Wade Burleson may be the last Baptist standing on the International Mission Board 
who truly understands the Baptist heritage of allowing (indeed, cherishing) freedom to dissent as well as cooperation.
Fellow trustee Jerry Corbaley is trying his best to topple Burleson from his position on the Southern Baptist Convention's flagship mission agency.
Californian Corbaley, whose personal blog consists mainly of solicited endorsements for a book he's written, recently e-mailed other IMB trustees to call for Burleson's dismissal at the board's Nov. 5-7 meeting, to be held in Springfield, Ill.
In his efforts to incriminate Burleson, Corbaley attached an amorphous collection of documents that amount to 153 pages if printed. He charges Burleson, perhaps the SBC's most popular blogger, with promoting "slander" and "gossip" on his blogs, and characterizes these sins as being so egregious that Burleson should not only be removed from the IMB, but openly shunned, a practice he attributes to 1 Corinthians 5:11 and Titus 3:10.
In a measured response to Corbaley's charges, Burleson details ways in which Corbaley has shunned him, refused to eat at the same table, and hung up when he tried to call.
To support his charges of slander and gossip, Corbaley's attachment begins with a copy of a conveniently timed August 2007 article on slander by SBC Life editor John Revell (SBC Life is the official public relations magazine for the SBC).
In addition, Corbaley includes "A list of comments by God on what he thinks about slander and gossip," a copy of a previous motion (in January 2006) to dismiss Burleson, excerpts from the IMB trustee policies, and a lengthy assortment of blogs, including hundreds of comments posted by others.
Anyone who knows Wade Burleson or who has read his posts understands that he is willing to say what he thinks and to stand up for those who have been mistreated (like Sheri Klouda, a Hebrew professor fired by Paige Patterson for being a woman in a man's world). Burleson is bold, but always in a kind and gentle-spirited way, and with enough humility to admit that he might sometimes be wrong. It is true that some of the comments posted to his blog have a meaner streak, but those cannot be attributed to Burleson.
Burleson dares to say he believes the SBC has gone far enough in narrowing doctrinal parameters for cooperation and service, and has stood against the efforts of Landmarkist and other ultra-right trustees who would disqualify potential missionaries who weren't baptized in an acceptable church or who utilize a "private prayer language" in private prayer.
Corbaley's efforts to remove Burleson are an obvious symptom of what's wrong with the more radical elements of the so-called "conservative resurgence."
Here's hoping that the IMB trustees will recognize Corbaley's tome (and tone) of intolerance for what it is, and stand with the one who understands what it means to be Baptist. If they remove anyone from the board, it should be the one who has already cut himself off from his brother.
30 comments:
Tony,
You said,
"Wade Burleson may be the last Baptist standing on the International Mission Board who truly understands the Baptist heritage of allowing (indeed, cherishing) freedom to dissent as well as cooperation."
The freedom to dissent inherently involves the freedom to separate and the freedom of association as well as dis-association.
Our English Baptist forefathers were known as dissenters, not because they tried to maintain a dissenting position within the Anglican church, but because they dissented and separated from a church they considered to be anti-Christian and evil. Those same Baptists, while never compelling anyone to join their ranks, maintained a discipline of doctrine and morality among themselves that would send a so called "moderate" modern day Baptist into a hysterical fit.
The true Baptist heritage of freedom is the right of every man to believe and practice his own religious ideas without coercion from the state. That means that if Mr. Burleson wants to be a Pentecostal he has the perfect right to be one and no real Baptist on earth would try to stop him.
It does not mean that a man has the right to be a Pentecostal - or modernist, or feminist or homosexual advocate or whatever else - and remain a member in good standing of a Baptist church or participant in Baptist institutions.
That evil concept of liberty is born of the ungodly whoredoms between Baptists and the modernist religion, and the insatiable desire of modernists and other heretics for Baptist money. It is the very thing against which Peter warned when he said,
"While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption."
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Mark,
"...the insatiable desire of modernists and other heretics..."
