The Free Flow of Information in Christian Ministry
In the comment section to yesterday's post regarding the resignation of IMB Regional Leader Rodney Hammer, IMB trustee Hershael York wrote the following comment:Hershael York said,
"When are you going to publish Dr. Rankin's letter to you?"
Tue May 06, 11:58:00 PM 2008
I was completely oblivious to the letter to which Dr. York was referring, but assured him that I would be happy for any correspondence between Dr. Rankin and myself to be made public. When I arrived at my office on Wednesday morning, May 07, 2008 after a three day staff retreat, behold, there was a letter from Dr. Rankin on my desk. I read it and immediately called IMB trustee Hershael York at Southern Seminary and asked a question:
"Hershael, how did you know about Dr. Rankin's letter to me when Dr. John Floyd was the only person listed as cc'd on the letter?"
It does not upset me that Hershael York is privy to private correspondence to me, particularly since I believe all ministry of the SBC, including correspondence of trustees should always be available to the SBC public. However, it is ironic to me that some complain there are 'breaches' of confidentiality on SBC blogs, when in reality, blogs simply make available the information that has been held tight and secure by a select few who have been privy to it for decades. I am of the firm conviction that unless safety of missionaries is in question, all information regarding debates, motions, business, and other matters involving SBC ministry should be made public. The free flow of information, transparency and Christian openness should be the norm for Southern Baptists.
Dr. Rankin's letter to me, dated April 25, 2008, was written to call my attention to two comments on my blog, made by someone I do not know, that misrepresented the truth about Dr. Floyd's tenure at the IMB. I had not even read the comments until John Floyd himself called me on April 14th, 2008 and informed me that they were inaccurate representations of the facts. Again, I was unaware of the comments in question until Dr. Floyd called me to ask me about the author who made them. You can read the details of how I handled the matter with Dr. Floyd in my response to Dr. Rankin's letter to me below. What is odd to me is how and why Dr. Rankin would write to me about those comments nearly two weeks after they were deleted? Obviously, someone had to print them, keep them, and show them to Dr. Rankin, and others - well after they were gone. It seems that the motivation for showing them is not the restoration of a reputation, but the denigration of a medium through which the comments were made.
When I called Hershael York yesterday and asked him how he knew about Dr. Rankin's letter to me, I informed him that I would happily comply with his request that I publish Rankin's letter, and I also told him I would also publish my response. I then called Dr. Rankin's office and left a message informing him of Dr. York's request that his letter be made public. To that end, below is Dr. Rankin's letter to me, made known to me by Dr. York before I even received it, and my response.
____________________________________________________
April 25, 2008
Dr. Wade Burleson
2505 W. Owen K Garriott Road
Enid, OK 73703-5224
Dear Wade:
I haven't been following your blog closely since your resignation from the board in January, but it was called to my attention recently when you released the position paper I had written on the personnel policies that was subsequently distributed to the board. I am not writing to comment on that subject and your commentary, as I choose not to engage in this channel of public communication.
Although you are not responsible for the comments others post on your blog, I feel that you should be responsible for correcting inaccurate and slanderous comments that enter the public domain through your site. Therefore, I am writing to correct two erroneous facts.
(1). Dr. John Floyd was not fired as regional leader for Central and Eastern Europe nor was he asked to retire or resign. This was a personal choice of Dr. Floyd when he became eligible for retirement and chose to return to teaching. In fact, I personally tried to persuade Dr. Floyd to continue in his leaderhsip role on the field with the IMB at the time.
(2). It was also mentioned that Dr. Floyd was known to abuse or harass a woman during his tenure on the field. One may not agree with Dr. Floyd's personal position on various issues, but no one could accuse him of anything other than being a person of impeccable character and integrity. There is absolutely no record or awarenes of anyone who knew Dr. Floyd during his tenure on the field of inappropriate actions toward women on the field.
I don't know if you will choose to correct these inaccurate perceptions generated on your blog, but I did feel obligated to write and express my disappointment at these mischaracterizations of someone who served our board faithfully over the years.
Sincerely yours,
Jerry Rankin
cc: Dr. John Floyd
__________________________________________________
Dr. Jerry Rankin
The International Mission Board
3806 Monument Avenue
P.O. Box 6767
Richmond, Virginia 23230-0767
May 7, 2008
Dear Jerry,
As you affirm in your letter to me of April 25, 2008, I keep an open, un-moderated blog where people can comment without my knowledge or my approval. I, too, grieve over any comment that misrepresents the truth. The only thing worse would be official statements to Baptist Press or other news agencies that intentional distort the truth. I was unaware of the two comments you reference in your April 25, 2008 letter that misrepresented the truth about former Trustee Chairman John Floyd's career at the International Mission Board. I was unaware of them until John called me on April 14, 2008. I have hundreds of people who comment on my blog and I have neither the time nor the will to read or respond to every comment. John called desiring information about the author of the two comments. I informed him that not only did not I know the author, I was unaware of the comments. He directed me to where they were located on my blog, and I told him that I would immediately remove them.
