Wade Burleson Quits Blogging, Promises Not to Return

Wade Burleson has announced that he will "[lay] aside blogging for good." I thought it might be appropriate for me to mark the occasion with a backwards glance and a comment or two.

1. Wade Burleson's blog has been THE blog in Baptist life. Whatever people say about "Baptist bloggers," they say with Wade Burleson at least partially in mind. There is no doubt that the years 2006-2008 in SBC denominational life were defined more than anything else by what Wade Burleson wrote at his blog and his prospects for success or failure. So prominent has been his blog as to merit a category all unto itself—no other SBC blog even comes close. Indeed, for myself, whatever traffic I ever received at this blog (and I have deliberately never allowed any measure of that statistic), I'm sure that a great deal of it was produced by the popularity of Wade's blog and the fact that I was often a disagreeing voice.
2. Wade Burleson has had impressive stamina. Those who started blogging in agreement with him—Art Rogers, Marty Duren, Ben Cole, and many others—long ago disengaged. Many of those who took up blogging in contention against him, me included, have at some point lost their zeal for the medium. Wade has sallied forth time after time.
3. Wade Burleson's own theological migration is chronicled in his blogging. Particularly on the issue of biblical roles for women and men in the church, I think that later generations will detect movement in Wade's position over the latter half of this millennium's inaugural decade.
4. Wade Burleson has stayed on-message with a determination that political campaigners must be able to admire. Although he has varied his terminology, his central message has remained unaltered, calling Southern Baptists to lay aside doctrinal contention in favor of a warmer, fuzzier, feel-goodier congeniality.
5. Wade Burleson is eloquent. He knows how to tell a story. He knows how to cultivate a public persona. He is better with a lectern than with a keyboard, and he's pretty good with a keyboard. Yes, I think that all of this talent has been harnessed to the wrong yoke, but I admire the talent nonetheless.

The closing of Wade's blog seems to correspond with the closing of a chapter in Southern Baptist history. It isn't the major chapter—let's not overestimate the importance of our times. But it marks a season when technology was changing the way that Baptists operate in subtle yet dramatic ways. Wade's name will forever be associated with that.

His reasons for setting it all aside are good ones, and I have stepped back (although not entirely away) for very similar reasons. I genuinely, sincerely, earnestly wish that God will bless Wade's ministry and that more peaceful days will lie before him than behind him. I want to feel fondly in my heart toward him, and to leave things there. Jesus is just mischievous enough to put us next-door to one another in Heaven.

The Bell Has Rung on the Final Round

If you have recently longed for the ugliness of earlier epochs in Baptist blogging, take courage. The newest post-Olympic sport seems to be Synchronized Slander. Within the past few hours, both Wade Burleson and Les Puryear have published attacks upon people who champion the biblical principles of Baptist Identity, each directed not at what we say, but at what they say that they are sure that we must mean by what we say (great mind-readers that they are).

But apart from this post, I'll not be taking the bait. I've found in the recent hiatus that I have plenty to enjoy in blogging without a brouhaha. I enjoy fellowship with my friends over at SBC Today, the production of "SBC Perspective" with them for that site, blogging on items that interest me, and pursuing the Lord's work in my church and the SBC. I have interacted with some bloggers in the past as I have believed that their movement posed some danger to the Lord's work in the SBC. I no longer see much of a movement, and I no longer can justify such an intense investment of the fleeting days that the Lord has allotted to me.

If there has been any contest between me and Wade or Les, I declare that the bell has rung on the final round, so far as I am concerned. At times I wrongly went out of my way to make personal what was theological. Theology is personal if it is real, but the harshest of my writing spoke more to my lingering and dogged immaturities as a believer than to the many weaknesses in my erstwhile opponents' positions.

In the future, I will be just as immature, I do fear, but I plan at least to make it less obvious to the world. And in doing so, I hope that the many weaknesses in these other positions will become the focus of attention rather than the heat that our discourse has sometimes generated.

An Open Proposal to Wade Burleson

Dear Bro. Burleson:

In the aftermath of last year's Garner Motion, a tiresome debate has ensued over the meaning and implications of this vaguely worded motion. I don't like the resulting confusion, and surely neither do you.

Nobody benefits from our continuing in the same unresolved conflict and languishing in confusion. Therefore, I propose the following:

Let us put together a bipartisan panel to join, if you consent, in the drafting of a joint resolution on the role of the Baptist Faith & Message. To the best of our efforts, we will seek to craft a statement that characterizes our differences of opinion with clarity and, so far as we can manage it, neutrality. Let us attempt to draft a resolution regarding which we can both agree publicly beforehand that a vote one way necessarily vindicates your point of view and a vote the other way necessarily vindicates mine.

Then, let us submit the resolution in Indianapolis this year and let us await and abide by the results.

On the Fate of the Trusteeship of Wade Burleson

I am not in support of Hiram Smith's motion to remove Wade Burleson as an IMB Trustee. I will vote against it if it comes to the floor.

Reason One: Burleson and His Cause Thrive Off Of Such Actions. A thousand posts on his blog could not do for him what one stunt like this does to help him. My father-in-law likes to quote a movie about Gov. Huey Long in which the Governor purportedly says, "It's our enemies that make us and our friends that break us." Never has this statement been any more true. Burleson's affiliations with the Jimmy Carters and CBEs and CBFers of this world reveal his preferences and hurt his cause. For whatever my political analysis is worth (and I do not pretend that it is disinterested or objective), I think that Burleson has committed a large number of missteps that have hindered the movement that he has tried to birth. Were it not for his enemies, Burleson's movement would be dead and gone already. Burleson as a one-term trustee who loses every vote and then ends his trusteeship by natural causes—what's wrong with that? I'm quite satisfied with that resolution of things. But people discontent with that outcome continue to pack wadding for the Grace-and-Truth cannon at regular intervals. Burleson ought to put them on the payroll if he has room. They generate everything for his site that is worth reading.

Reason Two: Smith's Motion Gives All the Wrong Reasons to Remove Burleson. If I were inclined to see Burleson's tenure end prematurely, it would never be because he has differed with trustee actions or published his views on the Internet. Burleson has suggested that the Conservative Resurgence would not have taken place if people like him had been able to employ the Internet thirty years ago (a statement that shows clearly where he stands vis-à-vis conservatism, by the way). I believe that the Internet would only have hastened the Conservative Resurgence. Actions like Smith's motion, had they been employed during the Conservative Resurgence by the liberals who were in charge, would have worked against the greatest turnaround of a denominational structure in modern history (of course, the big difference is that CR trustees were elected BECAUSE of their agenda to change the institutions, while Burleson's agenda remained hidden from the Southern Baptist people until after his election to the board was secure). Public dissent on the Internet may someday very well be an important safeguard to prevent our institutions from settling back down into liberalism, and we ought not to act in some Draconian manner toward it now simply because it is being abused.

The situation reminds me of the novice hunter holding another man at gunpoint, trying to keep him from stealing the deer that he had just shot. The frightened target, hands high in the air, said, "You can have your deer! You can have your deer! Just let me get my saddle off of it first." The aim and discernment of this motion is no more accurate, and the ability, à la B. H. Carroll's advice to L. R. Scarborough, to take a case to the Southern Baptist people must not become an innocent casualty of this misguided action.

If I were inclined to press for Burleson's removal, I would do so on the grounds of Burleson's ever-growing list of public items of disdain toward the Baptist Faith & Message. To affirm Smith's motion would be to affirm the idea that a trustee could and should be removed simply for being a troublemaker. I cannot affirm that proposition. I could affirm the idea that a trustee is eligible for removal if he propounds changes in his personal theology after his election that put him at odds with the clearly expressed doctrinal will of the convention.

Other Miscellaneous Observations

It will be a cold day in El Azizia before I consult with the Executive Committee on anything I wish to keep confidential. Great people work there, I'm sure (and know from personal exposure), but this situation is Exhibit A for the case that someone in Nashville likes to let Burleson read his mail.

When Smith's motion loses, Wade Burleson will spin it as vindication of all that he has ever written or said. Instead, rather than the SBC saying that there is no Wade Burleson problem, it will merely be the SBC saying that Bro. Smith's motion represents the wrong remedy.

Historically speaking, Smith's motion is probably a predictable outcome. Southern Baptists went so far as to expel from the convention such scofflaws as S. A. Hayden and Ben M. Bogard. With J. R. Graves, the SBC was able to achieve reconciliation. The statistically likely outcome for people who stage insurrections in the SBC is either to vanquish or to be expelled. At the present juncture, such action toward Burleson is premature, and I don't know that it will ever be appropriate, but in the light of history it is not all that surprising.

A great host of bloggers will portray Smith's motion as the carefully orchestrated machinations of some SBC ruling clique. Rather, it is a demonstration of the fact that there is not now and never has been such a clique. Rather, there is a fragile consensus of independent Southern Baptists who have agreed upon enough things over the past three decades to accomplish remarkable and greatly needed change in our convention. The vast majority of conservatives in my acquaintance cringe at Smith's motion, yet ours is a convention in which Hiram Smith has the liberty to step up to a microphone in Indianapolis and move whatsoever he wishes. This is one of the great things about our fellowship, in my opinion.

My thanks to those of you who have wondered what has become of me. Tracy's maternal grandfather, Elwin Tracy (my wife was named after her mother's maiden name) passed away last week. I've made yet another trip to Missouri since my last post. The trip marked my fifth funeral to attend and fourth to serve (my brother-in-law preached and I led the singing) in the past three weeks. I've been a little busy. But thanks to all who wondered where I went.

A Measured Action by the IMB

I've heard many dissimilar rumors as to what would happen at the Springfield IMB meeting. In fact, I've heard similar rumors surrounding every trustee meeting at the IMB for the past year. Today we learn that the trustees of the IMB have censured Wade Burleson and have further restricted his participation in board functions for violations of trustee guidelines. I analyze these events as follows: First, for the past year I've heard many rumors as to what the trustees were planning to do at this meeting or that meeting to "deal with" the Burleson issue. The action taken by the trustees yesterday was far from the most severe remedy that I have heard. I have even heard people suggest that the trustees could unilaterally remove Burleson from their body. At one point, I even drafted a post decrying Burleson's removal as a violation of our polity, holding the post in waiting should the unthinkable ever occur. Having witnessed the tone of Burleson's recent posts, and suspecting that the climax of this drama might lie within this act and scene, I had that response ready to go today. I am so thankful that I did not have to post it. Only the Southern Baptist Convention can select our entity trustees. Thank you, IMB trustees, for respecting that important distinction and working within it. I appreciate the measured nature of your response. Second, I do not see how the Indianapolis convention can fail to take note of a formal censure adopted against a sitting trustee from one of our boards. This thing is coming to the floor in Indianapolis—they might as well go ahead and draw up a time-slot for it in the convention program. The trustees have taken what is (in my opinion) the strongest step that is within their power to express their dissatisfaction with Burleson's tenure on the board. Third, I have to wonder "Why now?" Criticism of IMB policies has been somewhat less strident on the Internet of late. I predict that phenomenon to reverse itself now. Was Burleson's recent criticism of the idea of life beginning at conception (and consequently, his next potential step away from yet another article of the Baptist Faith & Message) some sort of precipitating problem leading into this meeting of the board? Fourth, I predict that this event will initiate a spike in activity by all involved parties in the blogosphere. Fifth, I'm not nearly as interested in Wade Burleson's status as trustee on the IMB than the current status of the Camel method. I hope that we will have some opportunity in the near future (maybe the next meeting?) to hear that trustees have reviewed the contents of Kevin Greeson's book and are prepared to propose solutions to a problem that strikes to the heart of the gospel.

Clock-Cleaning

Dr. Greg Welty is attempting a yeoman's task over at Wade Burleson's place (see here and here). Dr. Welty, we appreciate the clock-cleaning that you are delivering. It is work that needs to be done. But, of course, such discussions don't work in contexts where people aren't sure what the meaning of the word is is. You'd have better luck injecting yourself into this conversation: :-)

Total Depravity or Total Naïveté

Scandalous Admissions

I believe that people lie. I believe that people are sinners. I believe that institutions built around the suspicious assumption that people will always lie are institutions doomed to failure. I believe that institutions built around the naïve assumption that people will always tell the truth are institutions doomed to failure.

Controversial Commentary

Dr. Ralph Elliott, of "Elliott Controversy" fame in Southern Baptist history, was canned in the early 1960s from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in connection with his authorship of The Message of Genesis, a tome espousing higher-critical views of the biblical book (the first eleven chapters are myth with no tangible connection to historical reality, Abraham probably existed, but certainly was not commanded by God to offer up Isaac, etc.). The book scandalized Southern Baptists so much that, in addition to giving Elliott his walking papers, the convention revised the Baptist Faith & Message (in 1963). Defending himself years later, Ralph Elliott said that a great many Old Testament professors at Southern Baptist seminaries agreed substantially with what Elliiott had written in The Message of Genesis. Elliott basically complained that he was being run out of town on a rail not for being a liberal, but for being honest about being a liberal. He even coined a term to describe the dishonesty of his colleagues: "Doublespeak." According to Elliott, his colleagues had learned to employ a nuanced terminology to express their beliefs to Southern Baptist churches and sound like they were conservative, while retaining the possibility of expressing their beliefs to the academic guild and identifying with them as theological liberals. To put it bluntly, Ralph Elliott asserted that Southern Baptist professors were lying to their constituent churches. Read what Elliott wrote:

"Doublespeak" has become an insidious disease within Southern Baptist life. Through the years, the program at Southern Seminary has acquainted students with the best in current research [i.e., higher-critical liberalism] in the given fields of study. Often, however, this was done with an eye and ear for the "gallery" and how much the "church trade" would bear. Professors and students learn to couch their beliefs in acceptable terminology and in holy jargon so that although thinking one thing, the speaker calculated so as to cause the hearer to affirm something else. When I taught at Southern Seminary years ago, we often said to one professor who was particularly gifted at this "doublespeak" game, that if the Southern Baptist Convention should split, he would be the first speaker at botn new conventions. It is my personal belief that this doublespeak across the years has contirbuted to a lack of nurture and growth and is a major factor in the present problems. The basic question is one of integrity rather than the gift of communication.

Elliott is right in at least this: It is a matter of integrity, and the depravity of mankind guarantees that many people will display their lack of integrity (yes, me included, although I hope not very often). Prior to 1979, the system in place called for Southern Baptist employees to tell Southern Baptist churches what they wanted to hear, regardless of whether it was the truth (again, see Elliott's The Genesis Controversy). Throughout the twentieth century up through 1979, Southern Baptists were reassured by denominational doublespeak, but by the late 1970s, the liberalism in Southern Baptist academic institutions could no longer be hidden. Uncomfortable as it was to do so, the people of the Southern Baptist Convention had to face the difficult fact that they were being misled. I think it was Dr. Malcolm Yarnell who once described to me the thinking processes of some British professors who, in order to obtain and keep their jobs, had to affirm some statement of faith (was it the Thirty-Nine Articles? Let's assume for the sake of discussion that it was), but who sharply disagreed with the content of this Anglican statement of faith. He inquired of them how in good conscience they could sign a creed which they could not truthfully affirm? One replied along the lines of, "Well, they gave me the document, I looked it over, thought to myself, 'Yes, those are the Thirty-Nine Articles alright!' and I signed to affirm that they were indeed the genuine Thirty-Nine Articles." People are depraved and will sometimes lie to you just for the sake of lying—put a job on the line and a great many people will lie to keep it. A recent study speculated that as many as 40% of resumes contain lies. As Southern Baptists, we have some differences about the five points of Calvinism. That's OK. Nevertheless, I think it is critically important that we have a realistic view of human depravity. Those who will not acknowledge the depth of human depravity are condemned to a life of naïveté. Those who do acknowledge human depravity will understand the profound need for strong accountability within the Southern Baptist Convention. And, to draw out the implications clearly, we cannot build a system of Southern Baptist cooperation upon a doctrine of Total Naïveté. "I went and spoke with that professor (missionary, denominational leader, former President of the United States, etc.), and he told me personally that he is orthodox. Therefore, he should keep his job. Therefore, we must cooperate with him. Therefore, the Conservative Resurgence was a mistake and went way too far." Yes, he said that he was orthodox. Have we learned nothing from "doublespeak"? Must we check our brains at the door and take everyone at their word, assuming that nobody ever lies? Obviously, the context of this post is the recent controversy over Jimmy Carter's particular beliefs about whether people will receive God's saving grace apart from explicit conversion to Christ. Carter has written publicly that he believes that they will. Carter has apparently assured Wade Burleson privately that he holds no such belief. In court, a cross-examining lawyer follows up statements like Carter's with the question, "So, were you lying then, or are you lying now?" That's the context of this post. But the implications of this post reach far beyond its immediate context. Indeed, it speaks to the whole controversy of the past year at some level. If the Southern Baptist Convention operates on the perennial assumption that people are always lying, then it is doomed to failure. We cannot long partner in complete suspicion of one another. I have no doubt that Wade Burleson and many of those who typically agree with him are of the opinion that such perennial suspicion is the modus operandi within the Southern Baptist Convention—that the problem is that some SBC leaders are too suspicious and are unwilling to trust people. I don't read them making this argument, but I suspect that some of them would affirm a statement to that effect. However, if the Southern Baptist Convention operates on the perennial assumption that people are always telling the truth—that we are obligated always to take denominational leaders and employees at their word—, then we are also assuredly doomed to failure. At that point, we have contradicted our own anthropology (doctrine of man, not the course at college). Such an approach only facilitates "doublespeak." The plague of "Conservative Resurgence remorse" that is spreading in some SBC circles has as one of its primary symptoms, I believe, the doctrine of "Total Naïveté" toward those on the left, coupled with an unbounded suspicion toward the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence who are willing to make the tough stands. I think that the Carter episode epitomizes what I'm talking about. The SBC contains in its upper eschelons of leadership people representing a wide variety of viewpionts on nonessentials (recognizing that this is a word defined differently by many of us—I would not put the exclusivity of Christ into this category). There is some suspicion at work today in the SBC; indeed, the experiences of the past fifty years show why some suspicion is a necessary component of our cooperative work. Excessive and paranoid suspicion is not the norm in our convention. Certainly, the kind of baffling naïveté demonstrated over the past week is no responsible cure for anything that ails us. Heaven help us if we decide to follow the leadership of the naïve.

Burleson, Cole, and Carter

Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, and others have been to meet with Jimmy Carter. In a post detailing the event, Burleson addresses his concern that people will use the event to "seek to crucify [him] for meeting with President Carter." (See Burleson's post here. See Cole's version here. Marty Duren's version is respectful, but much less giddy about Carter, meaning I like it better. See here.) I think that Burleson worries needlessly. Burleson wrongly suspects that somebody somewhere in the SBC will be shocked, scandalized, or otherwise surprised that he and his group are meeting with Carter and is enthusiastic about what Carter is doing. The headline will come when we find someone leftward of this group who is not acceptable to them. In as non-crucifying a manner as I can muster (Burleson wasn't suggesting that his actions and words are beyond any review at all, was he?), I only wish to point out something I find interesting. The title of Burleson's post is "That Which Unites Us Is the Gospel of Christ." Here are Jimmy Carter's thoughts about the gospel in his own words, given in full context:

Q: Your first lesson on Ephesians describes man's reconciliation to God through grace and the sacrifice of Christ. Do you believe that grace ultimately applies to people who don't presently believe in Jesus? A: Yes, I do. I remember two things. One is that in John 3:16, which is probably the best known verse in the Bible - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son." And Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, said we should love our neighbors, but also love those who despise us and hate us and our enemies. So, the opportunity for everyone to be saved through the grace of God with faith in Christ applies to everyone. And I have been asked often, you know, in my Sunday School classes, which are kind of a give and take debate with people from many nations and many faiths - what about those that don't publicly accept Christ, are they condemned? And I remember that Christ said, "Judge not that ye be not judged." And so, my own personal belief is one of God's forgiveness and God's grace. That's the best answer I can give.

So, there is Carter's understanding of the gospel. I ask you, the Southern Baptist people: Does that gospel unite you with Jimmy Carter? As for me, I would have to entitle any post about Jimmy Carter in this manner: "What Divides Us Is the Gospel of Christ"

Let's Go Forward, Not Back to the Past

Some substantive response to Wade Burleson's most controversial post to date is in order at this time. Many will, of course, undertake this task, as blogger extraodinaire Nathan Finn has already done for us. He has done an excellent job, as will others. But that doesn't mean that I won't respond, too.

First, it is important to note that Winfred Moore, Daniel Vestal, Richard Jackson, Charles Wade, Clyde Glazener, et al, have never been excluded from the Southern Baptist Convention. Their churches have not been voted out of the convention. If they are not within the Southern Baptist Convention, it is only because they have left by their own free choices. Whoever among them has not made that choice still has every privilege accorded to member churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, including the right to select any of these men to serve as messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention.

So, what has happened to these men? They have vocally, stridently, virulently, caustically advocated a plan for the organization and operation of the Southern Baptist Convention and related entities. Their plan has not gained the support of the broader membership of the Southern Baptist Convention. They have lost several votes. The Southern Baptist Convention has repeatedly refused to implement their vision for the SBC.

And what is that vision? It is not hard to know, because when these men did not get their way, they implemented their vision in other organizations. We can look at their organizations and see precisely what was their plan.

First, they have gutted the Cooperative Program. The Baptist General Convention of Texas keeps almost 80% of Cooperative Program funds entrusted to them. 80% for the Baptist Building in Dallas; 20% for the rest of the world.

Second, they have abolished accountability for the recipients of Cooperative Program funding. In 1991 Baylor University changed its charter to prevent Texas Baptist churches from ever being able to hold the university accountable. Baylor still receives CP funding from the BGCT. A whole suite of universities followed suit. They still receive funding from the CBF crowd. Many of the affiliated educational institutions connected with the CBF are mere departments within schools that are not even Baptist. The plan of these men is to send money with no strings attached. Apparently, their view of religious liberty includes the notion that certain people have an absolute right to a paycheck, and those donating the money have the liberty to continue to pay them. You may complain about heresy taught at schools, so long as a "there, there" from some denominational bureaucrat will silence you...so long as you don't actually dare to try to do anything about it.

Third, they have established a system that is as narrow and discriminatory as any in the world. They weep for Russell Dilday while they chase Robert Sloan out of town. A recent gathering of Baptist colleges and universities included a discussion along the lines of "Since we know that we will not under any circumstances be hiring graduates of the six Southern Baptist seminaries, where are we going to find our religion professors now?" A friend, a recent SWBTS graduate who would not be theologically out of place in the BGCT, was present and greatly disheartened by the event. The SBC welcomes these institutions to set up displays in the exhibit hall at the SBC annual meeting, but these men will not allow SWBTS to set up a display at the BGCT annual meeting. Open theists we welcome with open arms; inerrantists need not apply. [The portion of this statement now struck through has been shown to be incorrect in the ensuing comments. I apologize for the inaccuracy. The remainder of the paragraph (and the article) stands unrefuted.]

The men Burleson listed, every last one of them, are not only supporters of this system; they are the architects of it.

What has happened to these men in the past twenty-seven years is as simple as this: The Southern Baptist Convention has said "No" to their misshapen vision for the future of the SBC. They have not been kicked out; they merely haven't been put in charge. Their vision is not our vision. Their vision is entirely, 100% incompatible with our vision.

Now, it is their right, upon discovering this incompatibility, to leave and start their own institution. They faced the same choice that we all face when we find we are in the minority in our churches, associations, or conventions. You can choose to go along with the majority, or you can choose to leave and do your own thing. I've personally been on the losing side of several questions in Southern Baptist life down through the years. This year's presidential election was among them. I lost. But it was a fair election. And I'm not leaving the Southern Baptist Convention over it. And if I did, my leaving would be my decision, and nobody anywhere would have forced me out by voting their conscience in Greensboro.

In fact, my church is still (for the fleeting moment) a member of the BGCT. I think it extremely likely that we're leaving. Soon. But as we go, let me make it clear that nobody is forcing me out. My views are entirely unwelcome in the BGCT and will enjoy no more success than Charles Wade's views have enjoyed in the SBC, but God has not endowed me with an inalienable right to win votes in the BGCT. The votes in the BGCT have been fair votes. I lost. And we've lost on enough things of enough importance for long enough that we're going elsewhere. But we're going of our own free will, and nobody has forced us out of anything.

In the same way, the list of people that Wade Burleson has iterated is a list of people who have chosen to go a different direction than the Southern Baptist Convention has freely and fairly chosen. I refuse to feel guilty for voting my conscience. I refuse to be made responsible for their free choices.

Therefore, in honoring what these men themselves have freely, publicly, vehemently, and with unkind and inflammatory words for others chosen for their own futures:

May God bless these men in their ministries...

Elsewhere.

I Rest My Case

Wade Burleson is apparently completely in support of the conservative resurgence, with the exception of the part that had to do with the conservative resurgence.

Irresistible Grapes???

Recently I read an article on Wade Burleson's blog that has to be the most Arminian description of a conversion experience that I have heard in a long time. Credit for a woman's salvation is given to a pastor's decision to drink wine. Somebody told me that this guy is a Calvinist, but I'm really beginning to doubt it.