Great Struggles, Deep Irony, Significant Change

This past Sunday, April 6, 2008 marked the 146th anniversary of The Battle of Shiloh. This was the first major Civil War battle in the west, and opened the eyes of leaders on both sides of the War Between the States that the conflict would not be over quickly or easily. The battle commenced with a surprise attack by Confederate forces on Union soldiers under the command of Ulysses S. Grant encamped at Pittsburg Landing on the south bank of the Tennessee River in southwestern Tennessee.

Most of the soldiers who fought that day, on both sides, had little battle experience. They fought in the open field and exhibited remarkable steadiness and readiness to obey orders. The two-day battle was intense, bloody and costly. Eventually the Union soldiers held their battle lines and the Confederates withdrew. No pursuit was made or attempted. General Beauregard reported the Confederate losses at 10,699 captured, missing, wounded or killed. The loss of Union solders, according to Generals Grant and Buell were estimated at 15,000 killed, wounded, captured or missing.

Four things astound me about this battle. First, the battle is called Shiloh because of a little church in the open field, called Shiloh Church, around which the men fought and died. Second, Shiloh is a Hebrew word for "Peace," yet in this place of peace more men died than in all the previous United States wars combined. Third, a Christian officer and gentleman for the Confederates issued an order during a particularly gruesome slaughter of Union soldiers who were being led in a counter attack to thwart the Confederate advances on Union positions. The general cried about the gunfire, "Shoot them in the midsection so they can make peace with God." A soldier dies more slowly when shot in the stomach, and the General sincerely desired the Union boys to die "making peace with their Maker." Finally, Confederate General Albert Sydney Johnston died at the battle of Shiloh, the highest ranking officer on either side to die during the Civil War. General Johnston was a Christian, an evangelical, and according to President Jefferson Davis, the finest man he had ever had the privilege of knowing. Johnston had been shot in the leg and bled to death. The wound, superficial in Johnston's mind, had nicked an artery. The General would have lived with simple medical procedures to stop blood flow - but this Christian man had sent his physican to care for the Union; that's right, the enemy soldiers that were wounded.

When people today make a big deal about brothers being against brothers and the loss of Christian civility, I am reminded that great struggles, which ultimately bring about significant change, often present the deepest ironies.

In His Grace,

Wade

Warning: This Post Is Not for the Faint of Heart

There is something that is bothering me about pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention - including myself. I have re-read some of the posts I wrote over two years ago, right when the ordeal with the IMB was beginning, and I was too self-absorbed. It may have been the initial shock of the recommendation for my removal, or it may have been my own inward and inordinate concern over my 'reputation' being sullied, or it legitimately may have been an inability to adequately explain the unique circumstances of my life, but for whatever reason, I spent way too much time defending myself or enjoying the defense I received from others. Time and experience, however, have seasoned me. Nothing has changed for me in ministry. I am still pastor of a great church. I have a wonderful family. And I am doing what I have been doing for the past quarter century - serving people in ministry and getting paid to do it.

But I have conversed with other people in our convention who have lost their ministry jobs for opposing the powers that be. I have witnessed people in our convention literally cry in fear of losing their convention jobs. I have personally observed a pastor, whose wife was dying of cancer, be the recipient of a false rumor - intentionally circulated - that he was having an affair; all because this pastor opposed a certain viewpoint held by those who controlled the board on which he served. I have heard the pain expressed by another Southern Baptist leader over intentional rumors that he had experienced a mental breakdown - rumors spread in a concerted attempt to minimize his influence.

I have seen a woman employee of one of our agencies lose the job of her dreams, sell her blood to meet expenses, and face the humiliation of being called a tool of Satan - all because she was a 'woman in a position reserved for men.' I have met missionaries who lost their jobs overseas because they refused to bow to the political pressure of their superiors, and then sacrificed their children's college education by spending those college funds in an attempt to fulfill their call and stay on the mission field. I have met a number of Southern Baptists who have been abused, lied about, mistreated, and terminated - and they are now fighting to right the ship of their lives.

