I regularly read the Missional Baptist Blog. I like to see what's going on out there in other circles. Steve McCoy is a Southern Baptist who is a voice in the SBC calling churches to be missional rather than programmatic. He has a lot of good resources for reading about this issue.
In his blog today, he talks about the convention meeting in Greensboro and the younger leaders meeting that will take place there. Wade Burleson, who has been at the center of the recent IMB flap, will be the speaker. (You can research the IMB issue on your own, if you are interested).
Reading McCoy's blog was stunning to me this morning. He objects to having Burleson speak. Listen to his reasons.
I know he isn't coming to speak on IMB issues. But his presence alone will speak volumes about who "younger leaders" are, and already skeptical SBC'rs (and maybe the less skeptical ones too) will think that by having him speak we are intentionally saying something.If we ARE intending to say something by having Wade speak, I'm against it. If we AREN'T intending to say something, I think it would be very wise to bring in another speaker instead. I think we should be discussing mission, gospel, theology, and redemptive living. I know it's not up to me to decide. You all can do what you want.
Now perhaps, Steve means less by that than I am reading, but here is what I hear: If we have Wade speak for us, we will be tainted by all the controversy, even if he speaks about something else. Our focus will get lost.
Steve isn't willing to send the message that he is sympathetic to Wade's position. In fairness, I don't think Steve is necessarily against it (though perhaps I don't recall everything Steve has said about this). Steve isn't interested in the political machinery of the SBC. In fact, he wants to stay out of it, and that is why he objects to Wade speaking. He knows that if Wade comes, it will overcloud the point of the meeting because the controversy will be the issue.
Two points:
1. The younger fundamentalists who want to abandon the historic position of separating from false teachers and disobedient brothers need to understand the principle. When you associate with someone, you send a message.
2. This principle needs to be applied consistently. The SBC has coddled some who have compromised the gospel. Fortunately, Mohler has demonstrated great leadership in the recent past to right the ship. But even now, Southern Seminary, the flagship of SBC schools, has a School of Evangelism named after one of the greatest gospel compromisers of the twentiety century. Why don't they see the mixed message? The Burleson flap is child's play compared to the Graham tragedy that granted recognition to false teachers and false gospels. Aside from politics, the Burleson flap had little substance. As I understand it, it seems like an intramural debate about what should be required of missionaries. The Graham issue goes to the heart of the gospel. I know that what I have said is strong language, but if we look at history, Graham has been the most visible force in the erasure of the lines between the historic gospel of Christ and the false gospel of Romanism.
My question is this: When will Steve and others stand up and demand a change in this? When will they complain about the mixed message that such an association is sending? The Graham School of Evangelism sends a message that is far more mixed than having Burleson speak. But I will go out on a limb and imagine that Steve doesn't see the inconsistency.
Steve, I like your blog. I read it regularly. I comment occasionally on it. And I think you are dead right about the need for missional churches, though I might apply it differently. I think you hit the nail on the head about the messages we send by having speakers. But I urge you to think about the application of the principle you have delineated here. It is a great principle, solidly rooted in Scripture, and relevant to the modern church and the purity of the gospel. We need to think about the broader implications of it.
4 comments:
Larry, I think you have me wrong on this. I've blogged on the Wade controversy and strongly stood with him. Everyone knows the younger leaders in general are associated with Wade for his defense. And I think Wade is a great guy, and wise.
But having him as our annual speaker is very different than defending him as a trustee. It's like using Cindy Sheehan for a democratic campaign in 2008. It will reek of politics and insincerity. Similarly with Wad, it will smack of using a "martyr" for our political benefit. We need to be subversive and local church focused, and having him speak makes us say something we shouldn't want to say.
And listen, I wish it weren't this way. I wish most in the SBC were wise enough to realize that having Wade speak may be for very good reason and not intended politically. But right now I think the identity of younger leaders is fragile before our skeptical forefathers and we need to not create unnecessary barriers to helping them understand our hopes and goals.
Steve,
Thanks for commenting. I was hoping you might see it. I didn't want to misrepresent you. I couldn't remember what exactly you had said about Wade and the IMB. I am not in the SBC and so I have no dog in the fight. I knew you had commented on it and I am familiar with the controversy to some degree, though I usually skip those articles since it doesn't interest me greatly. I don't know anything about Wade and so I wouldn't presume to comment on the particulars. I will take your word that he is a great guy, and wise.
My comment about you not being willing to send the message that you were sympathetic was in the context of him speaking for the younger leaders meeting. It sounded to me like you didn't want to use that platform to express your support because it would send the wrong message to those who were already skeptical of your views. You thought he would prove a distraction and detriment rather than a benefit in that particular context.
In any event, my point was actually the larger principle of associations sending messages, which is a bigger issue of discussion to me and some in "my circles."
I think who we invite to speak for us does send a message, whether we want it to or not, and that might be good, or bad. We need to think carefully about this before we enlist someone.
Your comments struck me as insightful in the midst of a confusing day. Alliances and speakers are important because they send messages. Which is why I point out the Graham thing. There are a number of people who are greatly concerned about that continuing problem in the SBC. While the SBC may claim to stand for the pure gospel (and no doubt many do), the association with Graham sends a mixed message, at best. Do you see a problem with that?
Hey, keep up the work on your blog. I enjoy reading it.
Thanks Larry. I think we are getting each other.
As younger leaders in the SBC, I would much rather stir controversy by inviting someone to speak like Chris Seay or Erwin McManus or even Ed Stetzer. All of these guys are lighting rods for other issues in the SBC, but those are the right controversies to stir up in my opinion.
So I don't think we agree on your main point either. I don't mind inviting those who "send messages." It's choosing the discussions we want to start that's important, and powerplaying the SBC by inviting Wade is the wrong way to go.
Let me give an example. If we invite Donald Miller, he will likely be more controversial than Wade. But I think it would be better, in a way. It would promote discussions on theology, postmodernism, approach to culture, etc. That's the stuff we want.
Thanks bro. Good to find your blog.
One last clarification:
I have no problem sending messages. It is unavoidable. I just think we need to send the right messages.
There are some who deny or at least minimize the connection between someone speaking and sending a message. Whether intentional or not, associations with people are associations with people's actions. I was warning that the connection exists, and you pointed it out.
Hopefully that clarifies.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment