Burleson late to the game

A review of Hardball Religion: Feeling the Fury of Fundamentalism by Wade Burleson (2009, Smyth & Helwys Publishing)

By John Pierce
Executive Editor
Baptists Today

Conservative Southern Baptist pastor and popular blogger Wade Burleson details his recent three-year battle with fundamentalist forces within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in Hardball Religion: Feeling the Fury of Fundamentalism. He gives both play-by-play coverage and color commentary.

The playing field for most of the action is the trustee board of the SBC’s International Mission Board (IMB) — where the independent-minded Burleson caught the wrath of denominational power-brokers carrying out a well-orchestrated effort to further restrict missionary qualifications (according to strict Landmark Baptist doctrine) and to undermine the leadership of IMB president Jerry Rankin.

Burleson’s vocal opposition to these efforts — along with his public revelations via his blog about what he witnessed in and out of trustee meetings — led to his eventual censure in November 2007 and his resignation from the board in January 2008.

Although an earlier call to have him removed from the board was rescinded, he became the first trustee in convention history to be formally targeted for removal before his term expired.

Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., and former two-term president of the ultraconservative Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, chronicles the power ploys he encountered as an IMB trustee from 2005 until early 2008. He also notes other recent actions within the SBC — such as the removal of Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary because of her gender — to reveal an aggressive fundamentalist agenda at work.

Repeatedly, Burleson points to SBC kingpin Paige Patterson, the president of Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, who ousted Klouda, as the powerful operative directing influential IMB trustees as part of a larger effort to narrow the doctrinal parameters for participation within the SBC.

Patterson, who previously served as president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., is widely regarded — along with Judge Paul Pressler of Houston, Texas — as a chief architect of what proponents call “the conservative resurgence” and critics call “the fundamentalist takeover” of the SBC that begin in 1979.

Burleson describes efforts by IMB trustees loyal to Patterson to embarrass Rankin and other IMB administrators and to impose Landmark doctrine on the Southern Baptist mission enterprise through new requirements that disqualify missionary candidates who have “a private prayer language” or have been baptized in settings other than a Southern Baptist church or another congregation that teaches the doctrine of perseverance of the saints.

Burleson claims that, early on, he was recruited by this coalition of trustees set on removing Rankin — who has previously admitted to practicing a private form of glossolalia (speaking in tongues).

“Even before my first IMB meeting, I was invited by the trustees who thought they were in charge to join their select group and meet secretly at a hotel or restaurant during the trustee meeting, skipping the missionary appointment service, to plan their next attack against Jerry Rankin’s leadership. …,” Burleson wrote. “[Some] told me that the trustees were three votes short of removing Rankin, and they were counting on me, a new trustee, to be one of those three.”

Burleson’s refusal to support their pre-meeting caucuses (which he noted were in violation of board policy) and his willingness to expose these efforts publicly did not set well with the trustee leaders John Floyd from Tennessee, a disgruntled former IMB employee, and Tom Hatley from Arkansas.

“They had an agenda,” wrote Burleson. “I stood in the way. I asked too many questions, and I was too persistent, particularly for a ‘rookie’ trustee.”

Burleson said his harsh treatment by fellow trustees followed his stand against the private caucuses which were filled with “gossip, innuendo, and in some cases outright slander … as they spoke of Rankin.”

Giving wide exposure to his fellow trustees’ political activities and making public his own case against the narrow doctrinal requirements for missionary candidates — via his blog — infuriated trustee leaders.

Burleson justified bringing such issues into the public arena by emphasizing the role of dissent in Baptist polity.

“[O]nce the majority of trustees voted to approve the new doctrinal policies, and I was shown officially to be on the minority side, the forum for dissent became the convention as a whole,” said Burleson. “Trustees have accountability to the entire convention. … I agree that the trustee on the losing side of a vote should acquiesce to the majority, except if the dissent is based upon a violation of conscience or Scripture.”

Burleson’s Dec. 10, 2005 blog titled “Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The Battle for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention” shed a broader light on the new doctrinal requirements for missionaries as well as trustees’ efforts to undermine Rankin.

Strong reaction to the blog from fellow Southern Baptists — some in support of and others in opposition to Burleson’s efforts — revealed a deep divide in Southern Baptist politics between those who think the revised Baptist Faith and Message doctrinal statement of 2000 is a strong enough guideline for determining participation in SBC life and those who feel that agencies — such as the IMB — should be free to add further requirements of belief and practice.

Several missionaries — including David Rogers, whose late father Adrian Rogers was elected SBC president in 1979 — expressed appreciation for Burleson’s stand against narrowing doctrinal parameters.

Trustee leadership responded to Burleson’s persistent blogging by charging him with “gossip and slander” — and urging him to resign. Burleson refused — knowing that SBC messengers meeting in June 2006 in Greensboro, N.C., would have to hear his case in the large arena and then vote to remove or retain him as an IMB trustee.

Burleson humorously described one effort to get him to bow out quietly and quickly:

“[A]s I walked down the hall toward the building’s exit, IMB trustee Bill Sutton, Paige Patterson’s close friend and confidante, came running up behind me. ‘Wade, Wade, stop! Listen to me. Please. What do I have to do to get you to resign? I’ll wash your feet; I’ll kiss your butt. Please, just tell me, what can I do to get you to step down for the good of everyone involved?’”

Burleson said he responded: “Bill, you still don’t understand. This is a matter of principle for me. I can’t resign. I’ll see you in Greensboro.”

Fear of Burleson speaking to the convention — and the urging of top SBC leadership at a hastily called meeting — led IMB trustee leaders to pull their recommendation for Burleson’s removal from the board. However, the chairman stripped him of influence by not giving him a customary committee assignment.

Blogging among Southern Baptists grew stronger leading up to the 2006 SBC annual meeting in Greensboro — with seve
ral media reports crediting Burleson, Marty Duren and other electronic critics of the IMB trustee actions with influencing the SBC presidential election. Lesser-known South Carolina pastor Frank Page was elected president of the SBC over two other candidates more closely associated with the convention’s power structure.

However, in the book, Burleson seems to overestimate the impact of Page’s election as a kinder, gentler supporter of the rightward SBC as well as that of the so-called “Garner motion” that messengers approved at the 2007 SBC meeting calling the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message a sufficient doctrinal guideline.

For Page’s two terms in office were followed by the election of Johnny Hunt, a solid player in the fundamentalist-shaped SBC. And Garner’s motion was followed by quick responses from SBC agency heads arguing that their boards can and will add doctrinal parameters as they choose.

Yet Burleson seems optimistic about somehow stemming the growing tide of fundamentalism in the SBC. And, with so many vocal opponents of fundamentalism gone en mass from the SBC already, it takes significant optimism to make such a claim.

Throughout his book, Burleson reveals what many already know about the well-entrenched fundamentalism of the SBC, such as:

1. Some of the most hostile, unscrupulous people one can ever encounter are driven by religiously-masked political power.
2. Church leaders who espouse love and unity — and claim a higher commitment to biblical authority — can be very unloving and divisive people.
3. Fundamentalism has no room for dissent. Asking honest questions and challenging the ethics of those carrying out a fundamentalist agenda are considered signs of disloyalty.
4. Fundamentalists are punitive toward those who disagree with them or stand in the way of their goals.
5. Otherwise good people can become complicit in fundamentalist efforts out of fear, ignorance or opportunism.
6. Fundamentalists like to do their deeds in darkness. Secret meetings, false rumors, and stifled or controlled information are strangely excused in the name of biblical fidelity. Ends justify ungodly means.
7. Ultimately, fundamentalism is about gaining or retaining power rather than about theology, spirituality or anything else.
8. Fundamentalists can’t stop. The circle is always narrowing; the noose is always tightening. When original “enemies” are gone, enemies are created out of one another.

