In a debate between Dr. William Provine and Dr. Philip Johnson (one of the great apologists for Intelligent Design) Dr. Provine commits a debating faux pas. He attacks the person of Philip Johnson, by mocking his Christian faith. This ploy of ad hominem statements is often used in political campaigns, in order to stir emotions. It is a technique, which brings high-fives from one’s comrades…yet is very poor debate form. Sadly, it occurs in Christian blogging also.
This past week a blogger (Wade Burleson) expressed concerns over the tenor of comments on blogs in the SBC. His frustrations seemed to be that many were more interested in making ad hominem comments rather than dealing with issues. I share his concerns. I firmly believe we can disagree and yet do so in a Spirit that honors Christ.
Many times an attack takes the form of an outright frontal assault, yet sometimes it is done by telling half of the truth or through innocent implications. I started this blog for the purpose of seeking the whole truth on matters and yet I am certain I have committed subjective errors. I think we all have – therefore, I give the following example in trepidation. The purpose of the example is to caution us all about how subjective we can be. Thus, I refer to Wade’s post expressing concern about ad-homenim comments.
In his post “We Must Not be Sidetracked from Issues,” of the seven comments cited, five are from this blog (I don’t think Wade intended to imply anything but I inferred that this could cause some to believe that this blog somehow condones ad hominem statements)…and yet he fails to portray the entire picture. First, he fails to see the same problem on his blog and second he fails to admit my continual pleadings to steer commentators away from ad hominem comments.
Wade expressed concerns with statements made about him, on this blog. However, he failed to note the statements I made in his defense:
“And Wade has made clear that alcohol played NO PART. While I too have a difficult time reconciling that with the post...WE MUST TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD and trust him. He knows his heart and we do not.”
“concerning Wade we must trust him at his word. If he says that is not what he was saying then we should and are compelled to trust him.”
“he states that alcohol played NO PART in her coming to Christ. To me that's all that matters. I don't care what he said earlier, if he states he believes it played "no part" then that's the end of it.”
“Wade has answered your questions many times now. Let's trust his word.”
And More.
Further, he also failed to note the things said of ME, on my blog:
“Why is it that you insinuate whatever in your apologies and that is not what a Holy Man would do? I don't believe you are a man of integrity”
“there is no denying that you must have willfully and intentionally completely misrepresented that story regarding alcohol. You then proceeded to tell it in such a way that you could get the biggest EMOTIONAL reaction”
“I took time to listen to your message. The pejorative rhetoric of the meeting was alarming. Brother, your willful misrepresentation of this story to get the Amen, was simply the wrong use of the pulpit. Shame on you.”
And More.
Moreover he fails to see the things said of me on his blog, which he never tried to stop or deter by issuing cautions.
Dltj said:
“You sounded quite reasonable at the beginning, but now you are starting to sound like you are losing your core beliefs just to stay on the good side of the powers that be. I know your job depends on keeping these people happy, but don't you think this is starting to go too far. I am reminded of Senator Joseph McCarthy. As you will remember, he went so far that people started to see his quest for what it really was; political demagoguery.”
Scripture Searcher:
“Of course, he dare not humiliate himself by starting his own blogspot...who would read and take most of his bloviating comments seriously???”
Elizabeth:
“Wade,_
PLEASE DON'T POST THIS. This is for your information only, just didn't know how to say it without someone getting offended.
Maybe you and Mr. Reynolds can continue this debate via email instead of on the blog.
It has become like sitting in a Sunday School class with one person dominating the conversation. After a while, people just quit listening.”
Wade did post it, with this comment:
“Elizabeth,
Sorry, but your sentiments are too valuable not to post.”
Wade Burleson:
“I say this gently --- the new problem of the SBC may be your brand of Legalism and Fundamentalism.”
A legalist is one who believes we are saved by works, not grace. A legalist is a heretic. Now I don’t think Wade intended it that way, rather I think he meant that he thought I was trying to push my convictions on others (which I would never do). Nevertheless, such an accusation could cause hurt in my family, and my church without God’s sustaining grace and providence.
And More.
Finally, I think he fails to see some have legitimate concerns:
1. There are true concerns about his understanding of the BFM2K because of these two statements:
A. “since (the BFM2K) is not inerrant and infallible then you can disagree with it in some areas, but still affirm it where it speaks to major, foundational issues of the faith --- which I do.”
B. “I personally affirm all of the BFM 2000”
Possible Solution for Wade: To state if one does not believe in all of the BFM2K (including the exclusion of women pastors) one should not be a Trustee or be paid by CP funds.
2. There are true concerns about his position of wine opening the door for a gospel presentation because of these statements:
“The woman was saved by the grace of God, but she listened to me intently and patiently as I shared the gospel in all its fullness.
She gave me an audience because of who I was (a pastor who had helped her husband and did not fit the stereotype she had of Baptist preachers), how I treated her (with love and respect), and how I behaved (with gentleness and kindness rather than condemnation and superficial spirituality)
The point of my post is that I did not let my cultural or preferential ethic regarding alcohol (abstinence) become a stumbling block to a woman who needed a Savior and happened to be a collector of wine.”
Possible Solution for Wade: To state he believes the woman would have been saved even had he not asked her for wine.
3. There are true concerns about Wade wanting to open the tent wide enough for those who do not believe in inerrancy to be paid with CP funds or serve as Trustees:
“I was further confused because I was told other men like Dr. Daniel Vestal and Richard Jackson were also part of those who wished to lead our convention down the slippery slope of liberalism, from which we would never recover… I now realize that several good, solid conservative evangelical Christians have been slandered and maligned.”
Possible Solution for Wade: To state he believes one must affirm totally the inerrancy of Scripture to serve as a Trustee or be paid by SB.
4. There are true concerns about he and Ben being politically active amongst BGCTers
Possible Solution for Wade: to address why he and Ben were traveling across the state of Texas a few weeks back to speak to pastors.
Until Wade addresses these questions openly he will be plagued with legitimate concerns of how far back into the pre-1990’s era he may desire to see our convention go.
Hopefully Wade will address these concerns; in the meantime may we realize that this example of blogging subjectivity is most applicable to all of us. May we all be more careful. And may our Father guide this blog and open my eyes to my own subjectivity.
BR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Great Post Dr. Reynolds. It is clear that we are divided on a much more broader level than simply the issues with the BOT IMB. In fact, those issues are not even the problem, they are the symptom. It is painfully obvious that we are seeing factions in the SBC driven by a differant ecclisiology and it seems a strange Ecumenicist mindset which is forign to those of us that worked through and were a part of the conservative resurgence.
Blessings
Jack
Brother Brad,
Welcome home. Great words on subjective reasoning that leads to a subjective defense of the issues.
Blessings,
Tim
Wayne
I did not publish your comments because they seem unkind and I have answered them already.
I would love to publish any comments you have on the current topic about our subjectiveness in blogging provided they are kind and deal with the facts without attacking people.
BR
Jack
You are right my friend. There are many differences I feel.
Thanks
BR
Tim
Good to be back.
I leave in about 2 hours for Charleston and will be there most of the day.
BR
brad,
once again, you have hit the nail on the head. you have expressed very clearly and graciously the great concerns a lot of us have about wade and his followers. great concern. the only bigger concern that a lot of us have is the nearly hyper calvinists who are proselytizing the spiritually immature into a very destructive extreme of the christian faith.
btw, have you read the founders blog lately? they are livid over the debate between the caners and ascol and white being canceled due to the caners wanting to change the format of the debate....as best i can tell. my question is...if they want to really debate the caners that bad....why dont they agree to the changes? and, bob ross has agreed to debate them anywhere, anytime, and in any fashion they want.
of course, i see no help whatsoever in a debate. it would really do no good. it would just stir up more controversy and strife. in fact, the two groups who seem to love to debate are the ones who cause the most strife and division....the campbellites and the five pointers.
let's get out there and preach the gospel so that more people will be elected.
volfan007
ps. you know what i am gonna say. my disclaimer and all.
brad,
please dont make this a blog approval room. that just kills it. having to wait on comments until you can read all of them. please let this be a free exchange of ideas...even if they are bad ones. you can always delete later.
volfan007
Anonymous
Perhaps you can rethink your comment - no more attacking here.
volfan
I'm allowing your comment to stand, but please know, not all 5 pointers love to cause strife.
In fact many do not. I disagree with them but am not convinced that most of them want strife.
Please be more careful about stereotyping.
You have some wise thoughts however, about the benefit of a debate. I think it could be beneficial but I fear in most cases it causes more division than healing.
I'm not sure what happened with the Caner debate I haven't had a chance to call my friends.
BR
volfan
Once I get some of the commentators to be more kind
I will open it up again.
Thanks
BR
Brad,
Good post. I'll ask the question I tried to ask the past couple of days. Who do you think Dr. Moore was referring to when he was talking about bloggers in his recent comments?
Also, I will resist the great temptation to respond to volfan007 in an unkind way. It seems obvious that he misunderstands the Doctrines of Grace.
Regards,
Les
Les
I'm not sure who Dr. Moore was referencing...I think he is the only one who could answer that.
I know blogging in many cases is equivalent to tabloid magazines...with the latest at the IMB or EC or SW or SE or wherever. Blogging is not juried and full of half-truths. I would not do it if I didn't see the need in presenting the truth of things in the SBC.
I think many see the downside of blogging and don't see that friendships are established and legitimate concerns in the SBC are dialogued.
I truly believe this is a way where concerned SB can talk about things.
BR
Bear
Thanks for your kind words. However, I know there are many legitimate blogs in the SBC.
We do want to be an example here and I will keep the blog going. I agree with you, there is a need.
God Bless,
And be sure and avoid those bear traps:)
BR
Brad,
If I had made the same statements about you (in reverse) that Volfan makes about "nearly hyper calvinists" and classified you (or another non-Calvanist) as an Armeinian (even though you would insist you are not), would you have let the statment stand?
Joy,
Cliff
PS: Congrats Volfan on the Vols recent sucess. I know you must be thrilled! If it just weren't for those pesky Gators! LOL
are ad hominem comments ever TRUE? if so then why are they out of bounds? is calling someone a funamentalist, liberal, charismatic, ignorant, legalistic, unChristlike, bombastic, hypocritcal... ad hominem statements?
what if they can be supported with evidence?
my question is this: are all ad hominem statements wrong or out of bounds?
Brad,
Thanks for the great post. Please allow me to echo the words of Jack Maddox:
JM: "It is clear that we are divided on a much more broader level than simply the issues with the BOT IMB. In fact, those issues are not even the problem, they are the symptom."
I too believe that many of the issues currently being discussed in the SBC are all symptoms of a far greater problem: the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Word of God.
Sadly, some “younger leaders” do not appear to be Southern Baptist at all. They "affirm" inerrancy but do not believe that it is necessary for Southern Baptist leaders to affirm it - What kind of belief in inerrancy is that? How can one be a Baptist, even a Southern Baptist, if they believe that "baptisms" other than the immersion of a believer are valid and acceptable in order to partake of the Lord's Supper? How can the SBC (27 years into the Conservative Resurgence) have a Trustee that believes that there were only “about four or five people in leadership positions at our seminaries that needed to be dealt with” prior to, and during the early stages of, the Conservative Resurgence?
How can the SBC (27 years into the Conservative Resurgence) have a Trustee that considers other individuals to be conservatives that do not affirm the inerrancy of the Bible? How can the SBC have a Trustee honestly sign/affirm the BF&M with "a couple of written caveats?" Note: A “caveat” is a modifying detail; a stipulation or a provision which clearly denotes that one’s affirmation is conditional and therefore not in complete agreement with as written. Interestingly, the Latin “cavere” means “warning” or more literally “let him beware.” This would seemingly be an appropriate word of caution for conservative Southern Baptists which have historically believed in, and practiced, doctrinal accountability.
IF that is going to be allowed, then our convention has absolutely no “doctrinal accountability” (BF&M, 5) whatsoever and the Conservative Resurgence was a waste of time. I hope and pray that many other conservative Southern Baptists will begin to see the dangers of the ecumenicalism and theological liberalism/moderatism espoused by some “younger leaders” in our convention.
IMHO, the SBC is still involved in a spiritual battle which appears to revolve around whether Southern Baptists will 1) take a leftward turn theologically and become just another ecumenical denomination without any doctrinal certitude whatsoever, or 2) continue down the theological course set by the Conservative Resurgence and stand firm on the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible.
Thanks and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Brad,
I noticed that Wade did not answer your question on his blog. He redirected everyone attention by asking you to answer an attack on you and some womans sits.
I tried to ask Wade a question this morning. I logged in as my blogger account and ti told me that my comment would be posted as soon as approved by the administrator. So I have not been published.
I do have a question though Wade states the following on his site:
"Peter,
You ask some good questions.
It sounds as if you are asking, "Can you deny representation and still be considered a Christian?"
My response is simply this --- the act of representation saves, not the understanding of representation.
Christ surely represented people who never understand it."
Is Wade saying that a person can be a Christian and not understand what Jesus did for them or even understand that He is God?
Raccoon Transporter
Brad,
Glad you are home and that God blessed so greatly the ministry in SA.
I have a concern, along with you I'm sure, that we are not and probably will not get anywhere with the "debates" that are taking place on the blogs. I have commented several times on other blogs only to be lanblasted for my opinion, point of view, etc... I pray that God will bless the truth while illuminating the eyes of those who have lost sight of the reason we are here. I too will continue to blog so that error can be combatted, but is there really any victory? There are times that I feel we are fighting the same fight that Jesus fought with the Pharisees.
I preached last night out of Mark 8:11-21. One of the things that amazed me about the story was that when the Pharisees came to Him to ask for a sign, He said no sign would be given that generation and he turned and left them. Do we need to, having stated the truth, turn around and leave them with their "debate" and return our focus to the task of making disciples?
Serving Him,
Mike
Cliff
If I felt you stereo-typed in comment that had some valid concerns I would publish the comment and then caution you of stereo-typing as I have done for Vol.
Hope that helps.
I concur about the Vol recent success. It helps the horns:)
BR
Irreverend fox
Ad hominem comments are at times true! There is still more kind ways of saying things. And with what has happened here for the past week while I was in El Salvador…I felt it necessary to just calm the comments a little. I think we can debate the issues without the passions that were shown.
BR
So for now I am trying to caution all ad hominem statements
JLG
Good insights.
Raccoon Transporter
Wade can better answer that. I hesitate to put words in his mouth.
BR
Mike
I have struggled with the same thoughts. When I think one will not be convinced I feel I am wasting my time to debate unless there are others who are honestly seeking truth who are listening…then we should concentrate on them.
BR
Jim
I will address the blatant and purposeful errors in Debbie's post later. I am fine with all reading her post...because truth never runs.
Penquin
Please send your comment again...I published it but it did not come up...I apologize.
BR
brad,
i didnt mean to lump all the five pointers into the same crowd. i guess i should have said that most of the five pointers that i know, and know about, have caused much strife and division in a lot of churches as they tried to convert the churches. i have seen many of the five pointers that i know cause strife and division in the seminary that i attended. i have seen from the sbc in greensboro until this day the five pointers that i know about cause much strife and division thru thier blogs and thier trying to convert the sbc into five pointism. if you really think about it, most of the strife we've had in the sbc since pre-greensboro have been caused by five pointers...wade and the founders. has it not? is this not true?
les,
i am not tryin to be mean and nasty towards you, nor towards the other five pointers. i am just calling it like i see it. i do understand the doctrines of grace. in fact, i am glad that the Lord would save an ole sinner like me by His grace. i just believe that we have a militant five point crowd emerging right now in the sbc who is trying to convert the sbc into five pointers, and they are causing a lot of strife and division...correct?
well, God bless all ya! go vols! what a great win over georgia saturday....we whupped them dawgs good, son. it made me so happy that i nearly danced, but i didnt drank no moonshine.
volfan007
bigdaddy,
I don't think the debate will occur. However, Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler semi-debated this summer...you can get the CD from the pastor's conference.
BR
Jim
I'll forgive you for being an Aggie fan:)
I'll check out wade's blog tomorrow. I have a fever from my trip to El Salvador and will get to bed early tonight.
I'll also post my response to the questions Wade still has not answered and the continual attacks on me.
BR
Jim Champion,
Thank you for the advice. I did read Debbie's blog. It was nothing more than an unfounded attack on Dr. Reynolds. Have you noticed that Wade still has not answered Brad's questions. He simply redirects again. Later he says to Peter. And I quote:
"Peter,
You make an interesting point.
Hmmm. I'm thinking.
I wonder if it is possible for poor theology to be in the BFM 2000?"
Why is Wade questioning the BFM? He supposedly signed it, but now questions the theology behind it? If he believes that there is poor theology in the BFM then perhaps that is why he openly confesses that he has no problem taking communion with demoninations who baptize infants.
Jim look at the evidence before you my dear brother.
Raccoon Transporter
Dr. Reynolds.
Thank you for the post and I am glad to see you back. I think my comment may have got the juices flowing over at Grace and Truth to You concering the BF&M.
My point was that Wade's view of "Federal Theology" is conspicously absent from the BF&M.
Moreover, I think the BF&M assumes a "General Atonement" view of Christ's death as it speaks of Christ dying "for man", "man" being obviously used in a wholistic manner. If I am correct, this makes for not a little deal for our good brothers at Founders who, assuming I am right, are out of step with our Confession.
I trust your day goes well. Be easy on your students for you sat where they sit :) With that, I am...
Peter
Jim
I will be glad to answer any questions. My problem is Wade has not answered my questions (at least not clearly). In my post I made some suggestions how he can answer them as soon as he does I will post his answers so that all can see.
BTW - I hope you aggies don't ruin our pursuit for another National Championship:)
BR
Brad,
As I read through the comments left here, I get the impression that there are those who believe that a sovereigntist view of salvation and moderationist view of alcohol are at odds with a/an sufficiency/inerrantist view of the Bible. For the record, my brother, what is your position? Do you believe that one who adheres to a sovereigntist (some might say Calvanist) view of salvation and moderationist view of alcohol can still adhere to a Biblical inerrancy position as well?
Grace and peace to you brother,
PTL
Brad,
I don't know why you are so worried about the Aggies. The Baylor Bears are currently tied for first place in the Big 12.
Sorry, Jim.
Brad,
Sorry to hear you are sick.
With this sickness from traveling south as you have let me remind you that often:
First comes the fever then comes...............:-)
I hope you survive, brother. I really, really do.
cb
PTL
I do believe that one who adheres to a Calvinist’s view (to say Sovereigntist insults those who believe God is big enough to be Sovereign even with man’s free choice) and a moderationist view of alcohol can adhere to a Biblical inerrancy position.
It is a good question, however, I don’t think you see all that is in play here. There are many in the BGCT and BGAV who would probably not hold to inerrancy. The fight in the SBC was over inerrancy. Some fear that Wade and others want to open the tent of the SBC to the point of allowing those who do not affirm inerrancy into positions of Trusteeship etc. The questions I posed, which have yet to be answered, give Wade an opportunity to quieten all the rumors. The fact he does not answer them begs the question.
By the way, PTL, I believe you spoke to me about allowing some comments to stay on this blog. Just out of curiosity do you believe it is appropriate for one to call another a legalist? A most horrid accusation.
Hope this helps.
BR
Bart
Good point. The Horns better be prepared for the mighty Bears:)
BR
CB
Thanks my friend.
I would be curious as to your take on why Wade has not answered clearly the questions I posed. I really would be interested. You know many have claimed Wade is reaching out to those who fear the term inerrancy and at the same time knowing he will never gain SB support unless he affirms it. I have given him an opportunity to clear up these matters and he has decided not to. What do you think? Further, what's your thoughts on his accusing my of being a legalist?
BR
Tim
Good questions. Welcome, and thanks for coming by.
If Wade believes it is ok to send M’s or have Trustees who do not affirm inerrancy, then I would be fine if he chose to leave the SBC.
If he believes that one should be allowed to be a M or a Trustee and yet to believe in women pastors or to practice Moderation in alcohol then I think integrity demands that he step down as a Trustee.
Personally, I like the BFM2K and appreciate the leadership of the late Dr. Adrian Rogers here. Tom Ascoll has done an excellent job of addressing Wade’s theological misunderstanding of priesthood of believers and priesthood of believer.
The BFM2K is binding to our Trustees and our institutions. It is not binding to our churches…but it does represent who SB are. Can some disagree with it and still be SB? you bet. Can they disagree with it and be paid by CP funds or serve as Trustees? No! Here in lies the rub.
I hope I make sense…I have a high fever so who knows what I’m typing. Anyway, hope this helps.
BR
Tim Cook,
Since you asked me to comment, I will. I echo everything Brad said. In addition, Wade has said that he looked upon Daniel Vestal of CBF and Charles Wade of BGCT (which is heavily CBF-leaning) as conservative, solid Christians. This statement as well as others, cause many of us to wonder about his true theological and political leanings.
He vigoruously maintains that he is a conservative, although much of his language sounds somewhat to the left of conservative. That's why I proposed new descriptive terms on my blog to identify the differences between traditional conservatives and these "new" or neo-conservatives.
Also, much of Wade's responses to those of us who are not too shy to ask him very pointed questions, seem condescending and evasive.
I have no issue with Wade Burleson personally. He seems like a real nice fellow. However, I don't agree with many of his views nor his methods which appear to include seeking to circumvent the BoT system to get what he wants.
I hope that helps to answer your questions.
Regards,
Les
Brad,
I cannot answer for Wade. I do count him as a friend, brother and a Baptist.
We do differ on certain points of theology.
A. Ecclesiology
B. Just war. I think he would differ with me here. Truthfully many others do also.
C. Certain social issues such as alcohol consumption.
D. Possibly other areas of which I am not yet aware.
I personally do not fear the term inerrancy. For me it is a foundation stone of my world view. My very soul rest in the Hands of He who inspired the whole Bible. Therefore, by faith I believe every word of the Word to be true even those parts I do not understand.
I am not well versed on the subject of Wade calling you a legalist or not calling you one. I can speak for cb in relation to the subject.
I have known you for many years and have never thought you would qualify as being described as a legalist. I have experienced fellowship, worship, sorrow and had "war" with you, but I have never experienced a legalist personality in your presence or in your absence.
I will even venture to say that if you are a legalist so are cb and Ben Cole. You are stubburn, opinionated, hardcore, deliberate, without fear of criticism from your peers, somewhat dogmatic in convictions,and at times extremely prideful, but all of these terms could be ascribed to cb or Ben. Yet, I do not think any of the three of us are legalists and at the same time we all three differ in many ways.
Naturally, I am the brightest and most humble:-)
cb
Jim
Thanks for answering for Wade, but I think more minds would be put to ease if Wade would answer the questions I posed. I have given him some suggestions which would clear this up...the fact he chooses not to answer begs more questions.
Hook 'em horns
BR
CB
Thank you for your response. I am probably far worse than what you have stated, but I sure try to humbly obey Christ and yet surely am chief of sinners.
The reason I asked you the question is because the accusation of legalist is a horrid accusation. And you seemed quite upset at those who falsely accused Wade...I was just wondering if you thought it applies to him as well.
BR
To All
I have posted an update under my new post.
BR
Brad,
I do not believe 'legalist' in it's strict sense to be an inciteful term, but rather a term which describes one who would make works a part of justification or who would make adherance to someone elses convictions a part of sanctification. I think it is often used inappropriately to describe those who would desire others to hold the same convictions as they hold (to use alcohol as an example). The point at which requiring others to adhere to my convictions becomes legalism is when I tie justification or sanctification to the adherence of such.
I do think, however, that if someone is going to accuse another of being a legalist, it is most helpful and disarming if he/she cites in specific terms their basis for making such an accusation. Agreed?
Grace and peace,
PTL
PTL
I think you see my point. Some believe one name is wrong and offensive...others see another name, as just as offensive or worse.
To complain about one name and not another is subjective, because name-calling is subjective. Please read my updated post.
I guess my shock is that so many Wade supporters called for the pulling of a name here, but are inconsistent when worse things are said of those who disagree with Wade.
I think you will agree that if we are to pull one name we should pull them all. Which was my point.
BR
Post a Comment