He stopped me. He told me not to remove them because his attorney was looking into the comments and when they found out who wrote them they would then address how to correct the matter appropriately. I asked him to clarify what he just said by asking, “Dr. Floyd, are you telling me that the two comments that offend you, that misrepresent the truth, and that are located deep within an un-moderated comment section of this blog should remain so that you can sue the person who wrote them?” I assured him that I was not unfamiliar with public statements about me that were distortions of the truth or outright lies, and because of my own experience, I was sympathetic to his dilemma and would be happy to correct the matter for him immediately. But, I said, I would do as he suggested. After a momentary pause, John said I should delete the comments.
I tell you this because your letter is dated nearly two weeks after my conversation with John and the deletion of those comments. Further, the author of the comments, a Southern Baptist layman, had phone conversations with Dr. Floyd the very day I deleted those comments, and called me to apologize for making them. I told him my concern is that he resolve the matter appropriately with Dr. Floyd. He assured me the matter had been resolved satisfactorily. Again, I am unsure of the reason why you chose to write your letter to me dated April 25, 2008, or why trustee Hershael York requested me on May 6, 2008 that I publish your letter to me, a letter that I did not even know existed until my arrival back in Enid on May 7, 2008 after a three day staff retreat. I can assure you that I believe the desire to protect the reputation of John Floyd is admirable. I am pleased to publish both your letter and my response at Dr. York’s request.
While I find it admirable to protect the reputation of the former trustee chairman, so too, I find it just as admirable when all of us seek to protect the reputation of our missionaries. So, too, it is praiseworthy to come to the defense of people like Regional Leader Rodney Hammer. So, too, it is admirable to fight for those God called young men and women in the Southern Baptist Convention who are disqualified for missionary service because of two doctrinal IMB policies that exceed the BFM 2000 and even, in some minds, the Word of God. So, too, it is worthy to correct any trustee who publicly makes the absurd claim that using the Arabic word for God (Allah) is a sin, and Jehovah or Yahweh should be the Arabic substitute word for God used by our missionaries in Arab lands. So, too, it is praiseworthy to refuse to allow trustees who have never set foot on a foreign land to correct our professional missiologists and their methodologies in reaching unreached people groups with the gospel of Jesus Christ through books they write. So, too, it is an honorable action to ensure that the International Mission Board abide by the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention and implement the Garner Motion. So, too, it is wise to stand up to trustees who are turning the International Mission Board into an agency that silences dissent, demands conformity, and threatens the termination of anyone who dares question trustee or Richmond directives.
I respect you, Dr. Rankin, and appreciate your service to the Southern Baptist Convention. I, like you, desire to do everything I can to protect the reputation of the former Chairman of Trustees, Dr. John Floyd. I am ashamed that someone would misrepresent the truth about this man. Likewise, I am ashamed that our missionaries are subjected to the heavy handed, obstructive policies of a small, but powerful Landmark, cessationist, and very political group of trustee leaders who are harming the work of the International Mission Board. We need a Gospel Resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. We need to restore the freedom of God’s people to dissent over tertiary matters, but to love each other enough in order to cooperate to reach the world for Christ. Since 1992 I have been uninvolved in any political processes of the Southern Baptist Convention. My appoint in 2005 as a trustee to the International Mission Board opened my eyes to the some incredible, negative changes that have occurred at the IMB. As you know, I sought to correct the problem for six months behind closed doors. After being treated in a manner that defies Christian logic, I am sympathetic toward anyone who receives similar treatment, particularly those whose employment and careers are on the line.
I do hope that our communication by letter has given Dr. Floyd and other trustee leaders satisfaction that any misrepresentation of the truth concerning Dr. Floyd's tenure at the IMB has been corrected. I enjoy my fellowship with Dr. Floyd and his lovely wife, and I consider them friends. I do not enjoy, however, his and others’ desire to exclude those from the SBC who do not think, act, talk, believe or practice faith the way they do. His admission to me that the new policies were ‘doctrinal’ in nature, and there was no anecdotal evidence from the field that they were needed, nor was any evidence necessary, is enough for me know that a narrow, ideological group is attempting to direct our convention. I cannot be silent about the efforts of those who are changing our convention before our very eyes, and I commend Dr. York’s desire that this communication be made public. I hope the matter with Dr. Floyd is considered resolved satisfactorily, and I trust the other matters mentioned will also be dealt with in as satisfactory of a manner as that which precipitated your letter.
In His Grace,
Wade
posted by Wade Burleson | Thursday, May 08, 2008
185 Comments:
I truly dont understand some of these people. I am praying for you Wade. This "Young Leader" is nearing the tipping point with the SBC. I love with all my heart the IMB missionaries that I have built realtionships with, but I would much rather go through a different organization or raise my own support than go through the IMB myself. That is really disappointing to me since I have been in a great Southern Baptist Church for 26 years. I am holding on as long as I can, but it is beyond frustrating when people are dying without a chance to hear the Gospel.
Matt in Birmingham, AL
Hold on Matt. I promise you the SBC is changing. The FIVE known Presidential candidates is evidence that things are changing. It takes a little longer for it to filter down to the boards. But it is coming.
Just one tiny point: since (correct me if this is wrong!) people of that part of the world had been calling God "Allah" even before the time of Mohammed, how could our use of "Allah" be anything other than a logical use of a foreign word, like "oui" or "nyet?" We Americans do love to put our stamp on everything, don't we?