I have always been of the hope that the umbrella of Christianity, as well as that of Baptists, is wide enough to cover all types of people. Even those with some dissenting views. The type of rhetoric that you are voicing makes it sound more like an exclusive club than a group welcomed with grace.
I understand your point that people and groups have the right to associate, or disassociate, with whomever they choose. My concern, however, is when some hierarchy within the Baptist group starts to get rid of their own because of dissent on a few choice topics. It seems like a path that can easily lead to everyone pointing fingers and trying to oust each other because they disagree on any number of topics. Would it not be more productive to discuss and understand the dissent, and then carry on with the ministry?
But perhaps ministry is not the main driver here. You post makes it seem that you are more protective of your money than anything else.
Perhaps you could help me understand if it is ever OK to dissent and who decides which issues those can be on?
John P.,
You said,
"You post makes it seem that you are more protective of your money than anything else."
Not being a Southern Baptist, I have no interest in Southern Baptist money one way or another. The way I give my money - directly to the causes of my own choosing - I don't have any worries along that line. My only interest in the issue is as a matter of principle.
That aside, would you say that Peter sounded like his chief concern was his money when he said of the false prophets,
"And with covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you"?
Or Jude when he said they,
"ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward"?
You said,
"Perhaps you could help me understand if it is ever OK to dissent and who decides which issues those can be on?"
It is always OK - even obligatory - to dissent and each man decides for himself on which issues he must dissent. But when a man decides to dissent he must bear the consequences of dissent.
When there is dissent within an institution, those with the most power in the institution get to decide who is tolerated and who isn't. That is just how things work.
No true hearted man would want to remain part of an institution which was inimical to his own principles. No institution worthy of respect would tolerate within its constituency those advocating principles subversive of its own.
I do not know Mr. Corbaley and therefore cannot know his motivation for opposing Mr. Burleson. Assuming that his opposition is born out of a true desire to protect the Southern Baptist churches from the leaven of Pentecostalism, feminism and liberalism, then I bid him God speed.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Three things about Wade Burleson; maybe Four.
Kinda has the ring of a verse from Proverbs doesn't it.
But I digress, already
1) Dan Vestal has known Wade since Wade was about five years old, as I understand it
2) Wade is reading Mark Noll, a good thing. I am convinced that to the chagrin of the ghost of WA Criswell, that once a believer starts reading Noll, the die is cast and it want be long until he begins singing in another choir; some choir Al Mohler and Paige Patterson is not directing; and that also is a good thing. Maybe Wade's next book will be GArry Wills American Christianities.
3) I believe in my heart such SBC conservatives as the children of Truett Cathy as well as Harry Dent's daughter Ginny are capable of reading Noll as well and becoming deeper river Baptists. They may never join the CBF, but I don't think they are comfortable foot soldiers of Paige Pat and Ronnie Floyd; nor Corbaley
Ginny has signed the Memphis Declaration with Ben Cole and Burleson and she was a 90's IMB trustee about the time Truett's son in law was a VP.
If they have publicly endorsed the SBC break with the BWA, that is news to me. In matters like this Inquistion of Wade, I think the world deserves to know where Brant and the Cathy's are on this matter.
and 4)
I forgot; maybe it was pray without ceasing.
Sfox
Tony,
I'm interested in the comment made by one who said 'no Institution worthy of respect would tolerate principles subversive to it's own' and 'I'm sure he has a true desire to protect Southern Baptist Churches from leaven.'
I'm of the long held opinion that the call/command we as believers have is to protect/maintain the unity of the Spirit not agreement on every issue of doctrine. I've also long held that the important reality is that we are NOT an Institution but an Organism with only one Head, the Lord Jesus.
If I understand Paul the Apostle correctly our ground of unity is the person and work of Christ and his Cross and the implications there-in, salvation, not secondary issues that even the Apostles found hard to understand. [As Peter said of Paul]
I'm grateful for the ability to relate locally with those who have major agreements as we Baptists do but even have encouraged my staff through 40 years of pastoring to share their unique understanding [and we had diverse views often] of issues like spiritual gifts, divorce and remarriage, women in ministry, and other things not all that clear in the text of scripture, always knowing I, as lead pastor, had my view, and as a church, we would agree on a local body position we would all work under even if it were a bit different than our personal one. Thus open or closed communion could be disagreed upon but whatever our local fellowship chose to embrace was our official, for the moment, until we got greater light, position. That has for fifty years been my understanding of Baptist life. I miss it. :)
Thanks for your post.
Mr. Burleson,
You said,
"I'm interested in the comment made by one who said 'no Institution worthy of respect would tolerate principles subversive to it's own' and 'I'm sure he has a true desire to protect Southern Baptist Churches from leaven.'"
I'm the one who you misquoted here. I did not say,
"I'm sure he has a true desire to protect Southern Baptist Churches from leaven."
What I actually said was,
"I do not know Mr. Corbaley and therefore cannot know his motivation for opposing Mr. Burleson. Assuming that his opposition is born out of a true desire to protect the Southern Baptist churches from the leaven of Pentecostalism, feminism and liberalism, then I bid him God speed."
As for the rest of your comments, the unity of the Spirit is a unity of doctrinal truth as dictated by the Holy Spirit.
No man has the right to attribute ridiculous and unscriptural things (such as the farce known as "speaking in tongues" practiced by modern day Charistmatics) to the Holy Spirit and then demand to be tolerated by those who know such things to be bogus.
Salvational issues are not the only issues addressed in the Bible. The ones you mention (spiritual gifts, women in the ministry and divorce and remarriage) are addressed with crystal clarity in the Scriptures. The disunity on these issues arises from those who believe and practice contrary to what the Bible says.
Ironically, when Paul wrote first Corinthians he did so with the express intention of correcting the disunity in that body, and spiritual gifts, feminism, and divorce and remarriage were among the very issues he addressed!
You said,
"I've also long held that the important reality is that we are NOT an Institution but an Organism with only one Head, the Lord Jesus."
The church IS an institution which has a responsibility to maintain doctrinal and moral unity. That does not require absolute mental agreement on every issue. It does require that those who are weak in the faith not be allowed to advocate doctrines contrary to and subversive of the word of God.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Paul: "... we are NOT an Institution but an Organism ...."
Mark: The church IS an institution ... which has ... those who are weak in the faith ... not ... allowed to advocate doctrines contrary ....
Norm: What it is and how it might best be is experienced and thought differently by Christians; sometimes those considerd weak actually have a more healthy view than those considered the pillars of faith. The church is an entity with beliefs and practices that have a rich history/tradition (institution), but said beliefs and practices evolve as we are further enlightened of God and creaturely need by God's Spirit by living as followers of Christ in loving community (organism).
Mark,
I did see that you said you couldn't know his motive which I appreciated. I greatly appreciate one who leaves the knowledge of the heart To God. Many don't today.
Actually, I purposefully did NOT use quotation marks as I was not giving an exact quote. I used the marks that generally refer to a close summary of a statement.
That said, I don't think my summary about your statement of his seeking to protect churches was as good as it could have been, but I WAS speaking of your assumption concerning him and not giving an exact quote. Certainly not that you knew his motive.
Also, while Paul did have to address the problems of women, tongues, etc, it was NOT because the Corinthian Ekklesia was disagreeing over spripture but rather that they were bringing the Corinthian culture into the Church AND arguing whose baptism was right because of which man did it, Paul, Apollos, or Peter. Hence, Paul was glad that he baptized only a few. Their drunkenness and tongues problems were a carry over of the mystery religions out of which they had been delivered.
We are addressing disagreements over meaning of scripture about tongues, women, divorce, etc, not whether scripture is what gives guidance to behavior instead of culture. I believe what I believe about each of those issues BECAUSE I believe I see it in the text. But my, your, anyone's interpretation may be lacking at some point and that's why the reference to what Peter said about what Paul gave as Truth being sometimes hard to undestand.
I do maintain that it is NOT the agreement on lesser [non-salvific] doctrines that is the basis of our Spirit unity but anyone truly calling Jesus Lord [in a salvific manner] is my brother/sister with whom I may disagree with respect.
No command to love, forgive, accept, or to be in unity is given in scripture to anyone BECAUSE they have it all together doctrinally or have joined a certain local church/denomination but because they are part of the Body/Ekklesia [singular] of Christ. When one was confronted over doctrine or behavior that was unscriptural and refused to repent, they were viewed as ones who were not "of us." It is the work of Grace in Christ that unites us and repentence over failure in any fashion, when confronted by the local Ekklesia is what evidences that Grace, not agreement on minors.
Mark,Thank you for a delightful time of discussion.
Tony,
I'm new to your site and have certainly spoken too much, but, thank you for the forum.
No problem, Paul. Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments on a really important issue.
For what it's worth, while the church certainly has characteristics both of an organism and an institution, I think it comes closest to Christ's intent when it lives and works as a family.
I have read the novel and while I do not agree with all it contains, there is but one solution. For the good of the SBC and the IMB, Mr. Burleson needs to resign immediately. He has caused division and dissention since he came on board. The trustees are ready to remove him and have much more evidence than they are revealing at this point. They do not wish to go public with it. To save attacks and further division, please for SB sake, resign now.
Anonymous: Thou knowest not what thou speak of.
Tony: Thank you for this post.
Tony,
Thank you for your kind words. I wish everyone to know I wish I were a larger chip of my father's shoulder because I would have a little more wisdom, grace and patience than I do.
Debbie, once again, I appreciate the love you have for your pastor, your tenacity in coming to my defense, etc . . . However, let me again remind you of what I've told you over the last couple of years -Anonymous threats are as weak in content and singular veracity as the soul of the one who writes them is void of character and spiritual vitality.
:)
I know, you may have to tell me for another year. :) It escaped me when I read the comment.
I think this is just about one of the most interesting discussions I have ever read in my life. And ironically, one of the most typically Baptist, in a positive sense.
Mark Osgatharp said, "It does not mean that a man has the right to be a Pentecostal - or modernist, or feminist or homosexual advocate or whatever else - and remain a member in good standing of a Baptist church or participant in Baptist institutions.That evil concept of liberty is born of the ungodly whoredoms between Baptists and the modernist religion, and the insatiable desire of modernists and other heretics for Baptist money. It is the very thing against which Peter warned when he said,"While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption."
I must confess, I am completely lost here. I do not get what point you are trying to make, or what it has to do with the passage you partially quote, out of context, from Peter.
Foxofbama said, "1) Dan Vestal has known Wade since Wade was about five years old, as I understand it
2) Wade is reading Mark Noll, a good thing. I am convinced that to the chagrin of the ghost of WA Criswell, that once a believer starts reading Noll, the die is cast and it want be long until he begins singing in another choir; some choir Al Mohler and Paige Patterson is not directing; and that also is a good thing. Maybe Wade's next book will be GArry Wills American Christianities.
3) I believe in my heart such SBC conservatives as the children of Truett Cathy as well as Harry Dent's daughter Ginny are capable of reading Noll as well and becoming deeper river Baptists. They may never join the CBF, but I don't think they are comfortable foot soldiers of Paige Pat and Ronnie Floyd; nor Corbaley
Ginny has signed the Memphis Declaration with Ben Cole and Burleson and she was a 90's IMB trustee about the time Truett's son in law was a VP.
If they have publicly endorsed the SBC break with the BWA, that is news to me. In matters like this Inquistion of Wade, I think the world deserves to know where Brant and the Cathy's are on this matter.
and 4)
I forgot; maybe it was pray without ceasing.
And at this point, I am totally and completely lost.
Then there is an anonymous comment, "The trustees are ready to remove him and have much more evidence than they are revealing at this point. They do not wish to go public with it.
Now I feel a little better. As a lifelong Southern Baptist, I have observed a lot of inuendo, secrecy, and doing things behind people's backs. Ah, there's such comfort and familiarity in those tactics. "The trustees...have much more evidence than they are willing to reveal at this point" really means "I don't know what the heck I am talking about but I want to make this sound like I do." That, I understand.
Paul Burleson said, "If I understand Paul the Apostle correctly our ground of unity is the person and work of Christ and his Cross and the implications there-in, salvation, not secondary issues that even the Apostles found hard to understand. [As Peter said of Paul].
I think you understand the Apostle Paul perfectly.
Tony Cartledge said, "For what it's worth, while the church certainly has characteristics both of an organism and an institution, I think it comes closest to Christ's intent when it lives and works as a family.
If feuding, fighting, smacking each other down, making accusations and out and out elitist exclusivism are signs of a close family, we Baptists are in good shape, Tony.
Dang it, I'd written this lovely comment and then Blogger erased it because my wife's Gmail account was still logged in. Yurk.
This is indeed an interesting post followed by intriguing if sometimes opalescent commentary and discussion. But however close to opaque we may get, at least all posters so far (even foxofbama) have exhibited more concision and focus on their diverse points than did Mr. Corbaley in the pantagrueling "novel" (an apt choice of words by Anonymous, though perhaps "anthology" is closer to the truth; if a novel, it shares some of Tristram Shandy's worst points) that I read yesterday via Wade Burleson's blog. As a member of a 12-Step fellowship, I must say that in other respects this Anonymous is not a great credit to our race.
It's good to see Mark Osgatharp posting here, and in such fine fettle. "Moz" is the only pastor who has ever told me—this was while I was contemplating a swing through Arkansas a few years ago—that, if I were to visit his church, I would not be welcome, and that if he knew I was there he would ask me to leave. ;-) I look forward to meeting him, one side of Jordan or the other, reconciled in Christ. (Probably the other side, if reconciliation is postulated.)
It'll be interesting to see what sort of additional dirt Anonymous's skullduggerous buddies have unearthed to throw at Wade Burleson. Mr. Burleson is not, incidentally, a proponent or practitioner of ecclesial glossalalia; nor is he what I would call a feminist (his position as I understand it is that women have as much right to have their contractual rights honored as men have, a stance that I think most Landmarkers would approve, at least in the abstract—for that matter I don't think Dr. Klouda is what I would call a feminist, though she may be closer to it now than she was before Paige got into the act); nor is he as far as I know any sort of "homosexual advocate". He is, I am told, a Calvinist, which is another class of being that I've seen Moz froth at the keyboard over. Perhaps they have found documentation suggesting that Wade is a closet Jesuit, or that he shot the Czar's family, or...
If the "additional evidence" against Mr. Burleson the younger is of the same caliber of buckshot as Mr. Corbaley's odd email attachment, then it will not be necessary to slander the IMB if they defrock Burleson: they shall have done all the work of making themselves a laughingstock themselves. What I suggested on another forum about Mr. Corbaley will then apply to the whole Board: "Corbaley … should start his own denomination where allowing comments on your blog takes the place of drinking and dancing in the no-no book."
Leland Bryant Ross aka Ros' Haruo
Seattle
Thanks to all for the (mostly) helpful comments, and particularly to Leland Bryant Ross for sending me to the dictionary: his reference to Corbaley's "pantagrueling 'novel'" had me scratching my head.
But, I figure vocabulary-building is a good thing. For the sake of any other mystified readers, Pantagruel was the very large son of Gargantua in two novels by Rebelais (Pantagruel and Gargantua). If they don't sound familiar, it's because they were written in 1532 and 1534, respectively. It's been a while since they were on the best-seller list.
In any case, with reference to Pantagruel's gigantic size, one can describe something of large size as "Pantagruelian." Thus, "Johnny got sick after eating that Pantagruelian cheeseburger from Hardee's," or "The overbearing official's Pantagruelian ego could prove to be his downfall."