And yet we Southern Baptist pastors are doing nothing to correct the problem or help our wounded. We spend more time defending 'ourselves' against perceived attacks than we do helping those who have actually had their lives turned upside-down. We are arrogant, self-absorbed men who are more concerned about what people think of us than we are about helping our own people who have been abused and discarded like oily, dirty rags. And, frankly, I'm tired of it.

No more Mr. Nice Guy. I will be kind, tender and helpful - in very concrete ways - to those who have been abused and mistreated in our Convention. But I will not put up with pastors, associate pastors or denominational leaders who are spiritual pinheads. If you are a pastor and you think you are under attack because you are being 'misquoted' or cry crocodile tears because you are being 'mischaracterized,' then join me in forsaking the Country Club of Self-Absorption and get out in the real world and help somebody who has actually been harmed.

It might make our convention a better place.

In His Truth,


Wade

A Strategic Visioning Process for the SBC

Mark Twain said "most of my life's worst experiences never actually happened." Southern Baptist blogs, including this one, have sometimes peered into the future of the SBC and worried about what "might" happen. As 2008 dawns I think the approach by those of us who have expressed concerns over the narrowing of the doctrinal parameters of cooperation might offer some solutions.

Gary Lockwood, author of Remember the Future, says there are three kinds of people in this world:

(1). Those who MAKE things happen - Inventors

(2). Those who WATCH things happen and complain - Resentors

(3). Those who don't know what's happening - Consentors

Over the course of this year I will offer a strategic visioning process for the Southern Baptist Convention. Vision processes seek to create a compelling picture of a desirable future that often represents quantum change from the past. There are many good things that are occuring in the SBC, but until someone tackles the systemic and endemic problems that are present within the SBC and her agencies, we will often get sidetracked from our mission of advancing the kingdom of Christ on earth.

In leading up to the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention, I will write posts designed to provide solutions to some of the problems we face. Many of these posts have already been written, but will be published at appropriate times, including the first one entitled Character Counts: The People Called Southern Baptists: 'Brothers and Sisters, We Are Not Professionals Nor Politicians: We Are People Who Belong to Jesus.'

The title says it all.


In His Grace,

Wade

The Aim, Reproach and Triumph of the Reformer

John Quincy Adams was a Baptist pastor in America in the 1800's. This John Q. Adams was not the famous founding father of America, but an American Baptist pastor who was a contemporary of C. H. Spurgeon's. J.Q. Adam's gave a series of lectures entitled Baptists Thorough Reformers which were eventually placed in print. When Rev. Adams met Charles Spurgeon in London, in August, 1868, Spurgeon "informed him that he had used 'Baptists Thorough Reformers' as a text book in his Pastor's College, regarding it as the best Manual of Baptist principles he had met."

John Quincy Adams work has been of great encouragement to me over the past couple of years. In the Lecture One of the Centennial Edition (1876), Rev. Adam's writes very clearly on the aim, reproach, and triumph of the reformer. I have taken the freedom to excerpt a significant paragraph from each point below:

I. THE AIM OF THE RELIGIOUS REFORMER.

A Reformer is one who seeks to remove abuses which have crept into an organization or community, or one who boldly enters a field where error has held undisputed sway, and fearlessly wields amid giant powers of opposition, the weapons of truth. He aims to entirely revolutionize the minds of the community in which he labors, on that particular subject where he believes reform to he needed. A compromise between truth and error is not what he seeks, and will not satisfy him. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," is his motto. Old systems of error, however sacred on account of their antiquity, he boldly attacks. Though massive darkness has long brooded over the people, he aims to dissipate the gloom, and shed upon them brilliant rays of light. His work is a mighty one; the end for which he labors is noble and sublime. He holds a position in advance of the community in which he resides, and the age in which he lives – hence he possesses traits of character that are peculiar, which fit him to toil and suffer for the accomplishment of his designs.