In Hardball Religion, Burleson gives example-after-example of these realities of fundamentalism that he has seen up close.

Burleson’s insight into the obviously strained relationships between IMB trustees and administrators is sadly interesting. He tells how communications leader Wendy Norville was treated disrespectfully when her vote count on a controversial matter did not match that of the chairman.

And he recounts how Rankin would grovel before the trustee leaders and apologize for things he had not done. One must wonder if Rankin expected Burleson to do likewise — and what role Rankin played in Burleson’s decision to toss in the towel.

While Burleson is a welcomed and needed voice in warning Baptists and others about the destructive nature of religious fundamentalism, he seems narrowly focused.

For example, he is rightfully outraged that a competent female professor at Southwestern Seminary would lose her position over gender. Yet, Burleson — and Klouda, for that matter — should have known about Patterson’s fossilized position on female subordination and not been surprised.

And did Burleson completely miss the 1994 firing of Southwestern Seminary President Russell Dilday? Or does he consider that action to be justified or somehow something other than the same fundamentalism at work that he has witnessed in recent years?

Likewise, Burleson’s concern that many good Southern Baptist missionary candidates are now being excluded from service by non-essential doctrinal restrictions is laudable. But where was his voice in 2002 when these same agenda-driven IMB trustees — with Rankin’s wimpy compliance — required the entire overseas mission force to affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message?

Dozens of committed Southern Baptist missionaries (as addressed in the book, Stand with Christ: Why Missionaries can’t sign the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, 2002, Smyth & Helwys) were terminated or forced to retire by the imposition of these new doctrinal requirements on their consciences. Yet Burleson affirms this narrow doctrinal statement as “sufficient” although it violates the historic Baptist principle of congregational autonomy and handcuffs missionaries working in settings where women routinely lead churches.

Ironically, Burleson has spoken out in defense of women ministers. In his book he writes: “The focus on keeping women from church leadership makes no sense in China and other places where house churches are mainly composed of women.”

That is precisely why Burleson’s defense of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message — that states “…the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” — and his outrage over the removal of a female theology professor and the addition of a couple of more narrow doctrinal requirements for screening new missionaries are hard to reconcile.

Burleson’s courage to stand toe-to-toe with abusive power-brokers, to expose the misuse of denominational authority and resources, and to defend those harmed by heavy-handed tactics is commendable.

Yet, for so many of us, his recent “discovery” of fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist Convention is not breaking news. It shows just how late Burleson is getting to the game.

He writes: “I began to realize in 2005, to my horror, that the issue causing such pain in the Southern Baptist Convention was not a battle for a belief in the inspired, inerrant word of God.”

Burleson is right. It is about something else — something very destructive.

The rough-and-tumble hardball he describes in this book has been going on in the SBC’s power structures for more than a quarter-century now. What Burleson is experiencing is just extra innings.

[Hardball Religion by Wade Burleson (ISBN 978-1-57312-527-7) is scheduled for release sometime in March 2009. Pre-orders can be placed at helwys.com.]


  1. Wade admits he was a foot soldier for Paul Pressler in Oklahoma, and continues to extol the “conservative resurgence.” So forgive me if I have difficulty mustering any concern for left-of-the-new-SBC center fundamentalists being purged by hard right fundamentalists. Why are you so surprised? Were you not paying attention? The landscape was littered with similar casualties from 1979-90. The War should be no less holy to you now than it was then.

  2. JPierce:
    Very good; proud of you.
    I specifically applaud your mention of the Book Stand with Christ.
    I got the small congregation here in Collinsville to purchase four copies in 2002.
    On several occasions I asked for church wide discussion of the book. Three of the copies were never returned to the church library.
    There never was a church wide discussion.
    What is one to do????
    And with some of the reservations you express in the blog, proud of Burleson as well; though in the kindest way I can say this, with you little numbskullness there as well that is quite frustrating.
    Can’t see Burleson and David Rogers rushing into the arms of the CBF anytime soon, but I do think in real terms there may be a way to get more funds going to the Baptist World Alliance as a realpolitik outcome of this discussion.
    But for that to happen, I’m gonna name some names.
    The Likes of Anne Graham Lotz, Ginny Brant, Truett and Dan Cathy, Jim Henry, Gary Fenton…. will have to come out and say they will no longer blindly fund this world of fundamentalism.

  3. Thanks for the “Cliff Notes” insights on the book and blogging them here.

  4. the book will be an interesting read as a once insider fundamentalist’s account of fundamentalist leadership, to which I hope to purchase used at Amazon. and Pierce is correct about Burleson; he is late to the game of crying foul, but make no mistake about his theological leanings — the likelihood of him including or endorsing one to a leadership position in the SBC that is not an inerrantist is zero. while he will work with a non-inerrantist, to his credit, he will not promote governance responsibilities with such, however. his kinder, gentler SBC is still fundamentalist. to date, and this may change, for Burleson may have changed, my perception of Burleson is that the issue is not really about meaningful cooperation and shared governance, but that he was not welcomed as a leader among the SBC elite. to be an elite among the elite. moreover, it is not about control, rather that he has so little of it. now, this is not to suggest he was not mistreated, for it seems he was; but was said treatment not known to him and was he not in and supportive of the movement that exiled non-inerrantists from meaningful SBC participation? it went around and it came around and it hurt. did it teach?

  5. As one who has also come “late to the game”, I find Wade a refreshing voice within the SBC. For those of you that label Wade as still a fundamentalist, I can almost see your point, but don’t agree. You may think the same of me. More to the point, however, is that he is willing to converse with a wider variety of Baptists – something the real fundamemtalists will not do. I suppose the question is “Does coming late to the game preclude effective change within the SBC?”

    As for me, I am glad to say that my acquaintance with Bruce Gourley opened my eyes quite a bit. He helped me see that I belong in the ambiguous “Baptist middle”, as I like to say. I have no fond attachment for the SBC anymore and would just as soon not be a part of it. I also have no desire to be in the CBF, although I find good fellowship with those of you with whom I have become acquainted. I really think I would feel more comfortable in a non-denomination church, but I still see the value of both the SBC and CBF.

  6. Johnny, what I meant to write a moment ago was Fundamentalism is a tired subject in Baptist life, and I didn’t find anything particularly surprising or insightful about Burleson’s observations.

  7. Danny,

    I think that there are many, like Burleson, who were originally on board with a conservative resurgence (or fundamentalist takeover) who are realizing that the narrowing parameters are eventually going to include them.

    New Perspective theology, narrative theology, and amillenialism have no place now in the SBC. Now the Calvinists are on the chopping block. Burleson is a Calvinist and sees Patterson and the others going after the Calvinists. Soon it will be SBTS vs. SWBTS and the SBC will either split or splatter.

    Burleson, I imagine, does not favor women in the pulpit but has no problem with them as teachers, deacons, missionaries or staff, while others, like Patterson, use the 2000 BF&M as ammunition to rid all of these.

    Now, its the Calvinists.

    It's embarrassing. It's disheartening. And,it's not over.

  8. If one has been ‘scanning’ Burleson’s blog for a couple of years, is there any reason to buy the book?

    While Wade is late to the game, the responses he draws to his blog posts are interesting. There appears to be a cadre of folks eager to do battle and use his blog as their vehicle.

    The total number of hits to his blog, approaching 3.5 million since 1/1/06 is new. While many are by repeat visitors mentioned above, that is still rather amazaing.

  9. I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


    http://www.lyricsdigs.com“ REL=”nofollow”>http://www.lyricsdigs.com

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This