You never know what you might learn on a Baptist forum.
Well, you know, presuppositions, and the lateness of the hour, sometimes leave you scratching your head and wondering what happened. I was having trouble figuring out what Mark Osgatharp said, and in trying to figure out how it fit in with a Baptists Today blog that is written from a decidedly moderate Baptist perspective.
This morning, it dawned on me from a couple of things that Mark said. It kind of threw me when he proudly declared that he was NOT a "Southern" Baptist. In the context of Baptists Today, when people do that, they mean they've moved to the left. Then I realized, from the rest of what he wrote, that he is a geniune, dyed in the wool, card carying Landmarker. And so, while I am still fascinated by what his path might have been to wind up over here, I now have a much better idea of what he is saying. I disagree with it, but I understand it.
I still don't understand Foxofbama.
And I realize how rude I was in not actually commenting on the substance of this thread, or in expressing wholehearted agreement with Tony's conclusion. Titus 3:10 may apply, but the divisive person in this case is obviously Corbaley, and not Burleson.
Mark Osgatharp is (or was when I was in more frequent contact with him several years ago) a pastor in the ABA; the American Baptist Association is a grouping of Landmark-Missionary Baptist churches that broke away from the SBC ca. 1905 because of the latter's intolerable liberalism and modernism. And Mark is on the hard end of that group; I've seen him roundly excoriated by fellow Landmarkers for his lack of inclination to fellowship with those who differ with him, so the fact that he would object to my attending his church comes as no surprise, I being what he calls a "homosexual advocate" (AWAB member) from the "apostate" ABCUSA; ABA folks have a special reason to dislike ABCUSA, since we call ourselves "American Baptists", to which moniker they had prior claim by several decades. Mark, and perhaps the ABA in general, also strenuously objects to the racism once endemic, and still encountered, among SBCers. (I'm not sure if the ABA was so relatively "liberal" and "modernist" on this point in 1905...)
Haruo
My apologies for the off-topicality of the preceding. But if it adds to the education of Baptists, it can't be all bad.
All this left and right talk... let us not forget that there are tons of places one can be in the middle... including middleish-right.... middleish-left. Defining one's beliefs is no black/white, right/left issue.
Finally, something I can argue with, er, discuss. :-)
While this thread has been slightly entertaining up to this point, now something has been said that I can certainly debate.
"Tons of places where one can be in the middle?" I think not. Christ said you are either for Me or against Me. Why not apply that logic to the rest of your life? I do.
I have heard it said there is a "special place in hell" for those who ride the fence, who won't take a side.
Making more than two sides, which is what I see us as having done, is not proper IMHO. Baptists, more than any other denomination have a habit of getting together with some of their church members and taking off and starting their own church when it suits them. Just look at the plethora of Baptists. It's disgusting. It is not unity under Christ.
Life certainly has become more complicated, but that was because we made it that way. Instead, we should be striving to simplify life.
Now how to do that is beyond my meager understanding. Seems not just us Baptists but also every other group of religions, professionals, you name it, any group you can cite has its own problems not unlike our own.
Just admit it, we are living in Satan's world and as such, we are in this world but we are not of it my brethren. Praise God for the day when Jesus returns.
Thanks for this opportunity to speak on this thread. I didn't expect to.
Wow, I was not expecting that kind of response. I was not referring to whether we are against or with Christ. There are lots of different types of people that are "with" Christ- conservative, moderate, liberal. That is what I was referring to.
I am not interested in arguing about this and I dont think anyone can claim to have the correct answer on this, but I personally believe that while there are some black and white issues, most issues of faith are very gray. That does not mean that I do not love, trust or have faith in God/Christ.
Also, I am a female and there have been other females that have posted on this blog and read this blog, so I would appreciate not being referred to as brethren. Thanks.
Paul,
You said,
"Also, while Paul did have to address the problems of women, tongues, etc, it was NOT because the Corinthian Ekklesia was disagreeing over scripture but rather that they were bringing the Corinthian culture into the Church...."
