Did Wade Burleson Really Say That?
“Pastor” Wade Burleson is at it again. As a follower of one of the forefathers of New Calvinism, Jon Zens, he continues to sell himself as a kinder, gentler Calvinist heretic. However, at times, he has a slip of the tongue that reveals what is really in his Calvinist black heart. His latest snafu is a Calvinist classic–not sure how you get a 5-part series out of that, but Unreforming Theology .com managed somehow. A disclaimer: I am writing a book right now and do not have time to vet these articles. Nevertheless, someone should have a say about what he said, and my friend at UT .com seems to be the only one speaking up. Here is part one, the other 4 can be found onsite.
WadeWatch Continues to Foster Burleson Nonsense
“Deb and Dee, that cold one is for you. That’s what you promote when you give credence to the likes of Wade Burleson.”
I believe Deb and Dee over at WadeWatch are Southern Baptists. As a Southern Baptist myself, I take great comfort in knowing that we are too doctrinally dumbed down to be completely take over by the New Calvinist movement. Wade Burleson, a kinder, gentler New Calvinist like Joseph Prince, may not be as much of a threat as I once feared in that venue.
The thing that drives me batty about Burleson is his make it up as you go theology. This ministry has already called him out on forming a theology based on a post-biblical Greek word. He shortly thereafter changed the subtitle on his blog that was the focus of our criticism. His former subtitle was a lame attempt to make a case for Redemptive Historical hermeneutics which is not just a mode of biblical interpretation, but Martin Luther’s epistemology for interpreting reality itself. Luther rejected the idea that reality is interpreted grammatically, but rather through redemption. This leads to a Gnostic indifference to human suffering and a devaluing of a sense of justice. Though Burleson’s behavior is un-Neo-Calvinist like, he shares their ideology.
Apparently, to the orgasmic delight of WadeWatch, Burleson actually posts comments on that blog from time to time and I was sent a particular one the other day. In regard to the usual burloney, it did not disappoint:
God makes His love for us so captivating, so alluring, so charming, so dazzling, so enthralling, so mesmerizing, so spellbinding (gospel comes from “good spell”), so magnetizing, so enrapturing, so gripping, so compelling, so hypnotizing, and so absolutely “sweep me off my feet” enamoring that I cannot, I must not, and I will not refuse, though I have the power to do so.
Where to start? Burleson makes salvation some road to Damascus event instead of a belief in the simple facts of the gospel. His kinship to the despicable John Piper is seen here in that Piper teaches that one is not saved unless he/she experiences Christ as an immense “treasure chest of joy.” I once knew a young man that I witnessed to who was being counseled by a certified NANC counselor who held to this view. This young man was living in the very bottom of human depravity. I later heard that he prayed on his knees for hours, begging God to save him while waiting on some ultra-joy experience. Deb and Dee, that cold one is for you. That’s what you promote when you give credence to the likes of Wade Burleson.
Much could be discussed in regard to this excerpt, the excellent points made by the reader notwithstanding, but I tend to have a special hankering for Burleson in regard to his make it up as you go theology. In this case, the idea that the “gospel” carries the idea of being put under a spell. Really? Am I here right now? Somebody google, “Gospel, Burleson, Cupid” and see if we get lucky.
The fact that Burleson would assign “gospel” a meaning from the spelling of the word long after the Bible was written, and on top of that not even the meaning of it at the time it was spelled that way to make a point speaks for itself. This is the same type of shenanigans that we have called him out on before. Here is the citation from Online Etymology Dictionary:
gospel (n.)
Old English godspel “gospel, glad tidings announced by Jesus; one of the four gospels,” from god “good” (see good) + spel “story, message” (see spell (n.)); translation of Latin bona adnuntiatio, itself a translation of Greek euangelion “reward for bringing good news.”
The first element of the Old English word had a long “o,” but it shifted under mistaken association with God. The word passed early from English to continental Germanic languages in forms that clearly indicate the first element had shifted to “God,” e.g. Old Saxon godspell, Old High German gotspell, Old Norse goðspiall. Used of anything as true as the Gospel from mid-13c. Gospel-gossip was Addison’s word (“Spectator,” 1711) for “one who is always talking of sermons, texts, etc.”
The first element of the Old English word had a long “o,” but it shifted under mistaken association with God. The word passed early from English to continental Germanic languages in forms that clearly indicate the first element had shifted to “God,” e.g. Old Saxon godspell, Old High German gotspell, Old Norse goðspiall. Used of anything as true as the Gospel from mid-13c. Gospel-gossip was Addison’s word (“Spectator,” 1711) for “one who is always talking of sermons, texts, etc.”
“Spel,” even when it was spelled that way long after the Bible was written, meant “story” or a “message,” not like a magic spell of some sort. Good grief. Now, true, I allow the Burlesons of the world to comment on PPT, but that’s for comparison and contrast, not endorsement.
And this is a great Segway into my idea for Deb and Dee. They could get rid of Burleson over time and not lose credibility. See, I don’t dislike them at all, just trying to help here. All they have to do is start disagreeing with him here and there when he comments on WadeWatch. Everybody disagrees with each other from time to time, right? So, they could ratchet this up slowly over time. They could eventually start treating him like Alex Guggenheim.
paul
The SGM Spiritual Abuse Holocaust: Wade Burleson is Not a Solution; He’s the Problem
“Really? Is that where we are? While our ravaged Christian children languish away in mental hell the big dare from another pastor is to say that I don’t like CJ Mahaney? Is that how pathetic we are?”
I really don’t have time to write this as I am preparing for a conference, but on the other hand I am both fuming and fed-up. “Trigger alert”? Oh this is way past that, hide the children.
Regarding the recent revision of the Catholicesque class action lawsuit against the New Calvinist organization Sovereign Grace Ministries, “holocaust” is not terminology that is out of line. If you have read the revision, I am sure you agree that the number of fatalities pale, but the shear degree of evil, even if half of the accusations are true, is comparable.
During WWII, a lone German pastor left the protection and comfort of his American mission and returned to the belly of the beast to cry out against the Holocaust. For his outcry, he was hung naked with piano wire. The New Calvinist beasts among us criticize Bonheoffer for being “unorthodox” and plotting against the German government while extolling Christopher Love as a godly martyr. Love was a Puritan who meddled in petty European power struggles between kings and was executed for it. Genocide was hardly the issue.
Like the vast majority of clergy during WWII, the American clergy rants ambiguously against the sin, but stands silent against the sinner. The apostle Paul rebuked Peter publically for eating sandwiches in hypocrisy, and commanded that elders who sin should be rebuked publically so that others would fear. Such rebukes in the midst of sin that the heathen will not even tolerate are nowhere to be found on the contemporary evangelical landscape. American pastors are the epitome of coldhearted indifference, hypocrisy, and lust for acceptance in the good ole boys club. They dream of invitations to the big conferences and the approval of those who best teach how to drink orthodox Kool-Aid intravenously. There are no words for the degree of contempt and disgust that I have for these pathetic cowards. Where is the outrage?
Though what I experienced pales in comparison to the SGM victims, I can speak to why victims wait so long to come forward. When things that don’t make any sense happen in an environment of trust, confusion waits for clarity before action. The confused rarely act, and the brainwashed rarely react at all. My responses are now in full gear—seven years later. Seven years. And in relative terms, I “only” lost all of my “friends,” my name, and half of my family.
But back to the hypocrites. Steve Camp, who once wrote a song about feeling the pain of others, even to the degree of tasting the salt in their tears, tweeted to me that the SGM scandal was a “local church” issue and shouldn’t be public. This also apes SGM’s defense; it’s not the world’s business. That was followed up by, “Do you not like him [CJ Mahaney]? I do.” Really? Is that where we are? While our ravaged Christian children languish away in mental hell the big dare from another pastor is to say that I don’t like CJ Mahaney? Is that how pathetic we are? And one of the most popular Christian musicians of our time boasts that he likes a friend of pedophiles? “But Paul, there is no verdict yet.” Yes there is. If Steve Camp likes CJ, he obviously believes CJ and has totally disregarded the claims of eleven people against an elder when only two are needed. Otherwise, he would wait to see if he still likes CJ. But he does, like all the other members of the New Calvinist coven.
And the likes of Pastor Wade Burleson only make the situation worse with his half- pregnant overtures. He becomes a cushion between the beasts and the ravaged. Burleson is a New Calvinist, that is bad enough, but he is passing on the opportunity to use his influence to call out these people by name—probably because he is a New Calvinist that sympathizes with those suing New Calvinists.
From time to time, groups of notable evangelicals come together and sign declarations. It’s always big news. I am still waiting for a declaration of zero tolerance for child-rapists in the evangelical church. It could be stopped. Yes indeed, no doubt. How? A declaration by notable pastors declaring that they will not tolerate it. A group of notable pastors walking down an isle on a Sunday morning and demanding that a man get out of the pulpit until certain situations are resolved. Why not? That’s what the apostle Paul did! And we are talking about child rape, not who we avoid at the diner. THIS IS A LEADERSHIP ISSUE.
Pastors are called on by God to strike fear in the hearts of sinning elders. Instead, they cover for them. One notable Southern Baptist pastor once said to a victim demanding justice, “What do you want me to do, shoot him?” Well, in my book, that would be a start, and certainly better than what is presently taking place. But all the victim really wanted is for this pastor to use his influence to protect others from her same fate. Is that too much to ask from these hirelings? Yes. Absolutely.
Wade Burleson has significant influence in evangelical circles, that’s why the Wartburg Watch slobbers all over him continually. He is a hero among spiritual abuse bloggers because he, get this, shows compassion for the spiritually abused. That’s where we are as well: any notable pastor that even shows compassion towards the spiritually abused is a hero! But we don’t need another polished evangelical celebrity in our day full of soothing words; these are times that call for the likes of Dietrich Bonheoffer.
Burleson needs to use his bogus influence to make a difference. He needs to start calling people out by name and calling other pastors to join him. He needs to stop playing both sides of the fence with compassion on one side and silence on the other. It’s not enough to call out the crime; the criminals need to be called out as well. We know he can name names in his own church when the offender is an average Joe, but will he call out the big-name pedophile collaborators? The victims of SGM are suing people and naming names, not just their crimes. As victims, they are courageously facing their abusers in court because pastors wouldn’t step up. Though Burleson is a “hero” for saying they can sue, they wouldn’t need to if he and others would fully exploit their God-given positions for the sake of victims.
If Burleson is going to play the role, he needs to leave it all on the court and stop separating the sin from the sinner. Victims don’t have that convenience if they get justice. And justice is a big part of healing. Stop playing Dietrich Bonheoffer and be Dietrich Bonheoffer who was a real advocate for victims. Victims were the real cause, not the preservation of social status.
paul
Advocate for the Spiritually Abused? Then Wade Burleson Should Denounce Election in Sanctification
“This is because Western culture has never adequately exposed Reformed theology for what it really is. As long as Protestantism clings to the Reformation myth, it will never completely break free from its bondage to anemic sanctification.”
“If Burleson wants to be an advocate for the spiritually abused he should denounce his Reformed gospel of spiritual tyranny. While he may help some people heal from abuse, he will go back to his pulpit and produce twice as many abusers.”
Last night at our evening Bible study we discussed election. Not election for justification (salvation), but election in sanctification (our Christian life). This is the Reformed idea that God sovereignly elects all of our good works in our Christian life in the same way that he elects some to be saved and passes over others. This leaves them to the choice that is inevitable if God doesn’t intervene; man will never choose God on his own. In the same way concerning sanctification, man is still totally depraved, and unless God intervenes will only do works that are filthy rags before God. In salvation, God only changes man’s position, not his nature. Therefore, in sanctification, God imputes His own good works to our life via intervention and leaves us to our own total depravity in the rest. Choice in justification; works in sanctification; God completely sovereign in both.
Though the application of this is somewhat complex, it boils down to the Reformation’s definition of double imputation: Christ’s righteousness was imputed to us positionally by His death, and the perfect obedience He demonstrated in His life is imputed to our sanctification as a way to keep our justification intact until glorification. Hence, to not believe in sanctified sovereignly elected works in our Christian life is paramount to works salvation. “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us.” Sanctification must be a continual revisiting of salvation by faith alone in order to maintain our justification. This is the very heart of Calvinism. Yes, we do something in sanctification: we continually revisit our need for the gospel, and as we do that, the works of Christ are imputed to us by faith alone in sanctification. This is the theses of the Reformation’s magnum opus, Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation to the Augustinian Order, and articulated by John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. This opposes Biblicism which sees double imputation as our sins imputed to Christ and God’s righteousness imputed to us and sanctification being an entirely different consideration.
We discussed how this authentic doctrine of the Reformation has wreaked havoc on the church. When God is seen as completely sovereign in sanctification, ideological conclusions are then drawn from what actually happens in real life. Rape is God’s will, and the perpetrator is seen as one who is acting out expected behavior where God has not intervened. “But for the grace of God, there go I.” We have all said it. No? All of grace in salvation—all of grace in sanctification. The only difference between you and a rapist is grace; therefore, who are you to judge? Even if you are the victim. Luther and Calvin thought righteous indignation a joke, and Calvin called justice, “mere iniquity.” Luther’s theology of the cross deemed suffering as the most valuable asset of the Reformation’s inner-nihilist theology:
He, however, who has emptied himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) through suffering no longer does works but knows that God works and does all things in him. For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him. He neither boasts if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him. He knows that it is sufficient if he suffers and is brought low by the cross in order to be annihilated all the more. It is this that Christ says in John 3:7, »You must be born anew.« To be born anew, one must consequently first die and then be raised up with the Son of Man. To die, I say, means to feel death at hand (Heidelberg Disputation: Theses 24).
Note that this constant seeking after suffering and self-deprivation leads to being “raised up” in the Christian life. This constant seeking after death leads to joyful rebirths when Christ’s obedience is imputed to us. This is the basis of John Piper’s Christian Hedonism which also implements Theses 28 of the Disputation. As you can see, it’s what they call the new birth. The new birth is something that continually reoccurs in salvation when Christ’s obedience is imputed to us.
The indifference towards suffering that this theology breeds cannot be overstated. It is such that Calvin’s beseechment of the Geneva counsel to have a detractor beheaded rather than burned with green wood is a supposed act of compassion that is Reformed folklore. And be absolutely positive of this: the roots of authentic Calvinism are %99.99 responsible for the spiritual tyranny in the contemporary church—especially among New Calvinists.
This is why I have a problem with Pastor Wade Burleson being postured as a spiritual abuse advocate. I realize that he is a well-known pastor and therefore a valuable advocate for a cause, but promoting him as a defender of the spiritually abused separates logic from consequences. It encourages a hypothetical idea that because all Nazis didn’t execute Jews, Nazism doesn’t necessarily lead to the persecution of Jews. Right, not in all cases, but for every person Burleson helps his doctrine will produce twice the indifference and abuse in other people. Many members of the present-day Nazi party are seemingly quality people who could be utilized in good causes, but the possibility is remote because Western culture has been properly educated in regard to Nazi ideology. Such is not the case with Reformed theology. While a Nazi might make a good carpenter you would likely not hire one as an advocate for the Anti-Defamation League. There are Nazis who would do a fine job in that role but the ideology would do more harm than good in the long run.
We also discussed how authentic Calvinism dies a social death from time to time because of the tyranny that it produces and then experiences resurgence paved by the weak sanctification left in its wake. This is because Western culture has never adequately exposed Reformed theology for what it really is. As long as Protestantism clings to the Reformation myth, it will never completely break free from its bondage to anemic sanctification.
Burleson strongly endorses one of the core four individuals who helped found the present-day New Calvinist movement, Jon Zens:
One of my favorite theologians is Jon Zens. Jon edits the quarterly periodical called Searching Together, formerly known as the Baptist Reformation Review. Jon is thoroughly biblical, imminently concerned with the Scriptures …. The best $10.00 you will ever spend is the yearly subscription to Searching Together (http://www.wadeburleson.org/2010/09/searching-together-edited-by-jon-zens.html).
Zens, who has also been known as an advocate for the spiritually abused, was a key contributor to the Reformed think tank that launched present-day New Calvinism (The Australian Forum) of which some Burleson promoters refer to as the “Calvinistas.” It’s not meant as a compliment. But yet, Burleson’s theology is one and the same with them:
Those who have read Grace and Truth to You for any amount of time know that this author is persuaded the Bible teaches that the eternal rewards of Christians are those rewards–and only those rewards–which are earned by Christ. It is Christ’s obedience to the will and law of the Father that obtains for God’s adopted children our inheritance. It is Christ’s perfect obedience which brings to sinners the Father’s enduring favor and guarantees for us our position as co-heirs with Christ (http://www.wadeburleson.org/2011/11/therefore-knowing-terror-of-lord-we.html).
Those who have faith in Christ will never appear at any future judgment of God, or be rewarded for their good behavior. Our sins were judged at the cross, and the behavior for which we are rewarded is Christ’s behavior (Ibid).
Obviously, other than the previous points made, Burleson’s statement proclaiming Zens as “thoroughly biblical” and his outright rejection of 1COR 3:10-15 and 2COR 5:9-10 are troubling to say the least. Burleson also holds strongly to the exact same method of interpretation that makes elected works in sanctification possible among the “Calvinistas.” That would be the Bible as gospel meta narrative approach. It uses the Bible as a tool for gospel contemplationism which results in the works of Christ being imputed to our sanctification when we “make our story His story.” Luther got the concept from Pope Gregory the Great who believed that meditating on Christ’s works in the Scriptures endears us to Him romantically and thus inspires joyful obedience. It’s all the same rotten mysticism propagated today by John Piper and Francis Chan. It’s a mystical (actually Gnostic) approach to the Bible that makes elected works in sanctification possible.
As a cute way of propagating this nonsense, Burleson has named his para-church ministry “Istoria Ministries Blog.” His blog subheading noted that istoria is a Greek word that combines the idea of history and story:
Istoria is a Greek word that can be translated as both story and history. Istoria Ministries, led by Wade and Rachelle Burleson, helps people experience the life transforming power of Jesus Christ so that their story may become part of His story.
This ministry called him out on the fact that the word istoria does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures which led him to change the subheading a couple of days later. He then changed the subheading to a citation (GAL 1:18) that is the only place in the Bible where the word appears. Only thing is, even then, it’s not “istoria,” it’s “historeo”:
g2477. ιστορεω historeo; from a derivative of 1492; to be knowing (learned), i. e. (by implication) to visit for information (interview):— see.
This citation has nothing to do with his original point of naming his ministry as such. It’s simply the only reference he could find that proves that the word is in the Bible. Kinda, as I said, even then the word is not “istoria.” Istoria is a more contemporary Greek word that in fact can be used as “history” or “story.” But the earliest use of the word seems to be circa 1300, and is most prevalent in referring to the “story paintings” of medieval times. It’s just a lame, almost adolescent attempt to argue for this approach to the Bible.
If Burleson wants to be an advocate for the spiritually abused he should denounce his Reformed gospel of spiritual tyranny. While he may help some people heal from abuse, he will go back to his pulpit and produce twice as many abusers.
paul
Bible as Story? Have We Lost our Minds?
Here at the Potter’s House we do family readings. Right now, we are reading through the novel, The Witch of Blackbird Pond by Elizabeth George Speare. The book is what we call a historical novel. These are fictional books that attempt to convey the experience of historical facts. Historical novels attempt to put you into the historical event experientially. So, historical novels aren’t “just facts,” but attempt to enable you to understand how people in said historical event experienced it.
This is done well in Speare’s Blackbird Pond. You feel Kit’s angst as she peruses the Puritan shoreline of America for the first time. She senses the abysmal aura as set against the colorful structures in Barbados. And for anybody who knows Puritan history, Kit’s suspicions that something is culturally array in the new land is truly chilling. You want to say, “Run!” But, of course, it’s just a story. Historical novels “put you in the story.” The counterpart is academic history which focuses on facts and is not concerned with personal experience.
Vestiges of the concept can be found in mythology and Plato’s concept of Genre which Aristotle and others helped him develop. The concept was integrated into biblical hermeneutics circa 180AD. The idea of Bible as historical narrative was eventually dubbed Biblical Theology by Johann Philipp Gabler (circa 1785) and further developed by Geerhardus Vos in the 19th century. It was known as Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics in the Dutch Reformed churches during the 1940’s. In the secular realm the debate rages as to which approach educates more effectively (http://goo.gl/zo7zp).
And here we are today. The propagation of Bible as a history narrative is in Blitzkrieg mode. The Bible is not to be researched grammatically, but is to be approached like a novel; our goal is to enter into the “unfolding drama of God’s redemptive story.” Those are the words that are actually used. With any novel, it is the writer’s burden to draw the reader into the plot; in this case, the Holy Spirit. All that is necessary is to approach the Bible as gospel narrative, and the Holy Spirit will do the rest. In fact, many Reformed teachers assert that the Holy Spirit will not teach unless you are reading your Bible as a gospel narrative:
That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.
I want you to feel the truth and depth and wonder that awaits your lifelong labor of love in pondering the inexhaustible portraits of Jesus given us by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image (Paul Dohse: The Truth About New Calvinism pp. 99, 100).
Recently, I made some observations about Wade Burleson’s blog, Istoria Ministries:
“If the Bible is God’s revelation to man, and it is, be sure that he will also reveal how he wants his word to be interpreted. Fact is, the Bible has built-in rules for interpretation throughout. ANY rules of interpretation for a text must be validated by the Bible itself. So, what about Bible as story or narrative? After an exhaustive study on what the Bible would state about this interpretive model, it begs the question: where is it?”
On that note, let’s start with a blog named “Istoria Ministries” by Reformed teacher/pastor Wade Burleson. The subtitle reads as follows:
Istoria is a Greek word that can be translated as both story and history. Istoria Ministries, led by Wade and Rachelle Burleson, helps people experience the life transforming power of Jesus Christ so that their story may become part of His story.
Burleson is right, it is a Greek word, but is it in the Greek New Testament? After hours of research, I cannot find it anywhere. In fact, Hebrew or Greek canon words that project the English idea of history, narrative, or story are either extremely scarce or nonexistent. The closest idea is the word “parable” which is a story that helps define truth. It’s a teaching tool. But in every case where a parable is implemented as a teaching method, the Bible plainly introduces it as such beforehand. It doesn’t appear that parables in the Bible are meant to be stories that explain the story.”
The next day, Burleson changed the subtitle to the blog as follows:
“I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Greek: istoria) with Cephas.” Paul’s words in Galatians 1:18.
Only thing is, the word is not “istoria,” it is “historeo.” Istoria seems to be a word that, in fact, can be interpreted as story and history both, but is primarily a Greek word of contemporary origin. Not only that, according to Spiros Zodhiates, historeo appears in the Greek New Testament ONCE; specifically, the verse Burleson cites in his revised subtitle. A Strongs number search with Olive Tree software confirms such as well.
We don’t obey novels. We don’t obey narratives. We don’t obey stories. And the Lord wants us to experience what we learn in the Bible by applying it to our lives (James 1:25). Parables in the Bible are teaching tools that aid us in understanding the primary points—a history parable is not the sole interpretive genre that makes the Bible what it is.
You do not build a life on a rock by reading novels—you do it by putting what the Lord teaches into practice (Matthew 7:24). If Christ wanted us to read “these words of mine” as a story why would He have not plainly said so? If we live by the redemption story, why wouldn’t Christ plainly state that instead of, “every word that comes from the mouth of God?” If it’s a story, why would Christ call it “all that I have commanded”?
Have we lost our minds?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment