Wade's Campbellite practice

How Wade Burleson Became
A "Campbellite" in His Book

How paradoxical it is that the one source (my book) which Wade quotes on Landmarkism does not sustain him in respect to the alleged Landmarkism of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board's policy on baptism.

In a comment submitted by Wade to the Reformed Flyswatter blog, Wade acknowledges that he did not get his view on "Landmarkism" from Bob Ross' book, Old Landmarkism and the Baptists. He says:

"I was calling the IMB baptismal policy Landmark (November 2005, see my blog) long before I ever heard of you or your Landmark book (February 2006, see your email you posted). So, it is obvious that you cannot be my source for whatever understanding of Landmarkism I have. As you know, you and I don't agree on many things, but that does not negate my appreciation for your ministry. . . . Bob, again, you are not the person from whom I learned what Landmarkism is or is not, but I found your book on the subject a good one." [End of quote].

In my reply, among other things I wrote: "My book evidently left you with the same defective concept on Landmarkism which you had before you read it, and for that I cannot be pleased."

I am grateful for Wade's "clearing" me of any perception that I am in any wise responsible for his defective view of Landmarkism in relation to the IMB policy or any other source. However, the use he has made of my book appears to be an attempt on his part to somehow align my book as rendering support for Wade's views, and this is not justifiable.

In this act, Wade emulates the device of a number of Campbellites I have met in public debates. These fellows -- all nice and gentlemanly, just like Wade -- were either "blind in one eye with a cataract on the other," or else they knew exactly what they were doing, namely, resorting to the use of subterfuge.

For example, I have had Campbellites lift material from C. H. Spurgeon as if it agreed with Campbellites on baptism, instrumental music, and some other matters. In a debate with Garland Elkins, he quoted A. T. Robertson on a text and tried to align the Baptist Greek scholar with Campbellism on baptism. Another Campbellite debater, Lynn Trapp, did the same thing with H. B. Hackett. I have even had them quote Bob Ross, as if I supported their doctrine! I've heard them quote Baptist manuals, confessions, preachers, debaters -- all as if they somehow supported the Campbellite's view. In fact, I have often thought that the Campbellites would prefer to use something from a Baptist even more than use Scriptures!

That is what we call "subterfuge," a deceptive and misleading device. It's like giving a street address for a vacant lot when no one or nothing is there. It's like giving a phone number for a non-existent person. It's like email spam from Nigeria, empty promises of big bucks.

And that is the kind of thing Wade has resorted to in the use of my book, as if it supports his ideas on "Landmarkism." Wade became a Campbellite in that type of thing -- at least, he has used a device which I have found to be an attribute of many Campbellite debaters -- subterfuge.

I suppose the greatest disappointment I have in Wade is this lack of demonstrating simple ethics. He never even bothered to confer with me in regard to the use of my book. I mean, that book is mine, and to misuse it is just downright meanness.

No, nice guy Wade did not do anything illegal; what he did was just unethical.

I have two dogs which actually demonstrate more ethical respect than Wade has demonstrated. When I put out the food bowls for my dogs at feed'n time, they won't even eat until I give them my approval. When I walk out the front door, my dogs wait until I give approval for them to follow me. Good Dogs develop a great deal of respect. My dogs have more respect and ethics than some preachers I've known!

Wade is perhaps still in the learning stages, for he didn't bother to even communicate to me that he was going to make use of my book. Unfortunately for Wade and his publisher, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, I learned of Wade's subterfuge from one to whom S&H sent a digital copy of Wade's book. The gentleman asked me if I was aware that Wade had used my book in his book, and my immediate thought was, What book? I don't know anything about Wade Burleson's book.

Wade didn't even bother to ask me beforehand if my book supported his concept on Landmarkism. He didn't bother to tell me that he was going to make it appear to his readers that my book on Landmarkism makes Landmarkers out of the members of the International Mission Board as well as some other Baptist leaders. It seems like Wade wanted to get this out there before I had any opportunity to say anything, pro or con, about how he planned to use my book.

The thoughtful brother who let me in on the little secret, wrote me, "By the way, Brother Bob, were you aware Wade was going to rely heavily upon your Landmark essay to sustain his attacks . . .?"

I am disillusioned in regard to Wade's ethics, for he does try so hard to persuade people to believe he is such a nice guy, ethical, courteous, generous, and full of "grace and humility."

From where I sit, that act appears to merely be a facade to be lapped up by Wade's admirers. In my case, he has acted from the old nature, the flesh.

When one tries so hard to paint an impeccable image of himself as Wade does, I am somehow reminded of that old sign on a Used Car lot --

"Honest John's -- I Cheat You Right!"

As nice a guy as Wade wants us to think that he is, he nevertheless admits to total depravity, so as good as he is, he's like the rest of us -- he is not so good as to be above manifesting at least some of the elements of the old carnal nature, and from my perspective he was certainly in the flesh when he decided to use my book as a subterfuge and he said nothing to me about what he was doing.

Maybe this experience will help Wade in his sanctification, and to grow in the grace of ethical, responsible behavior which ideally should characterize Christians, especially a man of the cloth.