Burleson's bombastic book

A Critique of Wade Burleson's Book,
"HARDBALL RELIGION"

It is difficult to find fault with near perfection, yet that is almost the task one faces when confronted with writing a critique of Pastor Wade Burleson's book, Hardball Religion -- that is, if we simply take Wade's word in regard to what he has written. He covers the period of 07/2005--01/2008, giving his one-sided view of his controversial term on the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board.

Despite Wade's high regard for the integrity of what he has written, the publisher, Smith & Helwys, has a very small-typeface "Disclaimer" on the copyright page, stating the publisher takes no responsibility for the "accuracy" of the contents. Evidently, Wade was not all that persuasive with the publisher.

On the whole, I suppose that if one presumes to find a primary fault with this book it probably is the fact that the book is autobiographical in essence, composed by and about one who is depicted as being the only really good egg in the crow's nest. The other eggs are rotten, half-rotten, or nearly so, and the nest smells of a foul odor. Wade is, as it were, "Batman," pitted up against the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler, Catwoman, and a bevy of unscrupulous associates which plague Gotham City.

Wade reminds me of what I once heard a fellow tell about a visit he made to a mental institution to see one of his former college classmates who was a patient. When the visitor asked his former classmate why people were in the institution, the man said, "They are all crazy . . . and you are crazy, too. I'm the only sane person in this place!"

We don't generally meet with auto-bios which are characterized so prominently by the "I'm the only sane person in this nuthouse" theme, but that's about what you get in Wade's book. He is so pristine that his chronicles of woe become repetitive and boring. You quickly sense in advance just how each episode is going to go. The overall story line is that the IMB is an institution of nutball "Landmark Fundies" run by the inmates -- with the exception of the "courteous" and "gracious" Okie from Enid.

I did not read far until I was assured by Wade that the book and his behavior in his short career on the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board are the epitome of something near perfection -- Wade himself being the ever "gracious" and "courteous" notary who verifies this fact. He often reminds the reader of how he is the ever "gracious" and "courteous" one.

"Everything I wrote is truth," he says, and he "would not change one thing" which he did when on the IMB. If all was so prim, proper, and perfect, one might ask, "Then why did Wade run into so much trouble?"

Well, "it's in the book."

Wade spills the beans about all the hirelings, liars, and Mafia types whom he "graciously" and "courteously" categorizes as "Baptist Fundamentalists" who endeavor to "force uniformity" by "strong-arm tactics" to perpetrate their "stupid decisions" and "Fundamentalist interpretations."

Translation: The IMB trustees responded unfavorably to Wade's objections to a couple of requirements for missionary candidates in regard to Baptism and "Private Prayer Language."

Consequently, there was a 2-year+ battle between Mr. IMB Good Guy and the IMB Bad Guys. Sorta like a Clint Eastwood movie. One is made to wonder, "What's a nice guy like Wade doing in a place like the International Mission Board?"

"Fundamentalists" . . . Again?

If you have already met the "Fundamentalists," Wade will re-introduce them to you.

It seems that Wade's primary device for denigrating the IMB Bad Guys is to peg them as "Fundamentalists," always a sure-fire denigrating term to plaster the enemy. Anything negative which needs a little reinforcement, Wade nails it down by using the word "Fundamentalist" of those with whom he is at war --"Fundamentalist trustees," "sycophant trustees," "Fundamentalist fury," "Fundamentalist Landmarkers," etc.

But he assures us that he did it "courteously" and "graciously" in every instance. No breach of etiquette on Wade's part.

The only book I have seen in recent years to compare with Wade's is the late millionaire John Baugh's corker, The Battle for Baptist Integrity, probably put together by the late psychologist Herbert Reynolds, former president of Baylor and Baugh's adviser on how to spend Baugh's money. But Baugh and Reynolds made no pretense of either graciousness or courteousness. Talk about the Fundamentalists! Baugh and Reynolds put them on an equality with the Nazis! These two crusaders against the "politics of inerrancy," made very extensive use of the term Fundamentalist to excoriate and discredit any Baptist who believes the Bible is the Holy Spirit-inspired, inerrant Word of God.

These two men were the primary architects of the "Texas Baptists Committed" Anti-inerrancy clique in the Baptist General Convention of Texas which allegedly was formed to "save the BGCT from Fundamentalism." This elite clique was responsible for fomenting such antagonistic divisiveness among Baptists in Texas that there was an eventual "split" between the Inerrantists (who formed the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention) and the Anti-Inerrantists (those who controlled the Baptist General Convention of Texas). The TBC clique also found all their enemies to be appropriately labeled, "Fundamentalist Schizophrenics," much like the alleged persona of those with whom Wade served at IMB.

If you like tall tales about behind-closed-doors religious "crimes" written from an anti-Fundamentalist perspective, you will relish reading Wade's book. Even if it's fiction, it is the second-best anti-SBC book to the Baugh-Reynolds screamer.

Hybrid Calvinism

There is one thing about Burleson which, in my opinion, disqualified him even serving on the IMB, more so than even his antics about the alleged "Landmarkism" of the IMB baptism policy. Burleson is an adherent of the Pedobaptist Reformed Hybrid Calvinist theology which teaches that one is "born again before faith." That is not very good missionary doctrine!

My colleague on the Reformed Flyswatter, Ian Elsasser, called attention to this on The Calvinist Flyswatter blog just a few weeks ago (February 5, 2009). Notice --

Ian: Mr. Burleson seems to affirm the "born again before faith" view, common to many modern "Calvinists" (See "Please Don't Call Me a Calvinist, But..." --
Regeneration, the new birth and quickening are all synonyms for this heart surgery God performs. Before a man will ever repent of his sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he must be born again. This miraculous act of God, called "the new birth," is a work that He chooses to perform, and it is without conditions.

We have exposed this heresy in particular on The Calvinist Flyswatter for the past three years (2006-2009). Burleson is infected with this heresy.

Southern Baptists are not benefited by such a Hybrid Calvinist serving on the mission board. In my opinion, he should have been given his walking papers on account of his "born again before faith" heresy long ago.

"Landmarkism"

Wade twice approvingly presents a letter from David Rogers, in which Rogers says:

I am not saying that those who approved the new policy change on baptism are necessarily sympathetic on the whole towards Landmarkism. However, I do recognize the policy as reflective of at least one “plank” of Landmarkist argumentation, and a “plank” for which I believe there is no biblical basis. And, it concerns me that we, as a denomination, may be making steps in that direction. (pages 58, 252).

Unfortunately, Wade fails to demonstrate from any source -- including my own book -- that the IMB policy on baptism involves even the "one plank" which is alleged to be "Landmarkist." Wade does not show how the IMB policy corresponds to any statement or source which presents Landmark doctrine. Requiring that your missionary candidates have baptism which is characterized by the attributes specified in the Baptist Faith & Message Article VII does not rise to the level of Landmarkism.

Wade mentions the names of several well-known Baptist leaders whom he accuses of holding Landmark views, and immediately quotes from my book. This seems to imply that my book supports his allegation.

I find the following on page 48 of Wade's book misleading. It might appear to some readers (at least) that I am writing with respect to the persons named and/or their views:

Wade says:

"Many of our SBC’s influential trustee and administrative leaders (e.g., Paige Patterson, John Floyd, Keith Eitel, Bill Sutton, Malcolm Yarnell) over the past few years have had strong Landmark tendencies. Bob Ross gives an excellent overview:

(Ross' quote begins:) "According to Landmarkers," (etc.)

I am rather disappointed in the arrangement of Wade's presentation of my comments.

Does his presentation imply that Ross is writing an "overview" specifically referring to these men as "Landmarkers" and that the "overview" is referring to their views? Is this what Wade intended? If so, he is wrong.

I am not going to accuse Wade of associating these men directly with my comments as if I was referring to them, but I will say that Wade's
reference to these men is a very poor and possibly misleading intro to the quotation which Wade gives from my book.

I have found this "device" (if it may be classified as such) is practiced by some crafty writers who (1) make a statement, then (2) immediately associate it to a quotation from a source -- which at least implies that the source which is quoted has to do with what the person has just previously stated.