We have GOT to make these selfless disciples feel free to serve God to the best of their abilities without having to play games with an administrative missions apparatus that WAS originally put in place to make things easy for them.
Steve,
Interestingly, the same trustee who made the absurd statement about Allah in a public session of the IMB, was recently in the Middle East when he joined hands with a Muslim who had received a formal theological education in Islam, only to be converted to Christ, complete his Christian theological education and is now working with our SBC missionaries to bring the gospel to fellow Muslims. The former Muslim was asked by the trustee to pray in his native Arabic and every other word was 'Allah' during the prayer. The time of prayer was moving for everyone, including the trustee, who commended the Arab for such a wonderful time of intercession. Just shows you the problems that can be created via sterile policy decisions made by pastors and laypeople from FBC's of Southern USA - trustees who have never been overseas. For those trustees to attempt to dictate policy, methodology or tenets of missiology to those serving on the field is ludicrous. It ought to be a requirement that every trustee take at least five missionary trips overseas before he ever speaks at an IMB trustee business or committee meeting.
Are you really Dr. Wade?
I do not recall ever seeing that before. If so, another apology might be in order for the whole Ph.D. biz some time ago. If not, then my comments stand. :)
Wade,
There is an unfortunate consistency between (A) Dr. York knew of the letter from Dr. Rankin before you did, (B) Dr. Rankin's letter to you was well after the occurrence and removal of the comments (and all that means), and (C) Dr. Floyd's initially telling you to leave the "offensive" comments up until his attorney advised him.
If you want to know how far from the Bible such highly-placed people in the SBC have gone (not referring to Dr. Rankin there), you need look no further.
wade,
i'm so glad you're a southern baptist.
K Michael,
No, I am not and have never presented myself as such. I simply duplicated the actual letter.
Wade, funny how the sneaky ones must have also known about this letter before you did.
Look at Wes Kenney’s Blog post
http://weskenney.net/?p=732
and
California Director of Missions and IMB trustee Dr. Jerry Corbaley Blog Post.
http://corbaley.blogspot.com/2008/05/both-sides-of-aisle.html
OK... I'm trying to determine why Dr. Rankin wrote this letter to you Wade. Did someone ask Dr. Rankin to do this? If so, why would anyone drag Dr. Rankin into writing a letter to clarify someone's comment on a blog on the internet? Would this same person feel free to ask any of the other heads of other SBC institutions to do something like this? I'm just confused to why Dr. Rankin is suppose to be the peacemaker here. Couldn't this be handled in another manner?
Another comment about Ms remaining anonymous. Now you all know why... someone was thinking about court action over a comment. Don't you think they would make life a little rough for a M that is in disagreement their policies they put in place? Just a thought.
M with YOUR organization
M with YOUR organization
Wade,
Thank you for promptly removing the false accusations made against Dr. John Floyd on this blog. He is indeed a wonderful Christian gentleman who I believe, like you, tries his best to live and serve by his convictions. Whether his views on PPL and baptism are in agreement with others' or not, he has served faithfully on the mission field for many years and deserves much better, imo. He and his wife have also been a wonderful example of what a godly Christian couple should look like to those of us who have known them for many years. It especially breaks my heart when people who call themselves brothers and sisters would slander a man of God by insinuating that he abused a woman while serving on the mission field.
As you have correctly stated in so many words many times, personal accusations, regardless of who's right or wrong about the issue(s) at hand, have absolutely no place in any forum populated by redeemed men and women. As you know better than most anyone, since you are often the victim of such attacks yourself, such tactics say more about the person who utters them than they do about their intended victim(s).
Thank you for your consistency in loving those who disagree with you -- or even those who show little evidence of loving you back. I am reminded of Romans 5:8. Thank God for His love for the "unlovely" like me!
In brotherly love,
EA IMB M
Wade, thank you for addressing this issue in a dignified and open way. I think you disarm your critics by doing such.
What I want to know is...what did Dr. York hope to accomplish with this? His comment in yesterday's thread came across almost as smug, as if he finally thought he had you...What gives? I really am at a loss to understand, after all the whining these guys did when you were reporting the BOT activities, how Dr. York (and seemingly Corbaley, from his blog) got ahold of such sensitive, personal info that was not intended for them. To me, this just underscores my suspicion that there is a lot of secrecy, networking, and cajoling going on within the BOT. All the more reason for Southern Baptists to begin demanding openness and integrity and an end to the secrecy and politics of a few with power.
Thank you again, for handling this matter.
Well, I thought about it and I think I've answered my own questions. No one asked Dr. Rankin to do it. He just did it because he is a man of integrity. A true leader to follow.
M with YOUR organization
This post has been removed by the author.
Having traveled in these circles before, I would guess that some trustees wanted more redress for Dr. Floyd than simple removal of comments provided.
Normally, a letter like this would be written by a trustee because it is a trustee matter. I suspect that Dr. Rankin was instructed to send the letter to Wade for whatever reason. It may or may not have been written by him. I am sure that he has plenty of work to keep him busy without fighting battles for individual trustees. I seriously doubt that he initiated the idea of sending the letter.
Thanks for handling the matter in a gracious manner, Wade.
Jim Fitch
For a little historical context on how this sort of thing has worked in the past, go to http://www.txbc.org/1997Journals/Oct1997/Oct97LongtimeSouthern.htm and remind yourselves of what happened to the gentle and kind librarian at SBTS Paul Debusman after he wrote a personal letter to an SBC president. There is nothing new under the sun.
who are the five presidential candidates?
Looks like Herscheal York jumped the gun. I guess he did not figure in your 3 day retreat when he posted. He must have known when the letter was mailed and watching the blog to see if you mentioned the letter and when you did not, thought he had you! Isn't he paid too much by the SBC for such things?
Oh the plotting!
Thus the whole mentality of these highly paid, so-called 'Christian' leaders. (by CP dollars?)
They are not used to guys like you who are open communicators. Wouldn't they love to stop the free flow of communication and control it once again for themselves.
But now we know they read the blog religiously. And, once again, plot behind closed doors to try and 'get people'. But to ask you to keep the comments up so he can sue? Oh yes, such fine Christian examples. More worried about their reputations than they are how they treat others. It is ok for them to ruin others but don't dare touch the anointed ones. That is the definition of a Pharisee.
It is funny to see such highly placed men conferring over such matters. It was an opportunity for Christian men to respond in a Christlike manner and the opportunity was lost...once again. And it certainly did not warrant Floyd to have so many involved. I guess that was to scare you and show solidarity against Wade.
But, I agree with you...they have an official mouthpiece with which to ruin people and advance their cause. By the way, how is the BP funded?
I have long thought York to act arrogant, sneaky and mean. Looks like he jumped the gun on this one.
Why Rankin agreed to do Floyd's dirty work for him, I will never understand. This had nothing to do with him. Why the letter AFTER you talked with Floyd. I think we know why.
So, Klouda is sinful for filing a lawsuit? But Floyd NOT for threatening one?
You think they will demand my IP address and try to ruin this single mom in the SBC? I certainly hope you never give up names to them. Even from jerks who post questionable comments. These guys have the choice to respond Christlike and be role models to us all or act like tyrants. They have made the choice. Questionable comments can be deleted and it should have stopped there with your conversation with Floyd. But they were trying to make it much more. I sure would hate to see someone fall into their hands to be ruined.
These guys are ruthless. We have just one more example of their tactics.
They WANT people to fear them.
In order of appearance:
Wiley Drake
Billy Waggner
Frank Cox
Avery Willis
Johnny Hunt
Is it possible and worth the effort to fund our IMB missionaries strictly through the LMCO? Sending less and less to the state side operations portion and the bulk to be used for the missionaries and the field needs to win lost people to Jesus.
I don't want to hurt the missionaries but send a message to the trustees that it is the missionaries who are our heroes, not the law makers.
(Just in case the link I mentioned above doesn't work, here's the article about the 1997 firing of Dr. Debusman after he wrote a personal letter to an SBC president.)
Longtime Southern Seminary librarian fired after challenging SBC leader
By Mark Wingfield
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) — The longtime reference librarian at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was fired Sept. 26, apparently because he wrote a personal letter questioning statements made in a chapel address by Southern Baptist Convention President Tom Elliff.
Paul Debusman, a 35-year employee of the seminary in Louisville, Ky., was 10 months away from retirement. He was given one month’s severance pay and immediately dismissed.
As a result of the “involuntary retirement,” Debusman, 64, will lose some retirement benefits he otherwise would have received.
Seminary President Albert Mohler did not return a phone call seeking comment on the firing. Seminary spokesman David Porter said Mohler would not comment because of the confidential legal nature of personnel matters.
Friends and colleagues of Debusman described him as one of the most “gentle” and “mild-mannered” people they know. “Paul is the kindest man in all the world,” said his pastor, Ron Sisk. Debusman reluctantly spoke about his situation, noting that he still has “a lot of positive feelings for the seminary” and that he’s “not trying to recruit any people” to his side of the firing dispute.
SBC President Elliff, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church of Del City, Okla., spoke in chapel at Southern Sept. 16, as part of the seminary’s Pastor Appreciation Day.
According to seminary-produced news reports, Elliff lauded the changes toward conservatism that have occurred at Southern under Mohler’s administration. Debusman said in that context Elliff suggested he would not have been invited to speak in chapel under previous moderate administrations.
“At least the tone of what I felt he was saying was that in the former days he would not have been invited,” Debusman explained.
That prompted the librarian to write Elliff a personal letter in which he attempted to correct what he perceived as historical inaccuracies in Elliff’s comments. Studying and working at the seminary since the 1950s, Debusman has witnessed the administration of three presidents: Duke McCall, Roy Honeycutt and Mohler.
“I reminded him that [in the past] we had heard SBC presidents and other ranking members of the Southern Baptist Convention,” Debusman said. “Chapel as I remembered it from the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s was a time when we heard everyone. There was a deliberate strategy to bring in different points of view.
” “That’s no longer true,” Debusman said he pointed out to Elliff. Under the Mohler administration, “some people will not be invited,” he explained. “My pastor will not be invited.”
Debusman is a longtime member of Crescent Hill Baptist Church in Louisville, the Baptist church nearest the seminary. In the past, the moderate congregation was closely linked with the seminary. In recent years that relationship has faded, as moderate faculty and students were gradually replaced by conservatives during the 1980s.
“The ironic thing to me is I was attempting to be conciliatory,” Debusman said. “I’m not naive, and I don’t mean to sound Pollyanish. But I closed my letter by saying my heart had been broken since 1979 by the way we had sniped at each other and I would to God that we could unite around the larger mission of sharing the gospel, discipling and equipping believers.”
“Although critical, I was intending to be in my little tiny way some kind of conciliatory spirit and expressing the fact that I’m brokenhearted because we can’t find bigger objectives and unite even through our differences,” he added.
Elliff declined to comment on Debusman’s letter and firing. “This is, apparently, a matter concerning the personnel policies at Southern Seminary. I have no statement to make,” Elliff said in a faxed response to an interview request.
However, Debusman said it was obvious to him that Elliff had communicated with the seminary. Debusman did not receive a personal reply from Elliff until the Monday after he was fired.
Debusman said seminary administrators told him his actions had been “harmful” to the seminary.
In April 1995, in response to controversy over Mohler’s firing of Carver School dean Diana Garland, seminary trustees adopted a new “policy on constructive relationships.” That policy originally stated: “Faculty members and staff of this institution are not to act in ways that are injurious or detrimental to the seminary’s relationship with the denomination, donors or other constituencies within and without the seminary community.”
In April 1997, after extensive consultation with faculty and staff, the policy was amended to state that faculty and staff “should seek to relate constructively to the denomination, donors and other constituencies.”
News of Debusman’s firing shocked and angered his fellow church members at Crescent Hill, Sisk said.
“He is held in enormous respect in our church,” Sisk said. “He has been elected term after term to our board of deacons, frequently heads our nominating committee because of his knowledge of the church and sensitivity to persons. You won’t find anyone to fault his character or suggest he would ever be guilty of indiscretion.
“We announced his firing and the basic terms on Sunday morning. The congregation rose as one and gave him a prolonged standing ovation in celebration of his integrity.”
Sisk said Debusman has been “unfailingly helpful” to generations of students doing research at Southern.
At Crescent Hill, he sings in the choir and “visits in the nursing homes more than I do,” Sisk said.
“He is a devoted husband, father and grandfather, and in my mind is a sterling example of the very best of Baptist faith. He is simply a gentle man who spoke his mind in an ungentle venue.”
October 1997
Regarding missions offerings:
I am friends with many missionaries around the globe. It is they and the people they are trying to reach, not trustees, who would suffer if we stop supporting them. Don't let them down!
"Economic sanctions" are a popular thing politically because they are easy to do and they make us feel like we're at least doing something. Doing something practical will be more complex and more personally costly to those of us involved.
Dr. A S Hodel
I remember when this happened.
To fire that poor man 10 months before his retirement was nothing less than hateful and revengeful. They made an example of him. It was cruel. Certainly not Christlike.
Such are the antics of the CR. But it worked. Everyone dug in. Bunker mentality. Don't correct the Generals or your head comes off.
Avery Willis, when he served under Jerry Rankin as senior vice president for overseas operations , was the one who called on missionaries who refused to sign the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message, as if it were a creed, and told them they would not be allowed to continue to serve their fields. This was not a "termination," as signing was "voluntary." Not volunteering to sign, however, would lead to consequences. Thus, not volunteering to sign was equated with resigning. Much about these escapades can be read in the book Stand With Christ: Why MIssionaries Can't Sign the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.
So exactly how is the candidacy of Avery Willis a sign that things are changing for the better in the SBC?
"The free flow of information, transparency and Christian openness should be the norm for Southern Baptists."
Amen!
Am I the only one who things he’s watching a Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon. The coyote is so scheming and thinks to himself, "Finally, I've got the roadrunner!" When, in reality the trap he ploys is ALWAYS the very thing that sends the coyote reeling off the cliff’s edge...and all that was left was a puff of dirt some 5000 feet below.
Robert
I think one thing we all need to keep in mind is that those who are guilty of strong arm politics, manipulation, etc. are doing so because they honestly believe this is the only way to prevent liberalism from rearing its ugly head again. I'm not saying its right, in fact, I disagree with it. I'd rather have freedom and deal with the issues it brings than what we have now. My last two comments on this blog have had to do with people reading motives into Wade's post. I think the Lord wants me to understand that these men are following their convictions. They see the their brand of Landmarkism/control as necessary to maintain doctrinal purity. Unfortunately, they seem oblivious to the harm they are doing. The only way the SBC has a future is by her churhces, staff members, and lay persons submitting themselves to God, humbly seeking His face, repenting of our sin, and fulfilling the Great Commission through living out the Great Commandment. We all are sinners. Our only hope is in God's intervention.
He seems to be protecting most of the work on the mission field for now. His continued intervention is needed there as well.
Grace,
Jeff Parsons
Amarillo, TX
M with YOUR Organization
You wrote: "I thought about it and I think I've answered my own questions. No one asked Dr. Rankin to do it (write the letter). He just did it because he is a man of integrity."
Couldn't have happened M. Dr. Rankin wrote the letter long after the situation had been resolved, the comments had been deleted, and it was impossible for him to have known about it. He was asked to write it.
Long time reader, but first time commentor. It is obvious to me that Trustee Jerry Corbaley, Trustee York, and Trustee Floyd collaborated in an attempt to 'get Wade' - again. What is so ridiculous about their conspiracy is that, as said by someone above, it reminds us all of the old Wiley Coyote cartoons. The coyote springs the trap only to get it back himself ten times what he intended to give. These guys will one day learn you don't deal with WB like they would someone who is like unto themselves. On second thought, I vote they resemble the Three Stooges instead of Wiley Coyote. Four if you count Corbaley's self confessed brother from another mother Wesley Kidney. Anybody else think it strange these guys fire up their own blogs with posts that are supposed to make this blog look bad, discussing the same subject matter of Rankin's letter? Jeesh.
To think that Mr. Elliff did that to Mr. Debusman and is now our senior vice president for spiritual nurture and church relations.
ICHABOD
IMB M
Wade,
I realize that the Debusman firing was a long time ago and that some would say that there's no use crying over spilled milk. But your response articulated exactly what I was trying to say in reminding us of that sad event. More of us should have spoken up then. The machine has operated this way for quite a while; I surely hope that it can be changed.
Scott,
If you were responding to my post, I was not advocating to stop funding but to fund strictly through the LMCO. It might mean that what we give through the Richmond office would need to be designated for missionary salaries.
Just trying to figure out a way to get our message across to the trustees who we support. It is not them but it is the missionaries.
The machinations of York, and Floyd in a futile attempt to "control" communuication is almost funny - if it were not so serious. It demonstrates how out of touch they are about modern communications forms and means. They do not seem to understand that if they simply ignored the two posts, the posts would have been virtually lost and unknown in the sea of communication that passes through the internet every day. I do not suppose that even a few people will read this particular post nor make note of it. It is good to know, however, that at least two people are reading and noting every post! I wonder where they find the time!
Mike,
I took down my Paul Debusman comment out of courtesy to him. I will call him later today to inform him of my intentions to write a comment about him. I found him to be a very Christian, courteous gentleman in our discussion, and I wish to express my intentions to him before I leave up my comment.
Blessings,
Wade
I think Hershael York shows his true colors in this situation- sneaky, behind closed doors, dishonest, trying to destroy somebody--I could list more but I have said enough. I can not imagine working in an envirnoment with men like him.
Wade,
You never gave Hershael York's reply as to HOW he knew about the letter.
I do not know. I left a message on his voice mail. He has not yet returned my call to inform me.
Totalitarianism is a concept used in political science that describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private sectors. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.
I just finished reading Animal Farm with my son and the similarities to what you have been writing and the antics on that farm are amazingly, ironically quite similar.
Again, I am extremely sad, but not surprised. Because of my longevity with the SBC and the IMB, I have personal knowledge of statements and actions by a number of those being mentioned in today's post.
If it is true that the "leaders" feel that control is necessary to preserve pure doctrine, then that can explain some of the actions and attitudes we have seen displayed. "The end justifies the means."
What it says to me is that there is a fear of open discussion and reporting on what takes place in certain meetings. I do recall that editors of state Baptist papers were barred from some of the meetings in the CR because they reported on what went on.
If what is done behind closed doors and in secret is so denigrating or shameful that it can't be reported to those in the pew, then in all likelihood it is something that should not be done at all.
It appears to me that certain Christian graces (honesty, integrity, grace, humility)are lacking in some of our leaders. This is a tragedy, as our leaders should be setting an example of Christ-like grace and humility for the rest of us. What it appears to me is that some have adopted the ways of the world in dealing with those who disagree with them.
I am redoubling my prayers for these men because I believe God will hold them to a higher standard of conduct than what we have seen, and His judgments are swift and sure.
I will say again, withholding funds from the IMB in any form will not get the trustee's attention as much as letters advising them of our disagreement and displeasure for their behavior and actions in recent days.
"If what is done behind closed doors and in secret is so denigrating or shameful that it can't be reported to those in the pew, then in all likelihood it is something that should not be done at all."
Mr Hands sir, you have hit the nail on the head. The reason I keep coming back to this site is not that I am a theological liberal bent on the destruction of the SBC (as some imply of G&T readers) but rather because even as a conservative, I agree wholly with what you have said. Our institutions are run by an unhealthy system of hierarchialists, bent on the preservation of a "system" that encourages secrecy, plotting, undermining others, manipulating truth and the words of others for their own causes, and then handily seeing to it that close friends and family members are appointed after them to "keep the legacy alive." And they do it all while hoping the masses are kept in the dark. That's why I'm interested in what Wade is doing. I would much rather hash out my theological differences on tertiary issues later with gracious, open individuals that I can trust than to be devoured by those with whom I share all the same theological convictions simply because I won't "play ball" according to the rules. And devouring appears to be what a certain group in SB life are most concerned about today.
Excellent words.
Mike Ruffin,
Thank you so much for telling why Paul Debusman was fired. His pastor tells it best:
“He is simply a gentle man who spoke his mind in an ungentle venue.”
As Tom Eliff turned the reins over to the new President of the SBC, Paige Patterson, was Eliff thinking of Debusman when Eliff said, “…all barnacles and parasites had been removed from the ship of Zion”?
How long will it take Southern Baptists to realize if they speak their minds (dissent), they become “barnacles” in the eyes of the powers that be?