And the problems of women and tongues among Southern Baptists today is because some among them have embraced feminism and a practice of "tongues" that is foreign to the Scriptures, bogus, and would be laughable were it not so defamatory of the Holy Spirit.
Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Starduster (greetings, btw! parenthetical numbers refer to my comments, infra) wrote: (1) Christ said you are either for Me or against Me. Why not apply that logic to the rest of your life? I do.
…
(2) Making more than two sides, which is what I see us as having done, is not proper IMHO. (3) Baptists, more than any other denomination have a habit of getting together with some of their church members and taking off and starting their own church when it suits them.
(1) It seems to me that the logion you allude to (in Matthew 12 and Luke 11) "whoever is not with me is against me" has to be read in the light of the story in Mark 9 and Luke 9 where Jesus says "whoever is not against us is on our side". Perhaps a little more light cast on how you interpret these words, and how you apply them to your life, might be helpful here.
(2) The God who created polarity also created the spectrum. All of its colors are of God.
3) The problem that Mr. Burleson is striving against, however, is not the age-old Baptist propensity to schism, but the recent SBC proclivity for pressuring people to leave.
Leland Bryant Ross
Seattle
First, please accept my apology, ashley stephenson. My comment about brethren was made without the slightest thought of gender. Please realize I meant not to extricate you from this discussion. It's kinda like the way I use the word "guys" to mean either males or females. That is something I picked up living in California in the seventies.
I know that is not an excuse. It is a reason (cause), though, for the unwanted effect.
We know some causes, while God knows them all.
Thank you Haruo for getting me back to the Bible reading in Luke and Mark. After reading those Chapters, referencing the words I tried to quote from Jesus, I see I was not reading it right. You set me straight.
As is usually the case, something Jesus said when correctly remembered, makes perfect sense. Change one word though, and you can eliminate any teaching from His words as He meant them.
Funny how a little twisting of words can affect the whole outcome of a statement. I want to believe what I said was true, but I am forced (which is a good thing) to clear my eyes and read what was actually said.
This of course is just true a little. What was actually said can only be known if one is able to read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Then one can be sure he is reading what was said and not what some translator thinks Jesus said.
Tony,
Your comment about the "solicited endorsements" on the blog site for Jerry's book concerns me. I work for a USA Today best selling author who gets blurbs for his books through an exchange of $500 bottles of wine for a positive blurb. Many published authors do that. They don't read each other's books, but they "blurb" them.
However, that is not what happened with Jerry's book and the endorsements. These men of God read the book in its entirety, as far as we know, and freely gave the endorsement. Yes, it was solicited in that Jerry gave them a copy of the unpublished manuscript and asked them to read it and give him feedback. He was surprised and pleased at the comments they made and decided to include them in the book. Who wouldn't? The way you phrase it implies the endorsers are liars who blurbed the book in an unethical manner.
I ask that you would read the endorsements and reconsider your implied accusation. You may do so at http://corbaley.blogspot.com/
Please do not drag their good names into this fray of gossip and slander.
I do not believe that was your intention, so I would ask you to rephrase the sentence leaving out the implied accusation.
Jerry had another blog which has been deleted. The remaining blog has always been an information site for his book.
Thank you,
Lynn Corbaley
Lynn,
Thanks for your note. I had no intention of implying that there is anything shady or unethical about soliciting endorsements for a book -- it's a standard thing to do. My publisher solicits others to write blurbs for my books.
I leave it to the publisher, however, to publicize the book, and don't post promotional endorsements on my blogsite.
Usually, when I put a link to someone's name in a blog, it's to give the reader an opportunity to go there and learn a little more about the person. From Jerry's blogsite, however, you learn only what some of his friends or colleagues think of his book. My comment was intended only to alert readers that they could learn about his book at his blog, but not much about him.
Thanks for reading, and best wishes,
Tony Cartledge
Post a Comment