Enid, OK Pastor Wade Burleson: Does He Stir Up Division? by Peter Lumpkins

UPDATE:  Wade Burleson took this conversation to BaptistLife.com., soliciting sympathy from them.  I am not surprised, given Burleson's failure to make his point on our comment thread.  Yet I have never, in my 55 years of life on this earth, been more repeatedly falsely accused than I have by his recent display of disregard for truth. 

The following link takes you to my response.  Know I am white-hot about this.  Moral cowards lie, twist, accuse, and manipulate when they cannot make their point through legitimate canons of persuasion (/link).

My last two posts have focused on blogging and bloggers.  The first was more about myself than another. I exploited (I hope in a healthy way) the circumstances surrounding the posts on SBC Today and Praisegod Barebones to encourage all of us who blog—including…especially including!… myself—to maintain integrity when putting words up for the public to devour. 

The second post was mostly about the maintained integrity of Dr. Bart Barber, querying whether he bore false witness against his neighbor.  I happily concluded he did not.

The third (and last, at least for now) exploit (I also hope in a healthy way) concerns the practice of a still popular Baptist blogger, Wade Burleson.  I say “still popular” for undoubtedly Burleson’s blog remains among the favorite—if not the favorite—blog upon which to comment, routinely scoring in the hundreds of comments logged on most of his posts. Understand:  I am not suggesting all the comments are registered by biblical sophisticates.  In fact, many are weirdly unsophisticated anonymous goobers who say and act-out just about anything they may fantasize.  Indeed apart from a small remnant, most of his credible commenters abandoned Burleson’s boat long, long ago.

Even so, as I queried whether Barber maintained integrity, after last evening I have to ask whether Burleson’s actions are not, at least in some way, indicative of the image the Apostle Paul describes in Titus 3:10:  “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him” (ESV).

In the comment thread on my last post (/link),  after unsuccessful attempts at “catching” me in a dilemma of his concoction, not mine, Wade Burleson finally made these outlandish accusations against me:

“Peter, no amount of word twisting, semantics or other gamesmanship can extricate yourself out of this very real example of you writing a falsehood...” (emphasis mine).

I denied I understood Burleson’s point to me.  Yet again Burleson rigorously insisted: 

“Bart Barber has NEVER said the IMB specifically identified the BGCT…Bart Barber has never accused an IMB administrator of specifically identifying the BGCT…Bart didn't do it in the original post…nor did he do it in his apology, nor did he do it in any of his comments. Bart Barber has NEVER said the IMB specifically identified the BGCT as a convention that eschrows funds….

But you, sir, have published a falsehood. You have specifically and inaccurately written on your blog that that Bart Barber claims the IMB directly and specifically identified the BGCT as a Convention eschrowing funds.  That never happened. Is that clear?” (all italics mine).

To make a charge of publishing falsehoods, the very question I raised in the post under consideration, is, for me, a serious accusation or I wouldn’t take the time to correct it.  Had Burleson read but the very first line—and only the very first line--in the post I cited from Barber’s blog, he could have saved himself much time in fabricating a dilemma where no dilemma existed, not to mention the utter, shameful embarrassment of himself frying up a falsehood in the very skillet he falsely accused another of frying up falsehoods.

From Dr. Barber's original piece--the piece from which I composed my post--I quote: 

"Sources within the International Mission Board report that the Baptist General Convention of Texas is escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds to safeguard BGCT cash flow" (/link).

Is there no end to this mindless insanity within Southern Baptist blogdom?  I think there could be...IF we took the Apostle Paul seriously and reject, after a double caution, those who are bent on stirring strife.  In blog practice, that would mean, rejecting affiliation with those who follow Burlesonian blogging tactics, fabricating accusations based on no evidence whatsoever. 

Anticipating some who would suggest Burleson did nothing more than what Barber did, think again.  Barber proceeded on the basis of believable evidence coming from believable sources, a worthy, honorable practice all of us follow. 

On the other hand, Burleson proceeded not only on the basis of no evidence at all, but also the evidence which publicly existed for all to examine demonstrated the exact opposite of his accusation!

Fellow Southern Baptist bloggers: it’s time we draw some lines.  And I assure you, my marker is in place.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[volfan007]

The money quote:"In fact, many are weirdly unsophisticated anonymous goobers who say and act-out just about anything they may fantasize."

Haha...lol..classic! That's a great line, Peter.

Still Chuckling,

David

[peter]

David,

I am glad I gave you pleasure along with your morning coffee and piping hot Krispy Kreme donut. I wish I had one now!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Give me the sincere who in your opinion are" weirdly unsophisticated anonymous goobers who say and act-out just about anything they may fantasize." Look in scripture, those are the ones that God usually uses mightily for his glory and his purpose.

[volfan007]

Debbie,

I looked in the Bible. I dont see any weirdly unsophisticated anonymous goobers that God used.

I do see ordinary people that the Lord raised up...people who loved Him....who believed Him...who stood on His Word...and who messed up, and messed up royally, at times. But, nope, I dont see any weird, anonymous goobers.

David

[peter]

Debbie,

Thank you for a fair question. I answer with utmost sincerity: if the weirdly unsophisticated goobers who say and act-out just about anything they may fantasize had an identity other than "anonymous," I'd be in a much better position to identify them for you. As it stands, however, we'll have to leave it there.

With that. I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Look again David. In fact one has the same name as you.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: I do agree with you that I wish there were those who would not remain anonymous. I think that although you and I disagree(I know that is an understatement)that we at least are foolish enough to give our full name and even pictures where they could most fully identify us in a lineup if necessary. But I do not discount their words nor their sincerity in their words. There has been a lot of hurt done to people over many years that was unnecessary and wrong, I think underneath the sarcasm, you will find hurt and a certain amount of hatred and we should listen and address that.

Most times their words have truth and sincerity in them because it's not laced with political double talk.

[Tim G]

Peter,
Once again you hit it! The duplicity is more than obvious. Yet I think my greatest concern is those who drink the Kool-aid and cannot or do not want to see it for what it is.

[peter]

Debbie,

Thank you for a well-written, meaningful response. I carefully note some not-too-easily dismissed legitimacy to portions of what you say.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Tim: I will say this, give me tons and tons of kool-aide if it means that excluding people, transparency and all the back room politics will stop. And I think you would be surprised at the brightness of the ones that you seem to think don't "see it for what it is", it is seeing it for what it is that brought the blogging to begin with. What it is would be the days of trying to undermine the true reason the SBC exists is over.

[peter]

Tim,

Thanks. I hope we all learned some things from last week. I did.

Trusting to see you in Louisville. With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter, Tim: Are you realizing by now(as I told David) that your view is not mainstream? Not even close? And judging by your own comment string, hello, you have lost what some would consider many good solid commenters that I could name by name, some even anonymous. Peter, get a grip here.

[peter]

Debbie,

A few things. First, my concern above is anons. That was, is and will continue to be my contention toward those sites which invite their unhealthy emotive unloading.

Second, I have never, in three years+ blogging had a large base of commenters but they have been a diverse base. Some never show up unless I post on their favorite topics--Coors or Calvinism. We call that in the south, just fine and dandy.

Third--and I think I speak for Tim as well here--that our "view is not mainstream...Not even close" isn't the least bit of concern to us. Initially, we care if our view squares with what we understand the Bible to teach, and, after that, with what we understand being Baptist means.

If those two primary values place us out of mainstream, we are willing to live with it and do our thing. Yet, know licking our finger and lifting it to the wind is just not our thing.

I hope this helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Debbie,

I stand with Peter and Tim G. I try to let the Bible dictate my views, not a popularity poll.

And, BTW, are you calling Kind David of the OT a wierd, unsophisticated, anonymous goober? Really?

David

[Jeff]

Funny thing, I let the Bible dictate my views too, and I think Peter is off based with his views.

[Luke]

I haven't gone away. I'm just reading. I have nothing to add these conversations but I have avidly followed them to see their conclusions. I comment when I want to say something and other than that, I just read, think, and go about my merry way. I am quite sure that others do the same.

By the way, Peter, I am confident that your visitor report would confirm my thoughts.

Luke

[Tim G]

Debbie,
If you think for one min that bloggers who comment as annon etc. are mainstream - well - I cannot offer anything to help you.

And when it comes to dealing with things in the open - hmmm, are you Wade does this all the time? Be careful before you answer. He even wrongly tagged me on Friday and though he corrected it - he never offered an apology at all. I do not need one but hey, even Peter would have done that.

[volfan007]

Peter,

What's going on at Baptist Life is unbelievable and shameful. It's eyeopening, or it should be; and it's incredible to behold. Hang in there, Brother, and just keep telling the truth.

David

[peter]

David,

Thanks. For me, this is the lowest to which Burleson has stooped in my personal dealings with him. For some reason he has it in his head I do not want him here because he asks too many challenging questions. He even said I blocked all Enid IPs for days until "pressure from people" made me open them back up. Evidently he confused me with our brothers at SBC Today.

I hope under God I never, ever stoop to dishonesty if I cannot make my point through honest dialog.

Grace, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. I have abandoned the comment thread at BaptistLife. I was willing to engage anyone concerning any part of this fiasco. Yet, William Thornton, the blog adm. suggested we take it elsewhere. Nor do I disagree with him. Indeed I am sorry Burleson took it to his thread in the first place. Oops! Sorry. The reason he did was I blocked him from intimidating us here ;^)

[Katie]

Really sad. I doubt you’ll see Burleson back here anytime soon. After all, when you’ve got yourself stuck in a debate you can’t win (as he was in the comment stream on the “Dr. Bart Barber: Did He Bear False Witness?” post), what better way to take the focus off the argument by putting forth the accusation that you’ve been blocked from commenting. I think it is indeed a new low, but not totally uncharacteristic of him. I have read at least three separate examples given by other bloggers of Burleson giving different answers to the same question. When he is called on it, he simply ignores the question. Going to BaptistLife.com is a new twist, but just another way to get out of the corner he backed himself into in your last post.

Katie

[Brad Reynolds]

Peter
There are times to get dirty and times not to. I myself struggle with when to confront blatant falsehoods and when to just let it go. I think most are seeing things for what they are.

I appreciate your resolve for truth. Everyone knows that a few days ago he fabricated stuff about me and my job at SE for no apparent reason.

Further, in 2006 he blocked my comment below:
“Wade says "God save the SBC from Fundamentalism" and yet offers no evidence that it needs saving from such. He says he has it, but does not offer it.
I've been to every convention since '87. I've never heard the convention speak against Calvinism (I believe Dr. Al Mohler is 5 point), nor his other concerns. The BFM2K is what the convention holds too and at no time after 2000 (or for that matter before) has the convention gone further.”

When I brought to light that he refused to post my comment he then accused me of blocking his comments. I NEVER BLOCKED THE FIRST ONE. When I asked him to tell me which one - he grew strangely quiet.

I for one obviously wonder that if he cries wolf on these things what else has he cried wolf on?

[peter]

Katie,

Thanks. Always good to have your level-headed comments here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Dr. Reynolds,

Thank you. Most of the time, I am able to simply let things go. I could not on this one. He accused me of blocking him from engaging the issue on this site. Indeed he said I once blocked all Enid IPs for several days before "people pressured me" to stop. This is so obviously fabricated I cannot believe anyone could create it much less believe it.

My own guess is, this is 'pay back' for the last couple of posts concerning which Burleson continues to burrow deeper still into Rabbit's hole in Wonderland.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Frank Gantz]

Peter, some time back I tried to make a simple point in a comment to you...and you lashed out at me. Perhaps you should try to operate a little less "white-hot".

[peter]

Frank

Thanks for the comment. As for "some time back" I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. I quickly scanned the comment thread all the way back through Jan of this year and I see nothing posted by you. If you'll get me the specific post, I'll be glad to engage.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Frank Gantz]

Peter, not sure how long back. It has been awhile. I just remember how harsh your response. It was totally unexpected. I haven't visited much since then.

[Grady Bauer]

You typically are pretty harsh in your responses ...I've felt your wrath many times. You feel free to attack those who don't think like you but if one of your buds names is mentioned, watch out for the wrath of Peter.

And this junk between you and Wade looks petty and is honestly disgraceful to the rest of us in the SBC. Instead of writing a book about alcohol you should write one about forgiveness and reconciliation...

[peter]

Frank,

Like I said, Frank, if you will be specific, I will be glad to address it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Grady,

I haven't the energy nor interest to engage with you. From your standpoint, I have always been harsh and will never be non-harsh. Even from your 'camel-rider' days, I was harsh (as well as an SBC leader you knew as barrister).

Therefore, if you have nothing substantial to add to the thread, I suggest you get a good night's sleep--it's late there, I'm quite sure).

With that, I am...
Peter

[Grady Bauer]

Peter,
You don't let things go...that's not biblical. You just brought up a dumb comment I made along time ago. You pulled me aside and I humbly apologized to all involved...and yet you bring it up again.

Two truths here....I am often cocky and shoot off at the mouth. You are harsh and arrogant. The difference is that I humbly admit my faults and make things right when I need to...you my brother do not.

I don't mind disagreeing with you....I think iron sharpens iron and I know I could learn from you. But you never allow anyone that doesn't buy into your opinion....to stay around. Relax Peter and welcome the dialogue.

[Grady Bauer]

How did you connect my current ename with my old one?

BTW, you're so different from me...and you often tick me off...but it makes me want to like you.

[peter]

Grady,

I am uninterested in exchange with others who are "cocky and shoot off at the mouth." Such is definitively not dialog. If you can come here and talk about issues, be my guest. But do not come back and log on with personal attacks. Period, Grady.

It's time you guys get a life. Not every blog welcomes emotional junk like that. Unload where you can do it if that flies your kite. But it will not be here. Go back to your blog and have a hissy if you wishy. Clear enough?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Grady,

I wish you did like me. I'd be dishonest if I said I'm in this blog gig for the enemies I make. I have never been--to my knowledge, anyways--a firebrand my entire ministry. Nonetheless, I'm content to allow people to make up their own minds about me.

Grace. With that, I am...
Peter

[Grady Bauer]

At least you're consistent. Adios!