In 1996 ?, I was in Tokyo and a retired missionary told me he had volunteered to be a ‘guide’ for dignitaries of other countries.
The IMB told him he had to be paid by them to represent Southern Baptists. He took their pay, but advised them to stop throwing money away by hiring ‘Daniels’ (of the Bible) as missionaries since they would get ‘fed up’ with rules and quit.
He told them to appoint only ‘yes sir’ people who would take their orders.
Obviously, they did not take his advice with Rodney Hammer.
When I began reading at this blogsite shortly after Wade started posting it many months ago, the on-going collusion and conspiracies he reported observing to take place among IMB trustees--in definance of clearly-stated IMB trustee policies regarding meetings--was astonishing. That that type of behavior persisted, though known about by more Southern Baptists, was confirmed by Wade's later reports about board meetings--not to mention what was said/done about/to him--was even more astonishing! Now this type of behavior (Floyd, York, et al)!
Members of the Missouri Baptist Convention put an end to similar behavior last year by elected an opposing slate of candidates for important leadership positions. Short of the same in upcoming SBC annual meetings, I can't see an end to this type of activity. The effort certainly got the attention (though not surrender) of MBC folks who had been in control. The 2008 SBC annual meeting is not too soon to start, imo.
At the Judgment Seat of Christ, nothing said--or blogged here--will be secret anymore. Since all our activities and attitudes will be known someday, why not be honest today and make things right between each other? Dr. York, would you like to start?
Wade said It ought to be a requirement that every trustee take at least five missionary trips overseas before he ever speaks at an IMB trustee business or committee meeting.
I'd make it even tighter. At least 5 before they can get appointed, and at least 2 where they aren't the trip leader. "Preaching" and "vision" trips don't count.
Bill Nettles,
AMEN!
To the Debusman case:
Reading about this event on this blog is indeed the firwst I had hear about this. Of course in 1997, such things were of little concern to me. But I will say this: people are not typically fired over singular events. Additionally, those who are vocal in their political and ideological views, typically do not express their view singularly either. If I were a betting man, I would bet that Mr. Debusman siumply did not fit in with the general tone and demeanor of the new SBTS under the leadership of Dr. Mohler and the BoT's at that time. As a non-achedemic staff member, Mr. Debusman would have been out of line to question a speaker speaking at chapel under the invitation of Dr. Mohler. The more appropriate action? A letter authored to Dr. Mohler expressing his views while at the same time either pledging his loyalty, or offering his resignation. Or could have continued in his time honored role of helping students find books. (one which he, by all accounts did very well.)
If I were in Dr. Mohler's shoes in 1997 I too would have been gun shy of such descent and would have done the same thing. Dr. Mohler has been though more than his share of grief for the Convention and SBTS and any attempts on here to degrade him should be met with fierce resistance.
In typical Baptist life, we have let committees rule my majority rule. This to me, is not Biblical. I beleive in the concept of ministry teams. Ministry teams do all things with unanimity. This unity comes from the Spirit. Mr. Debusman was not a united member of the Ministry Team at Southern and thus could no longer be expected to functional for the greater good.
and so, here we are today...
Michael, your comments are so absure and so lacking of any real grasp of this situation that they are not worthy of a response.
I will say that I however, am "gun shy" of listening to anyone who does not know the difference between "dissent" and "descent."
type-o...should read "absurd"
K. Michael,
I was not at SBTS in 1997 when Dr. Debusman was fired. I was there, though, from 1979-1986 and I can testify to his Christian spirit and loyalty.
Should he have handled the matter differently? I don't know. I would think that, as Christians, it is always best to deal with concerns face to face or at least person to person. I suppose that is what he was trying to do. I would hope that, as pastor of The Hill Baptist Church, if I received a personal, private letter from a staff member at a sister church where I had spoken who had a question or concern about something I had said, I would respond to him or her with a personal, private letter and would feel no need to tattle to the "senior" pastor about it. Chances are, if I handle it that way, with Christian love and grace, it's all over and brothers are still brothers.
Anyway, I only posted that article to remind us that this is not the first time that personal correspondence has been used for poltical ends. The case of the Rankin to Burleson correspondence is different, of course. Dr. Debusman's letter was a personal letter from him that I'm sure he never intended to be made public. Dr. Rankin's letter to Wade may have been intended for eventual public viewing.
K, Thanks for letting us know how you agree with a man 10 mos away from retirement being fired and losing part of the benefits he worked a lifetime for.
I can feel the love, forgiveness and compassion you lack from here. Traits that are always evident if one is saved. Yes, this is a rebuke.
Keep in mind I happen to KNOW firsthand that conservatives preached during chapel in those years. I heard some of them preach with my own ears. It never occured to us conservatives we were never represented.
Debusman, in his position, would know the truth, too.
So, Debusman had no right to present truth to his equal brother in Christ, who he thought did not know the facts? And he should have gone through the Pope to see if he was allowed to tell the truth?
What is wrong with this picture you painted?
The question is: Did Eliff lie or did he not know facts? That is the REAL question. And why wouldn't Eliff WANT to know the truth?
You do not represent Christianity, K. You represent the Catholic religious structure. You love the structure, the hierarchy and power more than you love truth and therefore Christ.
Where was the forgiveness? Shouldn't our leaders model Christ in that respect? Let the poor man serve out his term at the very least?
I think you are too young and ignorant to understand what you are saying on this blog.
Maybe you are hoping the current leaders will recognize your loyalty and reward you.
Martin
Wade,
Someone could have informed him about before the comments were taken off and he 'just got around to it' later in the week. I'm sure he has more on his mind than your blog.
But, I am not ruling out that he could have been 'told' to do it. And, he would have done it to protect an individual who served with the IMB under his leadership. That's what makes him so easily to respect. Even though it appears at times that some are 'out to get him', he is always loving and respectful to whomever.
M with YOUR organization
Wade,
I think it odd that you claim to have an un-moderated blog yet often have chosen to delete comments that I have posted that have in no way promoted inaccuarate or slanderous material but serious questions and concern. Yet you now claim that you don't moderate and that whoever made the comments spoken of in this issue did not get deleted because you do not moderate them. So my question is how did the slanderous commentor not get censured in the comment stream yet I have found several occassions when you have censured my comments by deleting them? Just wondering?
Oklahoma Joe
K,
"Mr. Debusman would have been out of line to question a speaker speaking at chapel under the invitation of Dr. Mohler. The more appropriate action? A letter authored to Dr. Mohler expressing his views while at the same time either pledging his loyalty, or offering his resignation."
Um, your words directly contradict the commands of Jesus. If he felt the speaker was in error (sin), his obligation was to follow the commands of Jesus (not man). Matthew 18:18-35 make it quite clear how he was to handle things.
The Conservative Resurgence was a political (some might say military) solution to denominational spiritual problems. When God did that to Israel, it was somebody like the Babylonians that carried out the solution.
The difference then vs now was God's solution was designed to bring Israel to repentance. I don't think the CR was similarly oriented.
Why would we expect less from all this now, than just what we're seeing?
Speaking of the free flow of information in Christian ministry and the converse--its suppression--I thought I'd pass along the following illustration of controlled news reporting here in Missouri. While an earlier commenter applauded (rightfully so I believe) the election of a less restrictive and controlling slate of officers at last year's Missouri Baptist Convention, the dissemination of news continues to be tightly controlled. When Word & Way and the other 4 institutions were sued by the MBC for changing their charters, Word & Way (the historic Baptist state newspaper) was banned from covering meetings of the executive committee of the MBC. Word & Way has continue to report news of interest to all Missouri Baptists, including positive articles about the work of churches affiliated with the MBC and the SBC, but the Pathway (the newly formed news and information agency of the MBC) has consistently attacked Word & Way, the other 4 institutions being sued, the Baptist General Convention of MO, and CBF of Missouri.
An article in the most recent of Pathway contains the following paragraph:
"A reporter for Word & Way attempted to cover the Executive Board meeting and it appeared Davidson was going to break rank with previous MBC presidents and allow the reporter to stay. Purvis, however, made a motion directing the reporter to leave as has been customary since the legal fight between the MBC and Word & Way began. Purvis’ motion passed without opposition and the reporter left."
So much for the free-flow of information.
Wade and All,
Just read the Blogs and I think you will find that there are 2 Groups of People, they can be seen by their way of showing their Heart. There are the ones that came out attacking Wade and there are the ones that have a Compassionate Heart. I don’t always agree with Brother Wade and I also sometimes remain silent in some matters. I do find it Sad that some of the ones with Blatant Comment are what we us to say are Men of the Cloth. Just take a look at Peter Lumpkin’s Blog and compare the posts to K. Michael Crowder comments. Do either one of them bring any Glory to God?
Wayne
Wayne, the answer to your question (which I know you already know) is NO! There is no glory to God's name when men or women speak to each other this way. There is no glory to God when we are mean-spirited as K. Michael tends to be. Gentle rebukes, loving comments to him, and suggestions to tone down the language, doesn't help, nor does it help.
Steve
Oklahoma Joe,
At times while serving as a trustee there were occasions when I moderated my blog, and your comment could have possibly been deleted during those times. There has been no comment deleted from this blog, except for vulgarity, in over one year. So, without cussing, comment to your heart's desire.
And sign your name, for a comment without a name is the real oddity.
:)
Time and time again we have been through this process.
I have never used vulgarity or cursing, and have been censured because of a difference in ideologies on certain issues, and I have defended who I am on several occassions and do not feel the need to further. There is amply evidence in the last two years of commenting on this weblog to find out my information. But for the record, my name is Joe, I am a pastor in Oklahoma who was raised in the Ozarks of Arkansas raising beef cattle and operating heavy equipment before my calling into ministry in the late 90's. Any further information about is not relevant to questions that I ask about issues raised on this weblog.
I just do not understand the spirit of your correspondance with my comments. I do not comment regularly as others who comment daily or weekly(usually once or twice every couple of months where questions arise), so I still can't see why censureship in some areas and not in others.
So thus the difficulty in understanding what is going on with this blog. You must admit that in some ways this blog is moderated which still begs the question why the slanderous material was not censured.
Oklahoma Joe
Southern Baptist Pastor in Oklahoma, before that Southern Baptsit pastor in Arkansas and Ke