Posted by: Steve | 2007.10.04 at 05:21 PM
Hello Peter,
As I`ve said to you before, I believe and trust Wade just as I do you. I believe that the two of you have alot of the same views in common, only you approach them at different angles.
Wade doesn`t blog to stir up hate and dissent, I believe he blogs because he cares deeply about the SBC and the direction that he thinks that it is going. Self examination is usually the best way to discover ways for improvement. Sometimes when PRIDE, among other things, takes a hit, it can be very painfull.
What if the Chief Priests and Scribes had done some self examination and tried to correct from within?
Before anyone accuses me of being one of Wades boys or cool-aid drinkers, I have disagreed with him on some issues, and I have not commented on his blog in months.I always feel that he treats all with respect.
I understand that you got the black flag from his blog, I still don`t understand why. If you have time tell me why.
BTW Mary, I believe that if you look at some of Wades previous posts, you will see that he leans in the Calvinist direction.
That all for now Peter, again this is just my view. Let me know if you come to the coast again, we will get that Java, my treat.
Dave
Posted by: davidbroughton | 2007.10.04 at 06:25 PM
One should be careful when banning. It just might (has) backfire(d).
Posted by: Robin Foster | 2007.10.04 at 07:06 PM
peter,
thanks for this post. this is truly what i have been thinking for a while now.
sola gratia!
Posted by: Scott Gordon | 2007.10.04 at 11:15 PM
DavidBroughton, Wade leans in the Calvinist direction is exactly the point. His attacks until after San Antonio have all been against the nonCalvinist. Now he's wandering around with this woman's issue pretending he cares - if he truly cared about how women are to be treated in the SBC than he would focus his attetnion on those who are dragging women back to the kitchen. What Al Mohler through Southern's Family Ministry, advocates as a woman's place in church and home is muct more dangerous than anything Paige Patterson is doing or has done, but since Al Mohler is the Calvinist poster child for the SBC he's been allowed to quitely go along with his views on where women belong without anyone questioning him. This only proves that Wade Burleson is involved in politics. This is about who gets to be king of the sandbox. Nothing about anything to do with the Bible
Posted by: Mary | 2007.10.05 at 08:06 AM
Mary,
Thats one way to look at, I guess.
I was looking at the other side of the coin.
Wade went all out in the defense of the Klouda issue at SWBTS. That was before San Antonio.
If you look at his comments on his blog today, (10/5) you will see that he is firm on the women pastor issue. At the same time, he welcomes debate and evaluates other views.
My point is, is that although he leans Calvinist, at times he goes against the full bore Founders type statements.
I will agree with you, I`ve never heard him mention Mohler or Ascol in a challenging way, but that doesn`t meen that he hasn`t.
Remember, those are secondary issues to Wade....
Dave
Posted by: davidbroughton | 2007.10.05 at 06:50 PM