I hope these Southern Baptist gentlemen will not think that my remarks were in regard to their views. In the first place, my comments were made in printed materials originally written in 1963, before I even knew these men existed.

Secondly, I am not at all sufficiently familiar with the ecclesiastical views of any one of these men so as to comment on his views.

Therefore, for anyone to assume or conclude that Bob Ross was writing an "overview" of these men considered as "Landmarkers" is completely erroneous. Wade might as well have used my material in relation to the "man in the moon" as to these Southern Baptists.

WHAT IS "LANDMARKISM"?

Peter Lumpkins has observed:

"The only source cited for Landmark views in Wade's new book Hardball Religion is guess who? A man named Bob Ross. Do you know him? Not one mention, not one essay, not one writer except Bob Ross. Bob Ross is there but no other authority on Landmark is mentioned."

Inasmuch as I deny that my book agrees with what I understand to be Wade Burleson's concept of "Landmarkism," and inasmuch as I deny that my book alleges that the policy of the IMB is "Landmarkist," it seems that Wade Burleson is "up the creek without a paddle," doesn't it?

My book makes the effort to define from reputable Landmark sources what really constitutes Landmarkism, and it was written years before the IMB set forth its policy on baptism. There is no way whatsoever that Wade Burleson can rely on my book to support his arbitrary allegation that the IMB policy is "Landmarkist."

I will be happy to defend the book any time, any place, in Public Debate with Wade Burleson or any one of his choosing. I will defend against any proposition which affirms that the policy of the IMB is "Landmarkist," based on either my book or any Landmark source of Landmark doctrine on baptism.

WADE'S ERROR ON CAMPBELLISM

Wade’s book also misrepresents the view of "Churches of Christ" on the administrator of baptism. The book says on page 2, "Landmark and Campbellite (Church of Christ) doctrines have placed emphasis on the qualifications of the baptizer". [See also page 38].

Wrong way Wade -- Campbellites do not condition the validity of baptism on the administrator in any sense.

The fact is, Churches of Christ (Campbellites) will accept any immersion if it is administered in accord with their teaching -- "in order to obtain the remission of sins . . ."

Evidently, Wade tossed in the reference to the Campbellites as if to discredit Southern Baptists. The fact that Wade does not know the view of Campbellites is reason enough within itself to suspect he may not know the view of Landmarkers, either. And he certainly does not know my view, if he thinks I agree with him on David Rogers' "one plank" notion to which he referred.

How paradoxical it is that the one source (my book) to which Wade refers for a summary of Landmarkism does not sustain him with respect to the alleged "Landmarkism" of the IMB 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 on the RF blog, 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 anyone's perception that Bob Ross is in any wise responsible for Wade's defective view of Landmarkism in relation to the IMB policy or any other source. However, the use he has made of the book appears to be an attempt on his part to align his views with my views, and this is not justifiable.

THE IMB'S POLICY ON "TONGUES"

Wade says on page 50:

Regarding the second policy, I have never spoken in tongues and I have no desire for a private prayer language. I fully affirmed the previous policy of the IMB that forbade any missionary from publicly speaking in tongues. We are paying our missionaries to share the gospel intelligently with those to whom they minister. Yet, if a missionary prays in tongues in private, and does not do so in public, then the prohibition of the Apostle Paul, “Forbid not the speaking in tongues,” seems to be an inspired, biblical command from the sacred, infallible text that we ought not lightly dismiss.

The problem here is obvious: Paul makes no distinction between "public" tongues and "private" tongues. How can Wade consistently accept the policy of forbidding "publicly speaking in tongues" but defend "tongues in private"? If Paul's "command" relates to "private" tongues, why not also to "public" tongues?

If "tongues" is indeed a "spiritual gift" for Christians today, why in the world would "tongues" be something to be done only as a "private" practice? And if "tongues" need an "interpreter" (as Paul says) who is going to interpret the alleged "tongue" for the person who is "privately" exercising the gift with no one else hearing what is said?

For Wade's benefit, I want to recommend Brother Norman Sellers' book, Biblical Tongues -- which ought to be required reading for all missionary candidates who will likely be faced by this issue on the mission field. Had Wade read that book, he might have never had any conflict over that issue when he was on the International Mission Board.