II. THE REPROACH OF THE REFORMER.

All Reforms are attended with agitation and conflict, but none more so than reforms in religion. At first, the reformer may attract but little attention. His attacks on error may appear so feeble, and his efforts to advance the truth may seem so faint, that the opponents of truth may esteem only the smile of ridicule and scorn necessary to throw his work into insignificance, or a slight exertion of authority sufficient to extinguish it. But let him continue with boldness, energy and eloquence, to plead for truth and begin to make an impression upon the public mind, and gather adherents around him; then will his adversaries become agitated and alarmed. Like the fierce storm, lashing into foam the waters of the mighty deep, they stir up the popular mind, until the entire community moves in angry surges, and persecution and violence ensue. The more bold the onset, the more forcible the elucidation of truth, the more numerous the adherents to the reform, the more fiercely will the advocates of error oppose the effort, and the more desperately will they seek to crush by force, or circumvent by cunning, what they cannot master by argument, or defeat by sound logic.

III. THE TRIUMPH OF THE REFORMER.

The true religious reformer must ultimately triumph. However opposed, reproached, and persecuted, he triumphs. Even when he appears to be discomfited he triumphs. While he struggles on in adversity, and while sad reverses meet him in his work, still he triumphs. The power of the truth is manifest in the support it yields him amid these disheartening circumstances. The consciousness that he has discharged his duty with fidelity, fills his mind with peace. He feels that the smile of God is upon him; hence the frowns of the opposers of truth, and their anathemas, are lighter than vanity to him. He esteems "the reproaches of Christ greater riches than all the treasures" of earth. The shame of the cross he counts greater honor than all the applause of the world, and the martyr's death is to him sweeter than all earthly pleasures. He exhibits a dignity of character that far outshines all others, and totally eclipses, on the historic page, all his slanderous persecutors. He is as far superior to the time-serving demagogue, as are the burning beams of the meridian sun to the last sickly rays of the feeble taper, flickering in its socket, and just ready to expire. He knows no fear of consequences. Duty, it is his to perform – results, are God's to control. He stands firmly, as the rock in the ocean, unmoved amid the howlings of the tempest and the fury of the waves. For him there is a, glorious future, however dark the hour of trial may be; and though for a time he endures reproach, he will have a name when his persecutors have perished and are forgotten.

I thank the Lord that Baptists are thorough reformers. May we stand on the truth and sufficiency of Scripture alone, and may our theological and religious shibboleths that have no biblical support fall at the hands of reform.

In His Grace,


Wade

Today's Debate Is Tomorrow's Success

The following was sent to me and several other IMB trustees, including Chairman John Floyd, by Southern Baptist layman Joe Hall. I do not know Joe. I have never met him, nor have I ever spoken to him, but I always find it refreshing when Southern Baptists laymen take the time to get involved, and in Joe's case, articulate their thoughts so well.

__________________________________________________

Can any good thing come out of Oklahoma?

By: Joe Hall

When I was a student at Grand Canyon College in the late 60’s I had a conversation with Dr. Niles Puckett, my Greek professor. The conversation came about because of a debate he allowed in Greek class between a Church of Christ and a Baptist pastor. Both were young and full of them selves and made their arguments. Some of the young students felt that the Church of Christ preacher may have won the debate based on his communication skills. He spoke louder and longer than either.

After class I spoke with Dr. Puckett and enquired as to why he hadn’t stepped into the discussion and corrected the false interpretations offered by the Church of Christ preacher concerning baptismal regeneration. Dr. Puckett was a member of the church I served as Student Associate Pastor and I felt I knew him well and yet was surprised by his answer. He told me, “Joe, it is not my calling to become the conscience of or to take the place of the Holy Spirit for any of my students. I allowed the debate because I want you to listen to various sides of issues and seek God’s voice to you and make intelligent decisions based on hearing all sides. Then I want you to go to God’s word and hear what the Lord has to say. Then I want you to make an informed decision for your self.”

Forgive me for this long story but Dr. Puckett’s advice has stuck with me and has served me well in my own life and in my business. I feel that my organization would be weakened if every one of my managers always agreed with me. I feel the need to allow my key leaders to shed light on all sides of our business.

Now we cut to the chase. It is my belief that the issue is not just the narrowing of acceptable standards and beliefs but the narrowing of leadership. In the recent actions of the IMB key leaders, trustees of the IMB, chosen for their leadership skills and knowledge of the work, have not been rewarded for insightful disagreement. Steps have been taken that attempt to keep any disagreement in check. I believe that once the decision has been made, the decision is the rule of the day until the rules are changed. To kill all disagreement before, during, or after the decision is made opens the door for falling into the trap of the good old boy syndrome. Stemming disagreement ensures inward growth. Everything that lives changes and change is good but change must be reasonable and useful. Therefore all sides of an issue must be explored, weighed for usefulness, exposed as correct or false, and decided upon in such a way that debate is not stymied. Gracious disagreement enhances the opportunity of a well thought through direction. Today’s debate or disagreement is tomorrow’s success.

The actions of the IMB of late are not healthy, productive, or insightful but rather smack of hurt feelings or a “who’s in charge here” attitude. They are not in the best interest of the SBC, IMB, individual missionaries, and most especially the lost and un-reached around the world. I have a personal feeling about things like private prayer language, baptismal authority, and individual disagreement but they are not important. What is important is my responsibility to add something significant to the discussion and not be castigated for my thoughts. John Floyd shared with me that a trustee who does not play by the rules will be sidelined. It is my opinion that the recent rules are ill gotten and ill advised. I would like an answer about how these rules relate to the constitution of the IMB, how they diminish or strengthen the work of a leader chosen to represent Southern Baptist, at least in terms of communication, and how it is good to do this censure thing the month before our largest single Missions Resource gathering. As a pew sitter I am in favor of some soul searching, explanation to the constituents, and some changes that will bring about healthy disagreement.

I have heard all my life this formula: tell the people, pray the issue, and lead where God is going. The IMB is God’s, entrusted to His people of the SBC. It does not belong to the leaders of the trustees of the IMB or to its’ staff. It is time for accountability to the people who provide resources for it in God’s name.

If Christ Were in Charge . . .

If Christ were truly in charge of our churches . . .

(1). We would be more focused on reaching people in need of Christ's transforming power than we would our personal comforts.
(2). We would be less concerned about corporate worship styles and preferences and more concerned about personal holiness.
(3). We would never enter a worship service without the expectation of meeting Christ in terms of His presence and power over the corporate body.
(4). We would spend more time listening to Christ than we would talking about Christ.
(5). We would be very intentional to ensure that all that is said, sung or done in the corporate gathering would be honoring and pleasing to Christ.


If Christ were truly in charge of our convention . . .

(1). We would never deceive anyone about the numbers of people who truly belong to Southern Baptist churches.
(2). We would never exalt Baptist identity above our Christian identity and the brotherhood we have with all who name Christ as Lord.
(3). We would be more interest in the advancement of the kingdom of Christ, not the kingdom of Southern Baptists.
(4). We would be less interested in positions of power and far more interested in being found faithful to Christ as His stewards.
(5). We would treat people in the convention with whom we disagree with respect, Christian charity and acceptance.

If Christ were truly in charge of me . . .

(1). I would not care what you think of me, only what Christ thinks of me.
(2). I would respond to criticism with thoughtful reflection and silence, not defense.
(3). I would be bold for righteousness' sake, and soft to others for forgiveness' sake.
(4). I would be more concerned about my walk with Christ than my reputation.
(5). I would be aware of Christ's presence with me at all times.

Just a few personal thoughts as I begin my week.

In His Grace,

Wade

The Wisdom of Augustus Toplady for Today's SBC

My friend Dr. George Ella was commissioned in the 1990's by the British Historical Society to write a definitive biography biography on the great Anglican pastor, theologian and poet Augustus Toplady. Most Southern Baptists would only know of Toplady through the hymn 'Rock of Ages,' which he wrote. I have recently reread Ella's excellent biography and supplemented my desire to know more of Toplady by reading the beneficial one volume book entitled The Complete Works of Augustus Toplady (Sprinkle Publications: 1987). I found myself gleaning golden nuggets of counsel from Toplady's written wisdom regarding ministers, principles he articulated nearly 300 years ago. The following examples are relevant for Southern Baptist pastors and leaders today. In a time when some Southern Baptists seem to grasp for the choice morsels of denominational praise and acceptance, leaving the choicest meats of principles, heartfelt convictions, and necessary reform on the convention's plate, the words of Augustus Toplady provide the needed fuel for evangelical, reform-minded pastors to keep the faith.

(1). When the minister is falsely or slanderously accused.

"Gospel ministers should not be too hasty and eager to wipe off every aspersion that is cast on them falsely for Christ's sake. Dirt on the character (if unjustly thrown), like dirt on the clothes, should be let alone for a while, until it dries; and then it will rub off easily enough." (Augustus Toplady, Observations and Reflections, The Complete Works of August Toplady, Sprinkle Publications, page. 550).

(2). The passion of the preacher's life and message.

"Gregory Nazianzen says, in his euologium on Basil, 'Thy word was thunder and they life was lightening.' Such should the preaching and lifestyle of every minister be." (Ibid, p. 550).

(3). On pastors not responding to the trivial and trite criticisms of colleagues.

"Were evangelical preachers and writers to stop, and give a lash to every spiteful noisy cur that yelps at them in their way to the kingdom of God, they would have enough to do before they got to their journey's end." (Ibid, p. 550).

(4). The courage of conviction in the heart of the leader.

"The best clock in the world will be spoiled, if you are perpetually moving the hands backwards and forwards, and altering it in order to make it keep time with a variety of other clocks; it will hardly ever go regularly and well. So a minister, who shapes and accommodates his sentiments and discourses to the tastes and humours and opinions of other people, will never be happy, respectable, or useful."(Ibid, 550).

(5). On the preaching of the pure gospel.

"Among the great variety of preachers, some give the pure gospel wine, unadulterated and undashed. Others give wine and water. Some give mere cold water, without a drop of wine among it. The weight of opposition will always fall heaviest on those who sound the gospel trumpet loudest." (Ibid, p. 550).

This is food for thought for any evangelical Southern Baptist pastor who wavers between his desires for the favorable opinions of men and his faithful fulfillment of God's calling, regardless of any human endorsement.

In His Grace,


Wade

Patience Is the Operative Word for the SBC

This next week, Monday through Wednesday, July 16-18, in Richmond, Virginia, the trustees of the International Mission Board will convene to conduct missions business. I do not intend to make any motion at the meeting regarding the new guidelines prohibiting the appointment of missionaries who possess a private prayer language or who have not been baptized in a Southern Baptist Church (or one that believes in 'eternal security').

The mood and tone of the board continues to change. New trustees are elected every year, but those who pushed for the new guidelines are still in trustee leadership until 2008, including Chairman John Floyd, who was the Chairman of the particular Personnel Committee that was pushing the new guidelines when I joined the board in 2005. I commend John for his gracious leadership, but he and I are on polar opposite ends of the belief spectrum when it comes to the board's authority to establish doctrinal requisites that exceed the BFM 2000.

I believe the right thing to do is to reverse the guideline that forbids the appointment of missionaries who have a private prayer language, while reinforcing the former policy that any missionary will face disciplinary action for any of the gifts that are overemphasized or abused publicly. Further, any baptismal guideline that subverts the authority of the local church's acceptance of believer's baptism is unwise and ought be reversed. If a Southern Baptist missionary candidate is trusting in Christ alone for salvation, has publicly confessed his faith in Christ through believer's baptism by immersion, and that candidates local Southern Baptist church to which he belongs has accepted his Christian baptism, then I believe we as a board of trustees should fall under the authority of that local church because the IMB board of trustees is not a higher authority on the matter of baptism than the candidate's local church.

It can no longer be argued that the decision of the IMB board of trustees reflects the majority views of the SBC. LIFEWAY's survey took that argument away. It can also no longer be argued that the SBC desires the board to go beyond the BFM 2000 in establishing missionary service criteria - the Garner motion took that away. All that can be said now is what I have been saying for two years: There seem to be some who wish the convention to reflect their own personal and specific doctrinal viewpoints on the gifts (cessationism) and baptism (the 'authority' of the baptizer is as important as the heart of the candidate).

I am patient. I will wait it out to insure we remain a cooperative convention, open to various interpretations of tertiary doctrines as we work together around the essentials of the gospel for the furtherance of the kingdom of Christ through cooperative efforts in missions and evangelism.

In His Grace,

Wade

Is It A Rebuke or A Response? The PC of the EC

Frank Page has spoken out about the New Baptist Covenant in this Baptist Press article

Page is quoted as saying,

"I will not be a part of any smokescreen leftwing liberal agenda that seeks to deny the greatest need in our world, that being that the lost be shown the way to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

It should go without saying that if the participants of the NBC deny the greatest need in our world is to be shown the way to eternal life through Jesus Christ, then all of us should be troubled. However, when our church financed and dug a water well in the slums of Bangalore for the 10,000 outcasts last November, it was the Hindu mayor that helped us. He denies the need for the gospel, but we continue to share the good news with our Hindu friend, something he has not yet accepted or believed. But his denial of the gospel has not hindered us in building a relationship with the mayor, nor partnering with him to relieve some suffering in the slums of Bangalore.

I should soon have the opportunity to ask Frank about the NBC's alleged denial that the greatest need in our world is the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have not personally heard Mr. Carter or Mr. Underwood say this, and from my understanding, more than a few of the African-American pastors on the program are some great gospel preachers, but if I were to attend the Atlanta convocation, I will definitely be on the alert regarding any denial that the world needs the gospel. I make it a practice not to take someone's word about another, but wait until I hear it for myself, and if I were to learn that a Baptist brother denies the world's need of Jesus Christ, I would be greatly grieved. But I'm not sure I couldn't partner with them to relieve some suffering in the world, just like we've partnered with the Hindu -- and of course, I would try to convert my Baptist brother to true Christianity. Heaven knows that my concern for the past two years is that the Southern Baptist Convention may be on the verge of putting tradition and religion above knowing Christ and believing His authoritative and sufficient Word.

That being said, it does seem to me that Dr. Page's comments, as delivered by Baptist Press, sound like they may have been written by someone other than Frank. They are not quite as irenic as his usual words. Those of us who have been in such positions as Frank know that, on occasion, denominational or state officials prepare statements and have the President sign it. That may or may not be what has happened here. Regardless, Frank probably saw the document and signed off on it. The language and timing sure sound like someone high up may be a little afraid that the the SBC may be perceived by the secular press as becoming soft on liberalism - someone who was deeply involved in the conflicts of decades past.

I really think that there may be some in established denominational positions that carry so much emotional baggage over past conflict in the SBC that it is difficult for them to even think in terms of a new paradigm. Sometimes the softness of denominational luxury causes one to lose sight of the rampant poverty, disease, and sickness in third world countries. Of course, that happens to those of us who are pastors as well, and that's one of the reasons I enjoy going to third world countries with our people -- it helps me keep perspective.

Finally, the Baptist Press article today reminds me that Southern Baptists should always be champions of freedom - including a free press. We must always be on guard against any SBC Executive Committee offical or employee using Baptist Press as a public relations tool. Baptist Press must be free and employees of Baptist Press should not take their orders from denominational executives. As it stands, the headline on the Baptist Press article with Page's remarks within the first hour of posting from Page Rebukes New Covenant to Page Responds to Carter. I'm wondering who put the first title up, and who called and requested the second?

Not that it makes much difference. We are all Baptists. And as I said in my earlier post, we should respect one another's opinion, and love each other, even when we disagree. I'm not sure where I stand on the New Baptist Covenant - it may end up being a smokescreen for liberal politics - but I'm not sure how much different that would be from a convention attaching herself to right wing politics.

Both bother me.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

P.S. PC in the title is 'Political Correctness.' EC in the title is the 'Executive Committee' of the SBC.

The Nominating Committee Report to the SBC

Today, Baptist Press will release the nominations for committee and board service in the Southern Baptist Convention, to be voted upon by the full convention in San Antonio this summer.

This Nominating Committee report is the culmination of the year's work performed by the Bobby Welch Nominating Committee. Frank Page's Nominating Committee, the members of which will be voted upon at this year's convention, will not present their first year recommendations until the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention.

This report will be analyzed by many bloggers who can do a far better job than I. I anticipate making a few comments about various recommendations of this year's Nominating Committee report either late tonight or early in the morning.

Ultimately, the convention and her agencies are run by the people you will be voting upon this summer in this report.

It's important you know who it is you are being recommended to approve.

In His Grace,

Wade

(Update: It seems BP, originally scheduled to release the report today, is waiting to release it for reasons unknown by me. The SBC Bylaws mandates it be released by April 24, 2007.)

Commendation for the 2007 Nominating Committee

Today I have been on the road to Memphis, Tennessee and the post I had up this morning was accidentally deleted by a friend who was moderating the comments and discussion. The post and all comments are gone. I saved the original post in as a Word document and am reposting it with simply a new title and a couple of changes. It seems that the Chairman of the Nominating Committee worked diligently with his committee last week to insure that fresh faces were appointed to the respective committees of the Southern Baptist Convention, and I commend Pastor Tommy for his due diligence. The trustee system is how our agencies are governed, and there seem to be some very positive steps being taken to insure trustee indendepence.

My previous post entitled Are We A Denomination Or Are We A Convention contained some excellent comments, three worth pointing out here.

Tim Guthrie stated:

If the SBC were a denomination, then the denomination would run the entities. If the SBC were a Convention, the entities would be governed by the Trustee system as elected by the Convention when it is in session. We as Southern Baptist are a Convention not a Denomination.

Volfann agreed with Tim and wrote:

I agree with Tim Guthrie. What we all need to understand, and I include myself, is that the seminaries and the IMB and NAMB and all the other entities cannot be what we all want them to be. There's just no way that can happen. The leaders and the trustees have to manage them the way they feel led by the Lord, and they are probably gonna do things that a few, or some, or even many, don't think that they ought to do. Some will feel that they can do it better. And, if there are enough of us who believe that the trustees are not doing their job, that things are not being done right, then we can take care of that at the Southern Baptist Convention every year, just like the conservative resurgence did.

Professor X responded to both Tim and Volfann with the following insight:

However, our convention can only function at maximum effieciency if a truly representative Board of Trustees is in place at each entity of our convention. For example, if trustees are all purposefully nominated because they hold a particular scriptural interpretation on certain 'hot topics' then the trustee board does not fully reflect the broad views of the convention. If any board of the convention is manipulated by an outside group, or singular person, in order to reflect one aspect of the broader opinion in the convention as a whole then it does not properly reflect the members of the SBC.

The Nominating Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention met this past week in Nashville, Tennessee. For those uninitiated with the nominating process it might be helpful to read this explanation of how it works. In summary, the Nominating Committee is selected by the Committee on Committees, and approved by messengers of the SBC in June. The following March the Nominating Committee meets in Nashville, Tennessee to recommend men and women from across the SBC to serve as trustees of our SBC agency boards. The Nominating Committee that met last week was selected by the Committee on Committees appointed by Bobby Welch in his last year of service as President of the SBC. Frank Page's first appointed Committee on Committees will present next year's Nominating Committee at the SBC in San Antonio this June.

Again, the full report of this year's Nominating Committee will be made public by Baptist Press on April 19th. I am confident that all the people who served on this year's Nominating Committee are sincere and wonderful people, and I have been assured that the leadership of the committee, including the Chairman, went the extra mile to insure that the appointments were impartial. I would like to point out five examples from this year's Nominating Committee meeting that illustrate why things are changing in the SBC.

(1). The President of one of our agencies sent a letter to the two members of the Nominating Committee from Indiana recommended a list of people to serve on his board. To the credit of the Indiana contingent, they expressed disappoint that this had occurred, and it makes one wonder if the days of Presidents of any SBC agency seeking to influence the Nominating Committee are over.

(2). One of the Nominating Committee members, when making his nomination for a trustee on the board of Southeastern Seminary made this statement: "And President Danny Akin likes him." I'm sure this particular Nominating Committee member has a sincere heart and does not realize the inappropriateness of contacting Dr. Akin to see if the President likes a particular person, but Southern Baptists must realize that Presidents should NOT be catered to when it comes to putting particular people on their board. Also, vice versa, Southern Baptist boards should not be stacked in an effort to remove a President. When sitting trustees 'vet' potential trustees to insure the board is filled with 'like-minded' people, then we have a problem. The Holy Spirit should guide the Nominating Committee and the Presidents of our entities, and sitting trustees, should have no influence on the Nominating Committee. There should be very strict guidelines that are adhered to closely to insure the nominating process is not manipulated. What makes me hopeful, and that for which I commend the members of this year's Nominating Committee, is that innocent statements like this are seen as problematic by some members and steps are being taken to inform others that the process should be INDEPENDENT of any SBC agency administration.

