Wednesday, November 07, 2007

I Support Lottie Moon, the IMB and the SBC

Sometimes in the course of Southern Baptist life disagreements arise that can often be misunderstood by the world in general and by Southern Baptists in particular. I hesitate to write of the action of the trustees of the International Mission Board last night as a majority voted in the Executive (closed door) Session to censure me. The action was approved by voice vote (no vote count available) and reported in this morning's public session. I sincerely hesitate to write about this censure for two reasons:

(1). I do not desire to distract people from understanding the great things that are happening within the Southern Baptist Convention, from seeking the advancement of the gospel of Jesus Christ through SBC ministry, and from focusing on the very important and continuing missionary work of the International Mission Board. I can in good conscience say that I did everything in my power, without violating my own principles, to accomodate trustee leadership in order to ensure last night's board meeting in Springfield, Illinois would not be consumed with matters that are of no relevance to our mission. I respect those trustees that voted for this censure and I know that deep in their hearts they desire what is best for the SBC as they see it. I also know that we simply have two different world views and two different perspectives on the need for freedom of dissent and complete transparency within the SBC.

(2). Further, I do not desire, in any form or fashion, to take away from the needed emphasis on the Lottie Moon Offering or SBC Cooperative Program giving. Any impartial reader of my blog knows that I have been supportive of the Southern Baptist Convention, the International Mission Board, and particularly the vision of our IMB President Jerry Rankin. My desire is to hold the ropes for our missionaries in every way possible, and I intend to lead our church to GREATER giving and participation in SBC missions and ministry this year.

However, due to the nature of the censure, adopted by majority vote and presented in Plenary Session this morning, I thought it best that every Southern Baptist be able to read the official motion. In addition, I have added my responses to some of the statements in the censure and convenience I have linked you to the blog posts in question; posts that the Executive Committee believes are the reason for the censure. I wish you would read the posts yourselves. Following the official motion to censure with my brief explanations at various places below, I have placed in full my official response.

We are Baptists. Sometimes there are disagreements. Please know that my prayer for all of us is that we will support Lottie Moon, the work of the International Mission Board and the Southern Baptist Convention in even greater measures in the months to come.


MOTION FOR CENSURE OF TRUSTEE WADE BURLESON



"Whereas the International Mission Board exists for the purpose of leading Southern Baptists to be on misssion with God to bring all peoples of the world to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Whereas the trustees of the IMB are responsible for establishing overall policy and direction for the organization and conducting oversight of its operations in a manner that furthers the IMB's purpose;

Whereas Wade Burleson of Oklahoma presently serves as a trustee of the IMB.

Whereas Wade Burleson, like every other trustee of the IMB, serves as a trustee subject to the obligation to abide by the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities set forth in the Trustee and General Policy Manual;

Whereas the Trustee Standards of Conduct require trustees, among other things, to observe the following standards:

1. Individual IMB trustees must refrain from public criticism of Board approved actions. Experience has shown that it is not possible to draw fine lines in this area. Freedom of expression must give way to the imperative that the work of the Kingdom not be placed at risk by publicly airing differences within the Board.

2. Trustees must scrupulously avoid either the fact or the appearance of having disclosed information secured during closed or executive sessions of the full Board to any of its committees, or any other non-public information concerning Board operations (regardless of how and where secured) with persons who are not trustees or senior Board staff. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, quoting or sharing private conversations or statements by fellow trustees or senior Board staff with persons who are neither trustees nor senior Board staff.

Whereas, the General Trustee Responsibilities set forth the Trustee and General Policy Manual require trustees, among other things, to observe the following standards:

Trustees are TO INTERPRET international missions in their sphere of influence in the denomination -- home, local church, association, state convention, and SBC, as an informed, enthusiastic advocate of global missions. In this respect, trustees are to speak in positive and supportive terms as they interpret and report on actions by the Board, regardless of whether they personally support the action.

WB's response: I will always speak, and have always spoken, in positive and supportive terms of the mission and people of the IMB, both missionaries and trustees. I do agree that I have sometimes, not often, spoken critically about actions of our board, but I have a hard time understanding how a trustee can be supportive of Board actions that he does not personally support. That seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. I think the Baptist way is to be gracious and kind in your dissent, but to always be honest and transparent about the reasons why you cannot personally support a guideline or policy.

Trustees are TO EXEMPLIFY what it means to be Christ-like in decorum and sincerely committed to the Southern Baptist Convention cooperative mission tasks. In this respect, trustees are to speak the truth in love. Trustees are to refrain from speaking in disparaging terms about IMB personnel and fellow trustees.

WB's response: AMEN! One of the best statements ever!

Whereas the Board of Trustees finds that Wade Burleson has repeatedly failed to abide by the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities enumerated above. Some examples of the ways in which Wade Burleson has violated these standards and responsibilities include the following:

(a) He has repeatedly used his blog to share private communications with fellow trustees with person who are neither trustees nor senior Board staff, in violation of the Trustee Standards of Conduct. Examples of these include the following:

blog post of 9/12/2007 (posting of private conversation with trustee John Floyd)

WB's response: This conversation was in direct relation to questions asked of me by Southern Baptists at large regarding my service on a Regional Committee of the Board; my post pertained to official public board business and I believe Southern Baptists have the right to know the answers to their questions.

blog post of 9/12/2007 (posting of private conversation with trustee Jerry Corbaley)

WB explanation: As is my custom, I write about the days events at the Board meeting. I simply asked Mr. Corbaley his definition of 'slander' and recorded my perception of what he said in the PUBLIC plenary session};

blog post of 10/23/2007 (posting of private letter written by trustee Jerry Corbaley)

WB's response: the Corbaley letter is self-explanatory. Unlike two years ago, I knew what was coming and felt it was best for Southern Baptists to read the information themselves. I wrote courteously of Mr. Corbaley, and I do not take responsibility for the unmoderated comments which are not mine;

blog post of July 18, 2007 (posting of private communication with trustee Jerry Corbaley)

WB explanation: Again, as is my custom, I write about the days events at the Board meeting, and refrain from blogging any private conversation if requested, but Mr. Corbaley indicated that his actions of shunning me were Biblical and he would make them public if I continued to pursue a relationship with him; however, it was not my desire to embarrass Mr. Corbaley. I was wrongly under the impression - at the time - that he was not embarrassed by his actions. He has acknowledged that I may have misunderstood his intentions on our conversation in the cafeteria being made public, but regardless of my understanding at the time, I have sincerely apologized to Mr. Corbaley personally if my post unintentionally reflected poorly on him. This apology occurred at the first opportunity I had to visit with Mr. Corbaley privately after being made aware of the offense - several hours prior to the official motion for censure;

He has also shared, by email, private communication with fellow trustees with persons who are neither trustees nor senior Board staff, in violation of the Trustee Standards of Conduct (see, e.g., November 1, 2007 email to trustee John Floyd)

WB's response: I am really puzzled by this one because the email in question was one that I wrote, not John, and I copied my accountability group (my father, my wife, my associate pastor) and told John that this was NOT a private email and could be distributed publicly;

(b) He has spoken in disparaging terms about fellow trustees. Examples of these include the following: blog post of July 18, 2007 (disparaging comments concerning trustee Jerry Corbaley); blog post of July 20, 2007 (disparaging comments concerning trustee Winston Curtis); blog post of September 12, 2007 (disparaging comments concerning trustee Jerry Corbaley and leadership of trustee John Floyd); blog post of October 23, 2007 (disparaging comments concerning trustee Jerry Corbaley)

WB's response: I sincerely and deeply apologize for anything I have written that has been construed to reflect poorly on any of my fellow trustees, including Winston Curtis, John Floyd, and Jerry Corbaley. I love these, my brothers in Christ, and believe they have the best interest of the Southern Baptist Convention in mind. Yet, in my attempt to deal with various issues facing us as a convention, the Executive Committee believes the above posts have reflected poorly on these my brothers. It has always been my intention for my writing to reveal some of the problems with the positions these men were taking on various issues. However, if the Executive Committee feels that my post has reflected poorly on these men, I sincerely and humbly apologize. It is worth noting that not one of these men made known their offense to me personally by pointing out the offending posts and asking me to remove it. As soon as the Executive Committee pointed the offenses of these three individuals on Monday afternoon, I immediately made it known I would apologize to these men personally, and publicly, at the first opportunity. I also think that others might read the posts in question and come away being able to see the difference between disagreement on positions while accepting people, but nevertheless, if the three men were offended, it is my duty as a believer to reconcile with them, and I happily fulfill that duty.;

(c) He has spoken in terms that are not positive and supportive of the Board when interpreting and reporting on actions by the Board. Examples of these include the following: blog post and comments of July 10, 2007 (critical of Board policy on requirements for appointment of missionaries); blog post of July 6, 2007 (same); blog post of July 3, 2007 (same); blog post of June 13, 2007 (same); blog post of June 7, 2007 (same).

WB's response: I would encourage every Southern Baptists to read the posts cited above. I believe you will find I always speak positively of the SBC and the IMB, but I articulate differences of opinion on issues related to each entity. Particularly, the above posts speak directly to the Garner Motion of the SBC and the impact its passage will have on SBC entities.

Whereas the IMB Executive Committee met with Burleson on the afternoon of November 5, 2007 out of concern for his ongoing violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities and out of a desire to bring about reconciliation between Burleson and the other trustees. Trustee Chairman John Floyd asked Burleson if he would apologize for his violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities and expressed to Burleson his desire to see Burleson appointed to board committees and serve as a fully-functioning trustee, using his strengths and gifts to further the work of the IMB.

Whereas following that meeting of the Executive Committee, two trustee members of the Executive Committee and a senior staff IMB staff member met with Burleson on the evening of November 5, 2007 for further discussion. Burleson was asked to apologize for the following violations:

(a) Making public private communications with fellow trustees;
(b) Speaking in a way that reflected poorly on fellow trustees; and
(c) Publicly criticizing board approved actions instead of speaking in positive and supportive terms as he interpreted and reported on actions of the Board of Trustees, regardless of whether he personally supported those actions.

Whereas specific instances of each of these violations were cited to Burleson. Burleson acknowledged these violations to the two trustee members of the Executive Committee and the senior IMB staff member. Burleson stated that the violations regarding speaking in a way that reflected poorly on his fellow trustees were unintentional offenses for which he would gladly apologize. However, he stated that he intentionally chose to make public private communications with the trustees and that he intentionally chose to publicly criticize board approved actions instead of speaking in positive and supportive terms as he interpreted and reported on board actions.

WB's response: As I have often stated in my blog - I try to write about issues and NOT people. To whatever extent I have unintentionally placed any of my fellow trustees in a poor light, I will quickly, publically and genuinely acknowledge it is an UNINENTIONAL violation of trustee guidelines and apologize immediately when shown the specific offenses (as I have done). It is my desire to always be reconciled with my brothers. My practice is to quickly apologize for offenses of my fellow trustees when they express their feelings that I have caused the offense in them personally. I am also choosing to harbor no offense against any trustee who may violate Christian principles in relationship with me. As Scripture clearly says, 'Love covers a multitude of sins' and there seems to me to be no reason for our enemies in the world to be fellow Christians.

Burleson further stated that he would not apologize for these intentional violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities. Burleson stated that he had voted against these standards of conduct when they were adopted because he believed in the principle of dissent. Burleson further added that he had refused to abide by these standards of conduct after they were adopted and that he desired to bring the issue to the SBC;

WB's response: Though I am not sure what the last sentence above actually means, I think this might be the opportunity to clarify that the above paragraph is THE issue for me. I cannot apologize for holding to a higher principle - the freedom to dissent. My dissent must be gracious, loving, kind, civil and Christian - and where it is not I will quickly apologize. But the ability to freely dissent is a cherished Baptist principle, and where Baptists lose it, we cease being Baptists. The Executive Committee feels that I should apologize for speaking out critically concerning board actions or policies that have been adopted by the board. They feel my blog has been a platform where people can feel free to criticize the actions of the board of trustees. Here we have a simple difference of opinion. I feel I have repeatedly and conscientiously been supportive of the work of the IMB and the administration of the IMB, and even my written criticism of trustee guidelines or policies has been with the goal of showing a minority view, dissenting with kindness and grace, and never making the differences of position on these very important matters a moral issue. In other words, I have sought to live out grace and truth on my blog. Therefore, I cannot apologize for anything I have written when it involves my strong, courteous, and principled dissent concerning any board directive or policy that I believe encroaches upon the doctrinal parameters set by the Southern Baptist Convention or that in any way contravenes our cherished Baptist distinctives. I stand behind every post on Grace and Truth and will not remove any post as a testimony to the veracity and original intent of everything I have written.

Whereas the Executive Committee subsequently reconvened on the evening of November 5, 2007 to hear from the two trustee members of the Executive Committee and a senior IMB staff member report on their conversation with Burleson.

WB's response: These two trustee members and this senior IMB staff member requested of me Monday night that I give a proposed 'solution' to the stalemate we had at the Board. I suggested that I apologize to the three trustees mentioned for unintentionally placing them in a poor light with the SBC, that they not seek an apology for my public but courteous dissent, that the Executive Committee not issue a censure, and that on December 6, 2007 I would close my blog 'Grace and Truth to You" as it relates to IMB and SBC issues. I further told them that it would be best at this time of season to focus on missions and not allow anyone to distract us from our mission as trustees. I was surprised this was not the approach the Executive Committee eventually took.


Whereas the Executive Committee determined that it was appropriate to recommend censure by the full Board of Trustees for Burleson's intentional and unapologetic violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities;

Whereas the IMB Board of Trustees is empowered to enforce the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities and censure individual trustees who do not abide by these standards and responsibilities;

THEREFORE, based on the findings enumerated above, the IMB Board of Trustees hereby orders that the following action be taken with regard to Wade Burleson:

(a) Wade Burleson is hereby officially censured by this Board for his violation of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities;

(b) Wade Burleson is hereby officially suspended from any active involvement with the Board of Trustees for at least the next four IMB trustee meetings. This suspension means, without limitation, that Burleson will not be allowed to participate in any meeting or business of the Trustee Board, serve on any trustee committee, or be reimbursed for the expenses of travel to any trustee meeting or business. This suspension will be reviewed after the four trustee meetings have occurred. The Executive Committee will make a determination at that time whether the suspension should be lifted. If prior to that time, Burleson makes an apology to the Board for his violations of the Trustee Standards of Conduct and Trustee Responsibilities, commits to working within the structure and policies of the Board, and agrees to refrain from blogging about the IMB, the Executive Committee will consider lifting the above restrictions.

WB's response: The bylaws of the Southern Baptist Convention state that I am elected by the Southern Baptist Convention. Though I had initially intended to cease blogging about IMB and SBC issues, I will now continue bloggin for the indefinite future. My wife and I will pay for my own way to the trustee meetings, and I will be present and voting at all plenary and executive session board meetings. I will continue to be courteous and kind to all my fellow trustees and will blog about those issues I believe to be of an essential nature to the future of the SBC. Further, I will always be supportive of our causes and mission, and will never do anything to harm the IMB or the SBC.

I support Lottie Moon, the IMB and the SBC.

I also support my fellow trustees and accept their censure with the Christian grace due them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Though I cannot control the comments on this blog, I would gently encourage my readers to be as civil and Christian in responses as you feel I have been.


__________________

After the above resolution was approved, I read the following statement to my fellow trustees:

STATEMENT OF TRUSTEE WADE BURLESON
November 7, 2007



It is the belief of the Executive Committee of the International Mission Board, John Floyd, Chairman, that my blog has been detrimental to the ongoing missionary efforts of the International Mission Board and the ministry of the Southern Baptist Convention at large. Others, including myself, know that my blog has spurred interest for, and involvement in, the missionary processes and ministry opportunities of the Southern Baptist Convention. I began my blog as a public response to an alarming trend toward narrowing the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist missionary cooperation and participation beyond the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. The convention has spoken to this concern by adopting the Garner Motion at the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio, Texas, which reaffirmed the parameters of doctrinal cooperation recognized by the convention to guide Southern Baptist agencies, boards, and institutions.

In the heat of disagreement over these very important issues during the past two years, mistakes have been made on both sides. We are human, and the temptation for us all is to place personal agendas, political desires and positions of influence in front of what should be our deepest desire to see the world impacted by the wonderful good news that Jesus Christ has come to set sinners free. I sincerely and deeply apologize for anything I have written that construed to reflect poorly on any of my fellow trustees, including Winston Curtis, John Floyd, and Jerry Corbaley. I love these, my brothers in Christ, and believe they have the best interest of the Southern Baptist Convention in mind. Yet, in my attempt to deal with various issues facing us as a convention, the Executive Committee believes I wrote posts that reflected poorly on these my brothers. It has always been my intention for my writing to reveal some of the problems with the positions these men were taking on various issues. However, if the Executive Committee feels that my post has reflected poorly on these men, I sincerely and humbly apologize.

The Executive Committee also feels that I should apologize for speaking out critically concerning board actions or policies that have been adopted by the board. They feel my blog has been a platform where people can feel free to criticize the actions of the board of trustees. Here we have a simple difference of opinion. I feel I have repeatedly and conscientiously been supportive of the work of the IMB and the administration of the IMB, and even my written criticism of trustee guidelines or policies has been with the goal of showing a minority view, dissenting with kindness and grace, and never making the differences of position on these very important matters a moral issue. In other words, I have sought to live out grace and truth on my blog. Therefore, I cannot apologize for anything I have written when it involves my strong, courteous, and principled dissent concerning any board directive or policy that I believe encroaches upon the doctrinal parameters set by the Southern Baptist Convention or that in any way contravenes our cherished Baptist distinctives. I stand behind every post on Grace and Truth and will not remove any post as a testimony to the veracity and original intent of everything I have written.

However, due to the fact my blog seems to be a distraction to some in fulfilling our call as trustees of the International Mission Board, I have a decision to make. My Baptist principles will not allow me to condone the actions of any Southern Baptist agency that systematically and repeatedly attempts to stifle passionate, principled dissent among brothers. Nevertheless, I also do not wish to be a distraction to the work of the board by receiving repeated censures for what I write on my blog.

I request prayers for wisdom and strength as I seek to place my prioritized ministry concern upon the interest of Christ and the advancement of His Kingdom, even when the calling to serve as a trustee brings an official board censure. Beyond any prayer for me, however, I would ask that all Southern Baptists continue undeterred in sacrifical giving and faithful support of the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and the Cooperative Program.

I wish all Southern Baptists to work together in harmony for the expansion of Christ's Kingdom. I cannot apologize for being a Baptist. I will not apologize for attempting to hold our convention and this board faithful to that end. I will be a trustee of the International Mission Board for a season. I will be a Southern Baptist for a lifetime. I will be a follower of Jesus Christ for eternity.

_______________________

Dr. John Floyd would not recognize me when I came to the microphone today to read the following statement. It clarifies my intentions for the immediate future.


I shall faithfully fulfill the four year appointment I have received to serve as a trustee of the International Mission Board. Rachelle and I will gladly pay our own way to attend the IMB trustee meetings, including overseas meetings with missionaries, and we are thrilled that the money saved can be used to support the IMB's overseas mission work. I respect my fellow trustees and humbly accept the majority decision to censure me. I pray that those who supported the motion will be able to understand I cannot violate my Baptist distinctives, particularly the freedom to dissent. I am an IMB trustee for a season. I am a Southern Baptist for a lifetime. I am a follower of Jesus Christ for eternity.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

237 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 237 of 237
Anonymous said...

Dear Pastor Wade,

You don't know me. I am an IMB appointed Missionary. I met you and your wife at the appointment service this past September at Ridgecrest. I got an email in the our internal email system today about the censure. I have been reading your blogs for a long time and I want to let you know I enjoy your writing and I agree with many of your view points.

Even though I enjoy reading your blogs, I have to say I don't think its right for you to be blogging about the detail conversations from the trustees meeting. I found your blog site just by chance one day when I was surfing the net. Anyone can find and read about these disagreements and complains. I don't think these disputes glorify God's name

1 Corinthians 6:1-11. states that Christians should NOT take our dispute before the ungodly. By posting your disagreements online you are telling the whole world (the ungodly) about these problems. I think you should solve these problems behind closed doors and not put it online for the whole world to read.

If you really want to share these things you should consider putting a password on your blog so that only fellow Christians can have access to it.

Anyway, I just want to share my point of view. My wife and I will be praying for you and the rest of the trustees. I hope you guys can resolve this and move on to more important matters. There are too many lost people in the world that need to hear the gospel. I don't think we should spent time fighting among ourselves.

DH

RKSOKC66 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Greg Harvey

I'm not using the judicial standard for the word slander. Rather, I am using the biblical one. Psalms 15:3 to be exact. Psalm 15:1-3 goes like this: "O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, And speaks truth in his heart.
He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor takes up a reproach against his friend;"

So a slanderer would be one who privately, secretly, behind a man's back speaks evil of him, devours and destroys his credit and reputation.

This is being done to the entire BoT, and individuals are even named. I certainly do not have the time to sit and site every comment I believe to be slanderous . . .but take the above definition and read the comments yourself.

Anon M 2B

Anonymous said...

WADE:

I HAVE BEEN TOLD ALL OF MY YEARS IN THE PASTORATE THAT THE TOTAL FUNDS GIVEN TO LOTTIE MOON GOES OVERSEAS TO MISSIONARIES. ALSO, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT NO LOTTIE MOON MONEY GOES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES. IS THIS WHAT OCCURS?

TMAX

Anonymous said...

Webster says gossip is a rumor or report of an intimate nature...

I don't see how being told someone had an affair and believing the story w/o talking to the individual is anything BUT gossip.

If a church member was told something about a pastor and believed it w/o asking the pastor... is that ok? But a pastor can believe something about his congregation w/o confronting the person?

That's not right. When I heard something about my pastor that was not good, I hung up the phone and immediately called my pastor to ask him about it.

I would hope he would do the same if he heard something about me snd not withhold service opportunities based on hearsay.

I don't think you have to REPEAT what you hear in order to be a gossip. Believing it is enough.

James said...

[anonymous]So a slanderer would be one who privately, secretly, behind a man's back speaks evil of him, devours and destroys his credit and reputation.

There's nothing private about this blog. It is certainly not as private as an executive session of the BoT. So who is slandering whom?

Let the BoT do the convention's business in public, and it will immunize itself from recriminations by inquirers with honest intent (that is, if their actions are above reproach). If they look bad today, I regret that it is their own fault.

[DH] 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. states that Christians should NOT take our dispute before the ungodly.

The ungodly? To whom are you referring? I'll lay odds that the vast majority of the readers of this blog are Southern Baptists...the church family. And they have a right to know what actions the BoT is pursuing in their name.

I can't seem to get any of the Board's defenders to acknowledge or deny that if, 30 years ago, the IMB had issued a gag order and censured a conservative board member in an off-the-record session, that it would have caused an outrage... and it ought to have.

Yet here we have a full board of bona fide believers in Biblical Authority and for some reason a Board's activities require secrecy?

Anonymous said...

Just for clarification. By "ungodly" I mean non-believers. I think Christian dispute should be kept behind closed doors. It doesn't glorify God's name to have the whole world read about it.

DH

Philip said...

Anonymous said, "It doesn't glorify God's name to have the whole world read about it."

I have to disagree here. This is one of those churchy statements that sounds good, but doesn't pass muster with me. A dispute, by its nature, is not dishonoring to God. The world is not naive. We're not fooling anybody into thinking we're perfect, and it is this mindset that foments an environment where Christians can be called hypocrites when genuine disputes do arise.

"Look at those Christians, having an argument. I thought they didn't do that." It's an unrealistic expectation. I appreciate the verse you mention, but I believe you're applying too strict a standard to it.

What's most important is HOW the dispute is handled. This is a perfect example to show how Christ DOES make a difference in lives.

Wade demonstrates this perfectly. He has shown grace and love anytime he's disagreed with someone. I believe that if a non-christian stumbled across this blog, they would see that there is clearly something different about Christianity, when a man can say he loves his brothers and sisters in Christ, but he disagrees with their policies and thinks that some things should change.

Ultimately, this is not a private matter. This is important to Southern Baptists everywhere, and there is not a way to do this behind closed doors in this day and age. So it is paramount that we demonstrate love and patience, even though we may disagree.

It is a shame that many non-christians disagree in a more Godly manner than some Christians I've seen, and still manage to go home friends. We could learn from them.

greg.w.h said...

So, again, the word ragal (resh-gamel-lamed to walk or go about) that we translate slander is idiomatic and probably is derived from the concept "to walk quickly" as in "to say something and walk quickly away." The implication remains that it is a false statement.

I will offer that while you might be able to make the biblical case that anyone who opposes Godly leadership could be eaten by bears, short of God miraculously demonstrating Wade moral failure, you still have to prove your claim of him saying something evil and then walking away quickly.

Otherwise, your comment is fallacy--specifically an ad hominem attack--and neither biblical nor effective argumentation. In fact, short of you proving your case, then you are guilty of the charge that you level against Wade. Reminds me of the traditional saying about fools, angels, and walking quickly.

Greg Harvey

Anonymous said...

[Philip] you are right, not all disputes are dishonoring to God, but divisiveness is dishonoring to God. John 13:34-35 reminds us to love one another so that the world may know that we are Christians. I think Satan is using this to divide the church. Just look at the replies and you can see how passionate people are over this. I really believe we need to put our passion and energy into reaching the lost and not spending time arguing among ourselves.

DH

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good fight.

Lin said...

"I think Christian dispute should be kept behind closed doors. It doesn't glorify God's name to have the whole world read about it. "

So we can pretend we are righteous?

BTW: 1 Corinthians 6 is speaking of having unbelievers JUDGE cases between believers in a court of law. It is about having unbelievers DECIDE and settle the dispute.


Also on the Psalm 15 passage... slander is the same as lying or 'tale bearing' so who has been slandered and how?

Wade was accused of slander by Mr. Corbelay but was not censured for slander. (Because he didn't...I read the document) So was Wade slandered by Mr. Corbelay?

That passage talks about speaking truth in the heart. Why do we need closed door sessions for truth? We cannot even ask for the truth of what went on there because of the gag rule. So how can we slander? Get it? Very convenient gag rule. We can be accused of slander but not allowed to know the truth!

It is a Talmudic conumdrum!

Philip said...

DH, I can't disagree with you there, except that I do. :) Since there is clearly passion on all sides (and I submit that with 210 comments, there are bound to be some that are quite human in their tone), then this is something that we absolutely must take care of so that we CAN move on to doing the work of the church and of Christ-followers. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is part of the work of the church, albeit an uncomfortable one. The church always has had disputes, always will, which is why Paul spent so much time addressing it. We must take as much care in this process as we take in planning an outreach event.

I hope that we can dispense with this quickly, but it must be dealt with. I would also say that God's work continues to be done. The IMB continues to operate. My friends who are IMB M's continue their work. My church continues to plan and implement outreaches.

While we are definitely intently focused on this right now, the church as a whole, and the SBC as an entity are fully capable of moving through the process of dealing with this while at the same time reaching the world for Christ. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Just one layman's opinion of course.

Blessings to you as you continue in your work.

Wayne Smith said...

Pastor Noel and Others,

To answer your question, why Wade was the only Dissenter, it is FEAR,FEAR,FEAR!!!
The IMB of Trustees has been a Stacked Deck of Cards put in place by The CR Powers that still Control the SBC. This Board has been changing this past Year and the Powers in place are losing Control as Jerry Corbaley’s letter even states this Fact. So Dr John Floyd, Dr. Jerry Corbaley and Others from the Group Controlled by the Powers to be had to make there move now and before the Annual Convention. When Dr Frank Page was elected President of the SBC The CR Powers started to come apart. The BIG MOVE to regain Power will be happening this next coming SBC Convention.
Our Glorious and Gracious GOD will reveal it all in His Time. We have been getting Glimpses of this each and every Day.
The Old Old Story is that you can Fool Some of the People Some of the Time, But you Can’t Fool All The People All the Time.

In His Name

Lin said...

" not all disputes are dishonoring to God, but divisiveness is dishonoring to God."

I am really not trying to pour it on but am a bit flummoxed as to your scriptural references. Divisiveness is sometimes (not always) necessary and even ordained by God in some instances.

18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

1 Corinthians 11

Some things we must be divisive over. Especially all this secrecy taking place.

What you are talking about is a faux unity. Just like the gag rule that says you must only say positive things about the BoT's decisions even if you disagree with them on principle.

Ok, I am done. Good night. :o)

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
When SWBTS trustees removed everyone from the room for closed doors to fire Russell Dilday, one student refused to leave.

He said that God had told him to stay.

He was run out of the room with words: “God doesn’t have a thing to do with this!”

Even though those words were not said yesterday, I feel their actions portrayed them.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Burleson, I'm sorry for what you are going through and face in the next few months.

Thank you Dorcas and Pastor Noel for the courage to express your thoughts here. All I see you saying is to consider both sides before final judgment, and advising caution in airing everything before a watching world.

I'm struck by the emphasis on what is Baptist or unBaptist. I know that is part of the issue, but to outsiders it can sound like people simply arguing over traditions like Roberts' Rules or American democracy.

This is not to trivialize the censure or its effect on the Burlesons, missionaries, pastors and the convention. I see it is serious and divisive. But to the extent that other Christians and unbelievers notice any of this, I'm afraid they will take the unnuanced position of washing their hands of us.

Anonymous said...

When we act in appropriately and the truth of that action is displayed such as a blow up in a cafeteria, the person who should apologize isn't the one who acted foolishly and unchristlike? Wade has to apologize for telling the truth about the encounter?

If Mr. Corbalay's feelings were hurt (because of Wade's shedding light on bad/sinful behavior) then I would suggest that the feeling is more appropriately - SHAME.

Shame is what anyone stung by Wade (in the instances given and linked to - thanks Wade) as mentioned in the censure should be feeling. Wade stood up for truth.

It is amazing to me that noone else is bothered by this fallacious accusation that because Mr. Corbaley's feelings were hurt it was the responsibility of Wade. Mr. Corbaley is indicted by his actions, not anyone else's words.

Ronk

Anonymous said...

Anon M2B said, This is being done to the entire BoT, and individuals are even named. I certainly do not have the time to sit and site every comment I believe to be slanderous . . .but take the above definition and read the comments yourself.

M2B, just saying something is so doesn't make it so. You have, as yet, not given even one specific example of "slander" on this blog. In fact, it is impossible for you to do so. Just like Jerry Corbaley, you don't have a clue as to what "slander" consists, confusing the term with "libel". Slander consists of making a false and defamatory spoken accusation against another person or persons.

In any case you have yet to identify a single instance of libel being committed in Wade's posts or those who have written support for his actions and words as opposed to the deeds and words of the BoT leadership.

In His Grace and Peace,

T. D. Webb

Anonymous said...

Rex, you are exactly correct in your post above. The student said, "God told me to stay" followed by the chairman of the SWBTS BoT's terse reply, "God doesn't have a thing to do with this!"

That same meeting, before the above, the meeting was open and many non-trustees were in attendance. When the call was made to go into executive session, i.e. behind closed doors, one trustee spoke up and said the express purpose for closed-door sessions was to protect the one being discussed. The trustee went on and said since the one we are talking about, i.e. Dr. Dilday, has asked that the meeting be open for all as he had nothing to hide, I make a motion that we NOT go into executive session. This trustee's logical and reasonable suggestion of course was not followed and the closed-door session called.

Then as now, I'm afraid for some trustees God really doesn't have anything to do with it. But power, control, pride, and jealousy do.

Stand firm, Wade! We are with you.

Steve

Anonymous said...

It all boils down to this . . . WB has broken IMB governing rules on his own . . . deciding for himself that he alone will do what he deems best for the SBC. In doing so, he has caused a rift that will continue to grow, and has caused a large distraction from the ministry of the IMB. Trustees and missionaries alike are distracted from what they can and should be doing to deal with this mess of absolute divisiveness and dissension.

My husband and I are thrilled and humbled over God's calling us to full-time missions. We are excited that within our convention there is an organization such as the IMB through which we can get to the unreached people group God has called us to. I believe God is glorified through its efforts. No organization on this side of heaven is ever going to be perfect. But I believe that elected individuals in this organization are doing their best. I believe that the vast majority have good motives in the work they are doing (and, by the way, we should never assume different. God is the only One qualified to judge the intentions of the heart). And I believe that God has blessed and will continue to bless the efforts to spread His Good News to the uttermost parts of the earth.

I'm leaving this blog for good. This is not glorifying to God and is harmful to the ministry of the IMB - - which means it's harmful to Southern Baptists, harmful to those serving in the capacity of trustee all the way to missionary, and harmful to the witness of the gospel to the lost of our world. The acrobatic maneuvers used by so many to contort what someone says into an attack is disheartening to say the least. It has practically consumed the past two days for me. I'm personally convicted of this. It is dangerous to be consumed by things like this. If you find yourself consumed by it as well, break free. (And I just wonder how many other people have had to do the same thing I am doing here.)


The sad thing is . . . I wasn't looking for this. I just wanted to learn more about the IMB during the application process that we are in. I hope others don't stumble on to this as I did. I'm certainly no better for it.

Anonymous M to be

Anonymous said...

As far as I am concerned, the BoT of the IMB has lost credibility. Does that mean they acted incorrectly? Not necessarily; but because of a lack of credibility, they are in a position where to re-establish trust with we who are rank-and-file Southern Baptists, it is vital that they give the specific reasons for their actions. If they do, and it turns out that censure was warranted, I guarantee this will prove to be a tempest in a teapot, and SB's will fall in line behind them. The result will be the same if they either do not become transparent, or if they do and their evidence proves lacking--more people will abandon the SBC, either formally or functionally.

Personally, and from what I have see so far, and what I have learned of Wade's character through blogs, I think he will be vindicated oneway or the other. But if evidence is forthcoming to the contrary, I say let the chips fall where they may.

In at least one area, I fall in with "tmax," regarding Lottie Moon Offerings. I have "always" been given to understand that 100% of it went overseas to missionaries, and from the pulpit, I have consistently said that. Now I want/need to know if any of those offerings are being used to defray administrative costs. The offering may not be being used "improperly," but I am not going to tell our folks one thing, only to find out that it is untrue. Who will answer this question?

John Fariss

Anonymous said...

Anon M to be,

If you are representative of new applicants, you have just given us all another reason not to be encouraged.

Steve

Anonymous said...

Dr. Floyd should be repeatedly questioned whether or not Jerry Corbaley will be censured.

Corbaley's 153 page rant was of such an egregious nature that it cannot be ignored.

If Dr. Floyd argues that no one should have seen that correspondence, and thus Corbaley should not be censured, Floyd should himself resign for he has lost all credibility.

To censure Wade when he has been at most embarrassing (though we only have the illogical accusations of Jerry Corbaley), yet allow Corbaley, who clearly broke trustee regulations to remain on the BoT, is sin.

Anonymous said...

Pastor Noel,

You answered me, and I appreciate that. We may disagree on some points, but it seems we are pretty close overall. I do, however, have to point out on thing. You said, "what they (the BoT) need is for us to trust them when they make a majority decision with no strong dissent." Actually, we do not know there was no strong dissent. All we know is that the majority voted for censure. If the trustees obey their gag rule, we will never know how much dissent there was to the motion, because they are forbidden from commenting on it, much less criticizing the decision.

John Fariss

Leland Bryant Ross said...

Philip wrote: It is a shame that many non-christians disagree in a more Godly manner than some Christians I've seen, and still manage to go home friends. We could learn from them.

I beg to differ. Ubi caritas et amor... Far from being a shame, this simply shows that God is alive and well in the hearts of many non-Christians. ;-)

I would like to call attention to a thread discussing this matter at BaptistLife.com, and in particular to this post by one Jonathan, vis-à-vis how missionaries in the field view these things. Anonymous M2B, if he is still lurking, might benefit from reading this, as might Dr. Floyd. Jonathan is not a Burleson partisan. (Nor am I, heck, I'm not even a Southern Baptist, never have been, never will be unless it comes with the territory in Canaan ;-).

Leland Bryant Ross
aka Haruo

Leland Bryant Ross said...

DH wrote If you really want to share these things you should consider putting a password on your blog so that only fellow Christians can have access to it.

Philip pointed out that the Church has always had disputes and that Paul spent a great deal of epistolary composition time writing about them.

It strikes me that if DH is right about only letting fellow Christians into this blog, then we should also try to do something to keep the unsaved from reading the New Testament, or at least the Pauline corpus.

Or maybe this is just another bit of legalism...

Leland Bryant Ross
aka Haruo
Seattle

Anonymous said...

Everyone take it easy on M to be. The only reason they feel the way they do is because they are "to be". When they actual "are", they will hold a different view.

It is interesting to note the comment above about all the comments from missionaries "on the field" are supportive of Wade's position.

Revealing, indeed.

Rex Ray said...

Anonymous missionary to be,
I find one thing humorous about your post of 09 November, 2007 00:22.

You say, “I’m leaving this blog for good…I just wonder how many other people have had to do the same thing I am doing here.”

The present number of hits at (5:05 AM Texas time) is 1,417,132.

If you “wonder” enough, you will have to see if his rate of hits increase or decrease.

And if you do that, you will add hits.

And to me, that’s funny.

david b mclaughlin said...

Anon M2B said...

So a slanderer would be one who privately, secretly, behind a man's back speaks evil of him, devours and destroys his credit and reputation.

I agree completely. Mr. Corbaley privately and secretly sent out a 153 page document attempting to destroy and devour Wade's reputation. He even lamented within it that he feared it would become public.

Wade is calling for these discussions to be public and not secret. Thank you for pointing it out.

:)

Scotte Hodel said...

"You should just send them your resignation and shake the dust from your feet. They are not worthy to even be in your presence. The sad thing is that that is how they operate. "

That Rev Burleson is not doing that, I think, illustrates very much his commitment and sense of duty to the call given him by the SBC appointment to the IMB. His desired focus is that the work of the missionaries be supported and continued. His work on this blog has been, in part, to try to pry interfering hands from that work.

Give up? Leave? Perhaps tempting, but his decision to stay the course is a much more powerful and practical example, given that the goal is to support the missions and the missionaries.

That, in turn, is helpful to the rest of us who need to stay the course.

Thanks, Wade.

wadeburleson.org said...

Thank you Scott,

I appreciate your kind words.

Anonymous said...

we simply have two different world views and two different perspectives on the need for freedom of dissent and complete transparency within the SBC.

Anonymous said...

People who are in absolute power, will be corrupted, absolutely.

Power struggles which are regulated to be performed behind closed doors (in secret) about God's people, - isn't this against the Bible's stand on "secret organizations"?

Regardless, boards and committees who set themselves up without accountability, set themselves up for a fall.

Anonymous said...

Wade.. I admire your courage to stand up and be heard. I wish more Southern Baptists would do this.

I am amazed at how naive or just plain ignorant some Southern Baptists still are. I was a messenger at the Southern Baptist Convention in 1985 when microphones were cut off from everyone anyone that dissented from fundamentalist group (what many now call 'CR') views.

I was as shocked then as some people are now (at your censorship) that a Christian organization would act in such a rude, uncivilized manner. But yet, that group's nominee was elected. Southern Baptist messengers elected officials that censored, firs other messengers, and then anyone that dissents and so it cannot be a shock when that type of behavior happens now.

Read this slowly and carefully. The ill-spirited manner in which the 'CR' was carried out was approved by every single Southern Baptist that voted for the 'fundamentalist' group. If you voted for that group.. you voted for censorship of dissent

Regardless of whatever you believe about the 'CR' or 'takeover' or whatever you want to call it, since 1979, messengers to the SBC have been electing leaders that have very aggresively 'silenced' any dissention.

Often, the easiest way to do this was to slander or label someone as 'liberal'. Anyone have second thoughts on labeling Russell Dilday as a liberal? Russell Dilday is a great Christian and exemplifies what being a true Southern Baptist was all about.

Censorship in the SBC has been going on for almost 30 years. Wake up, Southern Baptists. Wake up. You voted FOR this type of behavior for 30 years!! Now, thanks to blogs it is a much more exposed and people are starting to "get it".

I'm sure Wade is going to be slandered in the near future and be called 'liberal' for not reading I Timothy 2:12 the 'right' way or some such.. don't worry.. they will think of something to slander him on. Or they will just make it up like they did with Dilday or Parks and countless other Christian servants that were tossed to the side in the 80's and 90's. Sit back and watch.

I hope Southern Baptists are enjoying the BFM 2000 that took so long to work out and forced upon everyone no matter the cost..such a unifying 'confession' that has been for the convention. Enjoy the spot you are in Southern Baptists.. you've earned it.

Wade won't be the last person censored in the SBC, will you be next??

Now.. when can we get back to missions and winning people for Christ? And guess what.. if you are on board with winning people for Christ, I wouldn't even mind if you were a woman! I know.. I know.. kick me out already... or worse yet, censor me!

BrotherPhil said...

I read this comment in the midst of the 235 prior to mine:
Roger makes a great point.

Is there a statesman who can intervene or mediate? Is it to late for peace? I fear it is...the drums of war are already beating and the armies are making haste...

jrm

Might I suggest such a statesman? He is a former moderator of a state convention, a federal judge, nominated by Pres. George Bush the younger for a higher bench, and hung out to dry by democrats on the judiciary committee. I speak of Southern Baptist deacon (First Baptist Church, Laurel, MS) Charles Pickering. This man is of unquestionable character, and while he COULD have spoken against the dems and their actions, chose to take the high road. This man seems to me to be the epitome of the type to bring this controversy and conflict to a peaceful end.

Anonymous said...

No, Wade, the enemies of the SBC are not fellow Christians. If anything, your fellow Christians pray for all of you that you can find a way to eliminate the forces at the helm who seek to destroy the historical Southern Baptist philosophy.

Are these people really who they say they are, or have they come in and taken over in order to manipulate the SBC in support of a certain political party?

I say this because the methods that they have employed are un-American and, when exposed, could only bring disgrace on themselves. Of course, they want secrecy. You stick to your principles. Their tactics declare for them who they really are. The church will be protected. God will surely fix this situation and bring good out of evil. How brave you are to try to speak for God's dear missionaries, in the midst of the lion's den. You will be protected, I think. Be peaceful.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 237 of 237   Newer› Newest»