(3). The pastor and layperson who served on the Nominating Committee from Florida initially nominated to serve on the International Mission Board the Florida Committee on Committees member who had nominated them to serve on the Nominating Committee. This is a violation of bylaws, and though it was not initially caught, we should give thanks to the the excellent staff of the Executive Committee for discovering the bylaw violation and the Nominating Committee for correcting it. I'm sure the initial oversight was innocent, as well as what happened next, which may have just slipped by the notice of the entire committee.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of Southern Baptists in Florida who have never served on a board, the two Florida Nominating Committee members, a pastor and a female doctor, nominated Debbie Brunson to replace their initial recommendation which did not meet the guidelines . Debbie is a vivacious, charming lady who loves the Lord and is a wonderful pastor's wife at First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida. Yet Debbie has already served over a three year term on the IMB. The bylaws also state that a person must reside within a state for an entire year before they can serve on an SBC board. Debbie and her husband Mac have been at FBC Jacksonville, Florida for a year - sympathetic with Landmark tenets. Again, I am not suggesting that Dr. York be replaced as a nominee at all. I am simply illustrating that the sensitivity to being sure we appoint a broad representation of views for trustees of our agencies is growing, and the very likeable Herschael illustrates this point. I realize that it is a process and we have not fully arrived, but in an ideal world, the trustees would reflect the broad and various views of the Southern Baptist Convention. As has been stated by one of our finer Southern Baptist historians, there is a growing Landmark presence in SBC academia, but it is definitely not the majority view. As Nathan Finn writes:

A second group of inerrantists whose star continues to rise is the Landmark movement, which is both a movement unto itself and a shadow-movement that can be present as a subset of many of the above movements (particularly the revivalist and Calvinist movements). Landmarkism was long out of touch with SBC leadership, but has enjoyed a major revival in the last 30 years or so. Once confined to the mostly rural churches of Kentucky and Arkansas, Landmarkism is once again roaming the halls in some corners of SBC academia.

It would also be a mistake to uncritically embrace Landmarkism. Let me say loud and clear that I am much more concerned about those among us with no discernable Baptist ecclesiology than I am with Landmarkers. At least Landmarkers are attempting to articulate a systematic, biblical ecclesiology, even when (in my opinion) they fall short. Landmarkism itself is not the bad guy. But some versions of Landmarkism are not benign. There is a type of strident Landmarkism that historically has led to the rejection of cooperative missions among Southern Baptists and attempted to equate “Landmark” with “Baptist.” Modern versions of this malignant Landmarkism should be resisted because they will destroy us.

Neither Nathan Finn nor I would say Dr. York is part of strident Landmarkism, but his potential presence on the board strengthens any Landmark tendencies that may be present. Over a year ago a key trustee of the IMB told me, "I am Landmark and proud of it." The SBC is not a Landmark Convention, but as I and others, including David Rogers, have been saying for now well over a year, if we are not careful we will continue a sharp shift toward Landmarkism as a convention.

(5). The Chairman of the Nominating Committee has encouraged all his members to be in San Antonio. I think he understands, as do I, that 'the freedom of being able to interpret the Scriptures differently on tertiary doctrines but work together in cooperation for missions' is the inviolable foundation of the Cooperative Program. Anything less will destroy the fabric of our convention.

Again, I am grateful for the people who have served on this year's Nominating Committee. There seem to be some really wonderful appointments, and even the two specific appointments that I have mentioned in this post will ultimately be good ones for the SBC. I do believe this year's committee and Dr. Frank Page's appointment of the Committee on Commitees have brought a sense of freshness to nominating process and will ultimately insure that we keep our trustee boards as independent, broad and diverse as possible.

Rachelle and I will be leaving for Memphis, Tennessee after church today to attend the International Mission Board. As I have stated on multiple occasions, the SBC works best when our work is done in openness and transparancy. I will give you my opinion and perception of this week's IMB meeting in posts Monday through Thursday.

Blessings to you all.


Wade