(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:
1 – 200 of 237 Newer› Newest»Another casualty of the CR- I would invite any upper level trustee to have the courage to let southern baptists know who called for this censure- IMHO Someone besides current IMB trustees encouraged this action. What has been an unwritten rule is now official- do it their way (whether you believe it or not)or they will get you out of the way.
John Daniels
John:
I'm not so sure that Wade Burleson is "out of the way" just yet.
Br'er Rabbit just hit the briar patch again.
BSC
Our prayers are with you.
May your tribe increase.
Africa M.
Re: (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.
It appears the unintentional consequence of making this complaint is the sowing of distrust among rank and file Southern Baptists. Now we will never know if a policy or direction is truly unanimous (unlikely for every issue given the size of the Board) or merely a P.R. spin sent out to the churches in order to maintain the appearance of agreement.
How do reasonable people put themselves (and the rest of us) in this position?
It seems that for John Floyd and the "powers that be", with regard to Wade B. it is "speak only in love" (forget the truth).
Jerry Corbaley speaks neither the truth nor in love. He is John Floyd's hero.
Just when you think the BoT of the IMB cannot sink any lower...
The staff and field personnel of the IMB are of incredible character; some of the BoT are much less so.
I am shocked and disappointed at this action by the IMB trustees. My prayers go out for Wade, IMB trustees, and the future of the SBC.
Les
I am sorry that it has come to this...we should all be sorry, much to little, much to late. There are very interesting days ahead for the SBC. May we all pray for Wade, The BotIMB, and our SBC.
jrm
I 100% disagree with the actions taken against Wade Burleson. If Wade was to be censured, surely the men voting should have been willing to have their vote recorded.
What a sad day for Southern Baptists! The BoT of an agency just censured an SBC pastor because he followed his conscience and believed in transparency. Is it true that a vote of this significance was not even counted or taken by secret ballot?
How can we reach the lost world when we cannot even cooperate with one another? I cannot believe that the BoT put so much stock in the paper that Corbaley submitted. Talk about a distraction to reaching the world!
As a missionary I am very discouraged right now, but not because of Wade's actions, but the actions for the BoT.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the action of the BoT's, to act shocked that this happened is to imply that you have had your head in the sand these last 18 months. This was coming...The Trustees knew it, I believe Wade knew it, and most informed SBC'ers Knew it. God will judge if it was the correct action or not, but it was coming as sure as the clock striking 12. My opinion is that it will not prove to be helpful, even if it was deemed necesary. Indy just got interesting.
jrm
no one in the meeting called for a division of the assembly or for a ballot vote?
i can't imagine there not being one trustee who felt that a count should have been taken.
wade,
i'm a little confused about your future participation. do you have to wait until 4 meetings pass to continue attending or voting?
Don't know about the rest of you, but my heart is breaking today: for Wade, for IMB, for SBC, and for all who believe in the priesthood of the believer. I sure thought our Baptist roots were formed around dissent--maybe I should have paid more attention in Baptist History class at NOBTS!
Wade,
The IMB BoT has issued their censure. Now, let's see if they have the conviction and authority to enforce it. While I continue to admire your graciousness in not taking the actions of the BoT personally, I am equally hopeful that the men and/or women who supported this egregious afront to the authority of the SBC, who elected you to serve as Trustee, be held fully accountable for THEIR actions. To that end, will we ever know who voted for what, or will the code of secrecy at the IMB continue to be enforced to prevent individual accountability in this matter? For the sake of the SBC, the IMB BoT's action must be overturned, those who participated in this travesty of justice be specifically identified, and appropriate action taken to ensure that such deeds will not be repeated.
In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb
Wade:
Anyone with a lick of sense knows two things:
1) Certain (I ought to say many) actions of the Board of Trustees, and specifically of the Chairman and Dr. Corbaley, have reflected extremely poorly on the SBC, the IMB, and upon themselves. Their actions did that. They are solely responsible for the public impression of things they purposed to do in secret.
2) Your making certain things public has shed light on the things they did, and brought the eye of public scrutiny to their deeds.
For them to say that your actions reflect poorly on them is tantamount (I shudder to say this) to saying that the problem with 9/11 was the news coverage making the terrorists look bad.
That thinking also has the Catholic Church paying out hundreds of millions.
if a motion were made, i assume, the convention would have the authority to overturn this decision in july? is that correct?
or is there some other immediate appeals process?
Wade,
Could you please clarify whether the IMB BoT has the authority to suspend you from being involved in future meetings?
I was under the impression that since you're elected by the convention, only the convention has the authority to suspend you. Who will hold the BoT accountable for trying to exercise authority that the convention has not authorized them to exercise?
I don't suppose the folks who defined "criticism" as it is construed in the Board's censure know enough of Marxist history to realize just how "Democratic-centralist", i.e. Leninist-Stalinist, their approach looks to those of us blessed with that knowledge. ;-)
Stick to your principles, Wade.
Leland Bryant Ross
Seattle
writing from the left wing of the ABC ;-)
Wade,
I am saddened for you as I suspect this is just another round of denominational politics rearing its ugly head. I also believe you are man enough to hold up under it with God's help. (My heart breaks mostly for your wife who has to endure this along with you.)
That said, I'll also say this: I voluntarilty know virtually nothing of SBC politics but I would point out as a dispassionate observer the following quotes from your post:
A. (From the censure) 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.
B. (From your response) 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 wholeheartedly agree that this is a contradiction in terms. I also completely agree with your position. But by your own admission here you have violated their Standards of Conduct.
There are two problems here:
a) their Standards of Conduct are not good.
b) You agreed to them.
I am in no way shape or from saying "You made your bed, lie in it," but I am pointing out that, apparently, you agreed to their Standards of Conduct.
As an accountant I know that I have to agree to play by the rules or not play at all, even when the rules blow chunks.
All that said...I think their actions were unfair, uncalled for, and un-Christian. They need to change the rules-which seems to me what you have been calling for all along. And Godspeed to you in your efforts to make that happen. I am sure you are aware that your willingness to be the punching bag here may in fact bring about a much needed change.
You and your wife are in my prayers.
I'm blessed to call you my brother in Christ.
Why was Jerry Corbaley not censured for his actions against Wade, especially the 153 page email.
Tom...I believe, if you follow the "logic" of the board, Jerry didn't need to be censured--he didn't make the report public--he kept it between the trustees.
MSH
Wade, while I have not always agreed with you on issues you have written, I believe this is at best hypocritical. Based on their own censure motion any person who has uttered a negative comment about you should also be held to the same standard embedded within their own motion:
Trustees are to refrain from speaking in disparaging terms about IMB personnel and fellow trustees.
Sorry for all of this Wade.
We're praying for you, your family and our BoT.
thank you.
NAME M
None of this is surprising. One could certainly expect this result particularly after the SWBTS board failed to investigate or take any action against its president. One is either on the team, no questions asked, or they are neutered.
This very type of action and attitude has been in play, although sometimes more quietly, since 1979. For more than 30 years this has been about control and power, which means dissenters must be silenced.
While there are many other forces at work changing the nature of the ecclesia these actions will only hasten the demise of the SBC. God is busy re-forming His ecclesia. Most Southern Baptists are so inward focused, particularly those in control, they fail to see the ongoing transition, but it is happening so my sadness is assuaged by the fact Father is doing something new.
However, I do feel the pain and anguish that you suffer, Mr. Burleson, along with your family. My prayer is for the comfort and joy of the Spirit's presence in your life.
Traveller,
I would say that I am completely at peace with whatever the Lord intends. Blessings,
Wade
The second post down on my blog (you should be able to access it by clicking my name - if not I will put the web site address at the bottom of this post) is the current list of the IMB trustees. Will you join me in writing them to lovingly and graciously express your disappointment and disagreement on this.
http://jacksonparkbaptist.blogspot.com/
Wade said;
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 on all maters.
Art said:
I pray you will contention and if you’re church need some help with the expense. We can pitch in like we did with the History teacher (we did not do badly with this one) let us know. Someone will bring this up at the annual meeting in June I pray.
Old Gray Fox.
Wade,
My soul grieves for you & your family. I pray that the arrogant leadership style will give way to the Biblical standard of servant leadership under the Lordship of Jesus. When one cannot question or disagree with decisions, accountability has been slayed & rendered irrevelant & has now been termed in our day "executive session". A voice vote instead of ballot is an act of intimidation. All this action has shown is the double standard that cannot be justified. Praying for you and your family.
1040 M
Old Gray Fox,
I do not intend to burden my church with expense reimbursement for trustee meetings. The Lord will provide a way for my wife and I to go.
I cannot help but believe that you, Wade are personally hurt by this turn of events. It matters not whether they were expected, undeserved or deserved, or what--unless you have a martyr complex (and I don't believe you do), this has to hurt on a personal level. I grieve with you.
For what it's worth, I agree with your stand on principled dissent; I agree that a "gag-rule" has no place in the administration of the IMB, or any Christian organization for that matter; and I agree that the IBM and other Southern Baptist agencies ought to be transparent everywhere except in cases that involve the security of missionaries. David Mclaughlin has a point when he noted that you did at least implicitly agree to the BoT's rules, but I am not at all sure that agreement to bad rules, virtually non-Christian rules, is binding anyway. Many an abused child has promised his/her abuser never to "tell on them," but who among us would consider this promise binding in the least? I'm sure someone will point out to me why I'm wrong, and how the analogy does not hold true, and how an illegal act does not compare to a rule passed (presumably) through proper parlimentary channels, but I warn you up front: it's going to take a lot to convince me of it.
Wade, we hold you and your family up in prayer.
John Fariss
David McLaughlin,
Thanks for your comment. I think, however, that you are mistaken.
When I was appointed as a trustee of the IMB, I agreed to serve under the trustee guidelines of the the trustee manual (called 'the Blue Book'). On March 22, 2006, at the Tampa, Florida trustee meeting the recommendation for my removal was rescinded and expunged from the record AND a new trustee guideline was adopted that forbad public dissent. I voted AGAINST the guideline - and have continued to serve the Southern Baptist Convention - even under threat of censure and now actual censure - for publicly dissenting from board action.
To me, the freedom to dissent, with Christian grace and kindness is the Baptist way.
In His Grace,
Wade
This action, by the IMB trustee board feels wrong from the get go. I am saddened by it and read the account of it with a heavy heart. There is a lot that Wade Burleson writes that I do not agree with, but I disagree with this IMB action more. I applaude Wade for the grace with which he is reacting to this censure. I will pray that the IMB Trustee Board also learn grace and I will pray for our IMB and the SBC.
this really makes me fired up to support the "missionaries" through the CP. (note sarcasm) Your giving at work! I think the trustees should give the reimbursement they receive back to the churches. I dont give to the CP for people who disgree to be ousted. What is this world coming to? What are we trying to hide anyway? Another reason i question the bureaucracy of the SBC. Is this really what were called to do? Not a proud day!
I suspect that this post in response to the censuring could be construed by some to place the IMB Trustees in a bad light. On the other hand, if the Trustees themselves, by their own actions, place the board in a bad light are they not violating their own policies? Quite the conundrum.
I find this very disturbing. The concept of learning to disagree, agreeably seems to be vanishing from the Baptist landscape.
Curiosity question -- did you know that this action was a possibility before you left for the meeting?
When I was appointed as a trustee of the IMB, I agreed to serve under the trustee guidelines of the the trustee manual (called 'the Blue Book'). On March 22, 2006, at the Tampa, Florida trustee meeting the recommendation for my removal was rescinded and expunged from the record AND a new trustee guideline was adopted that forbad public dissent.
Wade,
Thanks for this info. Yes, I would then be wrong in previous assessment.
In this case, I refer you to my post a month or so ago which you rightfully deleted. It was unfavorable toward these folks in case you have forgotten it.
It is one thing to agree to a set of rules, and then have the rules changed. Especially if they were changed just for you!
God bless you.
dm
This is certainly a far, far cry from anything I have ever been taught about Baptist principles. I would think that, from a rules or constitutional perspective, a trustee board's censure of a member would have to be approved by the convention before it could be effected, since it was the convention, not the board, that elected the trustee.
Well, you can look at it this way. Messenger attendance at the SBC has been dwindling during these past 10 years or so. You may have just helped the SBC from having to eat a bunch of vacant hotel rooms in Indianapolis this summer.
"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."
Copied from the Politburo operations manual?
Wade, I'm very sorry to hear this, although I'd love to see someone question the board of trustees on whether they actually have the authority to suspend you. I'd suspect that under a general set of rules of order, they do.
At any rate, it's just one more sign of something that's been true for years: the SBC ceased to be truly Baptist a long time ago.
Unwise people do unwise things. Now they don't even really believe in congregationalism. They just tossed someone approved by the congregations of the SBC and shut down a useful minority position on the BoT.
It's unclear if they'll get the support of the Convention in that, but given the historic event itself, the ramifications are unlikely to be positive.
Again, though, the first thing--even before commenting or writing trustees--is we should pray. And then pray some more. Be absolutely clear with God how this impacts you. And before you take action, seek his leadership and his permission.
The currently seated Board of Trustees hasn't yet irreparably harmed the enterprise. But the responses of people who disagree with this action COULD irreparably harm it. This is God's mission and his plan. He allows for human sin in his enterprises. We must permit him to continue to miraculously redeem ALL things for good...even this.
Greg Harvey
Had SWBTS had this code of conduct in place in the early 90s, instead of allowing Miles Seaborn (and others) to change the locks on Dr. Dilday's office after they fired him, they would have censured Seaborn.
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair" --C.S. Lewis
Well, Wade, I'm just thankful they didn't waterboard you, too.
Wade,
Keep doing what is right, with your eyes on Jesus, and the Lord will straighten it out in the end.
Although I thought that they had disappeared, you must love the Pharisee.
"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."
I haven't read anything this funny and saddening since the words of Rome to Luther following his ninety-five theses. "Do you recant Burleson (Luther)? We'd love to see you save yourself and our good name." "To violate conscience is neither safe nor right. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me." Good grief, some people are entirely too self-important. I'd love to remind every trustee that everything said in secret will be shouted from the mountains. They don't have to pretend these issues aren't happening right under the noses of the entire SBC. We're watching. I fear this censure will do more to discourage cp giving than anything Wade has posted (and has yet to be refuted). Just whose kingdoms are being built in all this nonsense?
Maybe it is time now, to change the way trustees are appointed. Turn it back to the States to elect and appoint them. I do believe these actions of the board will not take place like it is today, that because just a few will not appoint the trustees. The local church will have more to say after all, it is there money the board is voting to spend.
wade for president
May history show that Shane fired the first shot! How bout it Wade...will you allow your name to be placed in nomination for President of The SBC in Indy?
jrm
My husband and I are currently in the application process of becoming full-time missionaries with the IMB. God is leading our family to one of the many unreached people groups of our world. I am a pastor's daughter and have been my entire life, a mother of four children and a pastor's wife for the past 10 years.
In our quest to learn more about the IMB during this application process time, we came across the “Grace & Truth to You” blog, maintained by Wade Burleson, an IMB trustee.
Some random thoughts on this motion passed by the IMB to censure Wade Burleson:
My confidence in the Board of Trustees of the IMB was boosted greatly by the censuring of Wade Burleson for his irresponsible blogging of items that were Board of Trustee issues only. Wade Burleson should be held accountable for what he writes and for the comments he allows to be posted on his blog. Anyone who maintains a blog is responsible for anything that they allow to be posted on it.
Wade Burleson is a teacher and shepherd of a local church. He is a servant to the Lord . . . not someone to be worshiped.
Wade Burleson has contributed to at least one of his church members, whom is under his shepherding, to be absolutely consumed by the politics and discords of the IMB and the SBC. She blogs and comments on his behalf in a consuming anger that is just frightening.
Wade Burleson seems plagued by arrogance . . . evidenced in blogs such as “The Tyranny of Omnipotent Moral Busy Bodies”, and “The Use of Exclamation Points in Press Releases”; evidenced in the posting of overly glorifying comments to himself on his blog; and evidenced by his resolve to not follow the biblical model of Timothy by yielding to the corrective actions of other more experienced pastors, missionaries, and leaders - - stating that he will continue to attend meetings at his own expense even though he has been suspended for doing so. (WB - 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.) His arrogance is also evidenced in his unwillingness to issue apology to the Board of Trustees of the IMB for his dissension of which has caused Wade and his disagreements to be the focal point of the IMB as of late rather than God's leadership and the mission of the IMB. His blog, for which he makes no apology, has been a distraction to those serving in the capacity of trustees for the IMB, missionaries of the IMB and potential missionaries like myself and my husband.
I start to think maybe I have Wade all wrong when I read a comment by him like this: "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." But then I read this: "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." And realize that, even in the face of the damage his blogging has done, he will not cease for the benefit of the ministry.
I'm saddened by all of this. . . by what Wade has done, by what the Trustees felt they have had to do and by the discord it has caused within the IMB and the SBC. I hope that the effects are not far reaching . . . that monies individuals and churches would normally give to support missionaries are not withheld, that those like myself and my husband don't shy away of serving with the IMB, and that others do not become consumed with controversy.
Shouldn't all of our energies be focused on glorifying God and reaching the lost with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ? That's where the power is . . . in the gospel. Things that distract from this are harmful.
For all practical purposes the rules adopted by the trustees forbid trustees from having a blog.
In their indictment, part of what the trustees say in kicking out Wade is (loose paraphrase): ". . .
if Wade apologizes and also agrees to quit blogging . . . then we will consider lifting his censure . . .".
I don't think a fair reading of the trustees own rules prohibits any trustee from blogging.
However, I'd agree that Corbaley's 153 page manifesto could be construed as "internal trustee documentation" and that it is a matter of judgment if Wade broke either the letter or spirit of the law by going public with it.
Speaking for myself, I think Wade did the right thing by publishing Corbaley's diatribe but some could disagree.
I notice that the trustee's action (whether right or wrong) does not claim to be based upon the merits of Corbaley's argument or on the merits of PPL and any other first, second, or third order theological argument.
The whole contention centers around the trustee's gag order, the extent to which the gag order is relevant to Wade and the extent that Wade violated it (if in fact he did).
I would think cooler heads in the BoT would have interviened to flatten this out. Does this typify typical SBC "Conflict resolution"?
Roger K Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Anonymous,
I think it says a lot that your post in dissent of Wade is allowed on this blog, but you do not think Wade should be allowed to dissent with others.
What will you do in the future if you become a missionary who disagrees with something the IMB does? Can I assume you will never question anything?
dm
to the future missionary who posted anonymously:
You have done it now...
: )
jrm
ps - wade, I am waiting for your answer
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
I am just a simple lay person, so could someone please explain to me why the trustees must refrain from public criticism of board approved actions? How could the work of the Kingdom be placed at risk by speaking the truth? Doesn't the enemy operate in darkness? I agree that whatever is done should be done in love, but what on earth are these people afraid of? Continue to let the Sonlight in, Wade!
Anonymous said:
"Shouldn't all of our energies be focused on glorifying God and reaching the lost with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ? That's where the power is . . . in the gospel. Things that distract from this are harmful."
That is what Wade has been fighting for the whole time. The two unbiblical policies shoved down our throats by the IMB BOT have hindered the spread of the gospel more than any of this politicing. Just think of how many more missionaries would be on the ground if this 3rd tier junk never was implemented. Again, just think of what actual IMB business could have been conducted to further the gospel instead of this charade.
"Shouldn't all of our energies be focused on glorifying God and reaching the lost with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ? That's where the power is . . . in the gospel. Things that distract from this are harmful."
Like ranting at length on random blogs you happen to strongly disagree with? Yes, our energies should be focused on glorifying God. I don't understand why Wade's position is automatically assumed to dishonor God. That attitude is exactly the problem. While missionaries continue to be withheld for lack of funds, a few "leaders" have hijacked the whole system so that local churches like mine are extremely reluctant to give anything to the cp, knowing the position and attitude of those holding the strings.
This is a shameful and sad day for Southern Baptists. It is shameful because Wade Burleson has
been censored by the IMB Board simply for being a man of conviction, having the courage
to communicate his convictions, and fighting for the freedom of missionaries to not have their private prayers’ subjected to censorship by the International Missionary Board.
This day is also shameful because the men and woman who made this decision did not exhibit the courage or character to place their names with their votes. It is sad because the IMB trustees have run an end-around the Southern Baptist Convention and in a practical sense have removed Wade from the board of the IMB without a vote by the Southern Baptist Convention in annual session. There is only one reason the IMB Board removed Wade from his position in a clever manner without the vote of the SBC in an annual session—the same convention that appointed him to the IMB Board. This board knew they would have never won this vote in an annual session of the Southern Baptist Convention. The attempt to oust Wade as a trustee is another effort by the IMB Board to defend an indefensible policy. Wade Burleson is being hated without a cause. This is an Ichabod moment in SBC life. God is not pleased with this action. This action certainly reveals the nakedness (Micah 3:5) of the IMB Board of Trustees that voted for this censor to the entire world.
Wade be encouraged, this is the same kind of treatment that Martin Luther King, Jr. was subjected to by the same like-minded people because he dared to stand up for his convictions and had the courage to communicate them. He also stood up for a group who were marginalized and mistreated unjustly. Ministerial counsels in the South rejected and ridiculed him as well; however, God in time vindicated him.
Know that you are honored, loved, valued and appreciated to the highest degree by the Cornerstone Church family and the network of Pastors and Churches that we fellowship with.
One of the reasons why I plan to remain a Southern Baptist is because I look forward to one day casting a vote for you as president of the Southern Baptist Convention.
In the words of the Apostle Paul “be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor shall not be in vain”.
Dwight
Anonymous Missionary to be: No one including Wade was responsible for anything I wrote. It was all me. Wade had no idea that I had been reading for a year nor did he know or ever ask me to begin a blog or commenting. That too was me. I have a mind of my own. So I would keep that in mind while making accusations that just are not true. If I'm scary, I don't think that's such a bad thing. I am too the point and no one has to ask me what I mean when I write something. If that's scary in your opinion, I do stand by everything I have written with no regrets.
I motion that all votes whether deemed unimportant or not Must be taken by australian ballot(ie secret ballot) in all agencies receiving sbc money.
or in the terms of a motion.
Whereas, all humans are sinners
Whereas, all ruling agencies(earthly) are made up of humans.
Whereas, all ruling agencies(earthly) are riddled with sinners.
Whereas, sin is tempting
Whereas, humans give in to temptations.
Whereas, All humans in ruling agencies will give into sin at sometime or another.
It cannot be assumed that agencies will not sin. there must be checks and balances within ruling agencies. So as to neutralize as much as possible the effects of said sin. The following must be implemented for all ruling agencies.
1) All decisions other than those of trivial matters must come to a resolution by the way of a written secret ballot.
2) All decisions of any ruling agency can be brought under reconsideration by an agency(e.g. The SBC) that rules over said agency.
3) In this day and age, there is little time between an event and the report of the event and all actions must be treated according to this principle. All actions that are not expressed as secret will come into the public light eventually.
4)Any information that does not infringe upon the physical safety of any of the SBC's personnel(henceforth deemed private information) must be readily availible with the minimum amount of bureaucracy.
Each agency must set the delivery time of at most 60 days for itself.
Barring Acts of God or that the requested information is private information.
5) every agency aligned with and accepting SBC money must submit a completed IRS form 990
6)Following from our baptist history, the active restriction of dissent has no place in the SBC unless it can be shown explicitly with evidence that said instance of dissent restricts the activities of God in our convention.
7)Given the current generation that is gradually taking over the SBC is unusually cynical of the lack of sin in a persons actions. all persons in an agency accepting SBC funds must be aware of the possibility of public criticism and act according to the bible in all matters.
Any agency accepting SBC funds that is in noncompliance with these directives will come under the censure of the Southern baptist convention and may even lose eligibility for funding.
-------------------
Someone should make a motion like that at the next sbc meeting.
speaking of which. all matters except trivial matters (trivial matters, such as convening for lunch) in the sbc meeting should be taken by written secret ballot so as to not have peer pressure enter into decision making process.
Michael
PS I consider peer pressure to be unintentional coercion
Anonymous missionary to be: May God bless you and your family greatly as you seek to serve our Lord and may you not be distracted by any negativity within our convention. May the people with whom you seek to share Jesus find in you the charity and love you hold in your heart for your Savior. My prayers are with you dear missionary. Job 3:10. Sometimes it does no good to share your wisdom or thoughts and we must at all costs leave the diversities and turmoils in the hands of the only One Who can exact justice to individual or entity. Come by my site, anytime. selahV
I'm incredibly saddened and ashamed at this whole affair.
Wade, my prayers are for you and your family. I thank God for your courage and convictions. May others begin to share your desire to see Christ glorified, and shared with all nations.
Anonymous missionary to be:
Wait until you're on the field; your perspectives on your beliefs will chage; you will begin to see how much of what you believe is traditional vs. biblical...when you raise a question about methods or policies b/c they aren't biblical, who's going to stand up for you? will you even be able to say anything without repercussion?
Wade,
Thank you. Thank you for standing up for what's right...for dissenting in a loving way.
I have little respect for most others on the BoT.
One positive: maybe all the attention focused on you has eased the pressure on Dr. Rankin (those who would see him gone) and has allowed him to serve as God has led.
Blessings,
imb m in Asia
I wish I could say I'm surprised. I've been reading this blog for a long time. One thing is obvious to me: there is a serious disconnect between the BoT and the people it is supposed to represent (based on the BoT policies on tongues, dissent, etc).
Just seems to me that some BoT members want to make policies that do not reflect what the majority of the SBC believes, then they don't want anyone to call them on it.
Good 'ole boy system at work.
Hang in there Wade.
Wade,
You have been a wonderful example to me and all of us here of grace and truth spoken in love. Paul talked about factions among us and how these factions could be used by God to prove true godly leadership to the body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
Wade, your dissent spoken with love and with true grace even while you yourself were being personally attacked is a valid proof of who you really are. You are a true godly leader and your Christ-like spirit is evident to all who are at all open to really see.
Even with that said, I am very saddened to read of what the board did to you. This type of action reflects badly on their leadership. Paul certainly did not agree to keep silent when Peter did wrong. Instead Paul publicly rebuked an action by Peter that was causing others to join in his hypocrisy:
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
It is time to give God the glory that there are those who will stand up for what is right and who are not afraid to call other leaders to account for their actions. And Wade accomplished this with great grace and much love.
Shouldn't all of our energies be focused on glorifying God and reaching the lost with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ? That's where the power is . . . in the gospel. Things that distract from this are harmful.
07 November, 2007 18:36
Anonymous missionary,
I am confused by this statement. Do you have any idea how many hours, conversations, telephone calls and e-mails had to nappen in developing this censure?
How many hours were spent on Mr. Corbaley's 153 page diatribe against Wade?
A few high level people, who I assume have other high level jobs, spent countless hours on this all because they want to operate in secret.
So, I agree with you. It is a huge waste of time that could have been used for much more important work for the Kingdom. Not things done in secret.
I also thank Wade for giving you a forum to critisize him and those who agree (not worship) with him.
Jerry Corbaley accused Wade of the sins of slander and gossip. The BoT's censure of Wade does not accuse him of slander or gossip.
Does the BoT believe Wade is guilty of slander and gossip? If so, why did they not censure him for slander and gossip? If not, why did they not censure Jerry Corbaley for falsely accusing Wade?
maneo said:
I'm more sorry than words can say about all this. are there no other trustees who have some ounce of courage? This is why many are leaving the SBC. if this is allowed to go on, the "good ole boys" will be the only ones left in a dying denomination as the world gets the Good News through others. our prayers are with you, Wade.
Wade,
I wouldn't have wished this on you or your family for anything. However, it occurred to me today that unlike those who have been shunned by the SBC and the IMB in the past, your story has been documented from start to finish so that the exposure has been vast. Those of us who felt forced out could only stand upon our stories and experiences and hope that a few would believe us. We couldn't hope that Southern Baptists had the real story behind our circumstances. But thousands have been able to follow your story as it has unfolded, knowing the truth and seeing the hateful, arrogant attitudes, which have been displayed along the way. Suddenly I realized that no longer are Southern Baptists in the dark about these matters if they do not choose to be.
I'm not grateful for your pain and certainly wouldn't ask you to be a martyr for any of us. Nevertheless, I am grateful that others have been able to follow your circumstances and truly see the nature of some people in some key positions who really seem to want to assert and maintain control for no other reason other than their own selfish interests. All I can say is, thank God for blogging and the fast and easy access that has allowed so many to watch this story unfold as it has happened. Maybe now Southern Baptists may begin to make some truly informed decisions based upon truth that had been hidden, which is now exposed in the light.
Whatever your position is on this issue, I think the chairman and the trustees should hear from you, don't just comment on a blog.
The list below is about a year old, so you'll get around 10 "bounce-backs" or "undeliverable" messages.
IMB trustee chairman:jdfloyd@mabts.edu
dnichols@gci.net
hickmanw@graceba.net
bill_hudgins@bellsouth.net
hpair@aol.com
pathes@pobox.com
allenandlaurellestoudenmire@yahoo.com
joedem@cox-internet.com
simontsoi@email.com
inheaven1@sbcglobal.net
bwithers@lbbf.org
kking@anchorway.com
DCTexan_95@yahoo.com
fbcelfers@verison.net
gbrdesk@fbcniceville.org
jrussell@bellshoals.com
kwhitten@idlewild.org
rlbrugh@charter.net
nedrajackson@bellsouth.net
dmerck@alltel.net
jschaefer@efloodzone.com
kkuwaclu@hotmail.com
boozeh44@aol.com
jeeccjdq@midwest.net
chazelam@aol.com
jcclick99@aol.com
tim.alexander@florencechurch.org
ncoe@highviewbaptist.org
pastor@newhorizonbaptist.org
kathytowns@bellsouth.net
lwascom@i-55.com
georgejack2@aol.com
tofbaptist@aol.com
jbarnhart@minerbaptist.org
jba4@jcn.net
wayneLHBC@yahoo.com
dogwoodtrailsba@cox-internet.com
brown52w@charter.net
rick.byrd@cornerstonesbc.org
ktlocher@bellsouth.net
dln310@juno.com
wsanderson@nc.rr.com
swmoregon@aol.com
david.button@starscomm.net
hyork@sbts.edu
prophet@future-link.net
info@councilroad.org
pastorrken@aol.com
RNBryan1@msn.com
amcwhite@ngc.edu
cfowler@uu.edu
pnelson@fbconcord.org
jwash624@aol.com
dbrunson@firstdallas.org
kcox@sbtexas.com
mgonzales@sbtexas.com
bobgraham@digitex.net
achmmh@comcast.net
Charlesgotell@wmconnect.com
sworkman@door.net
clint@centralvalleybaptist.com
paulette3416@msn.com
Jeff.ginn@mpbc.us
thayes@bbcyorktown.org
kcherry@citynet.net
Mark
These actions sadly feed the public persona of Baptists as a group that is adversarial, controlling and dishonest about their practices.
After reading this post, I even thought: There they go again. Eating their own.
This is hypocritical tantrum by the BoT is yet another "proof" of deeply problematic tendencies within the DNA of your conservative "realignment".
I wish some of you would step back and have the courage to see it for what it is, in the greater framework of the last few years.
Mr. Burleson's voice is a voice of reason that speaks to these very issues. Censuring him pulls back the veil and reveals nothing but "sincere", but sinful power mongering.
You've all inherited some unfortunate baggage when you gave the blank check to certain leaders and their minions.
Considering your denominational polity, it will take years of people suffering before you can course correct to a more irenic, charitable spirit to become the norm.
I will pray for the SBC.
mark,
i sent my email...to all of them.
none of it makes sense. I've read your blog for a while (off an on as life gets busy sometimes :) and did read the crazy 153 page letter... but I don't get what YOU did wrong.
If you are sharing the truth, how can anyone have a problem with that????
The BoT guidelines say that "in some circumstances" the dispute with a given trustee and the rest of the board can be mediated by the executive committee.
Has this in fact happened? Did the executive committe (or any other body outside the IMB) sit down with the parties and try to work out some sort of "settlement" short of Wade being effectively kicked out?
In any dispute resolution there has to be some "give and take" from both sides to reach some sort of accomodation. The impression I get [I admit I don't have any direct knowledge or documentation to support this] is that there was never any effective "dispute resolution" or "mediation".
I hope it is not too late for a recognized leader in the SBC to broker a "peace". If not, this breach will get much worse before it gets better.
Dr. Chapman, where are you when we need you?
For better or worse, Wade's marginalization "resonates" with a fairly sizable part of the SBC. I think this may be the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of (continued) polarization of factional groups in the SBC. Just when I thought things were becoming more "adult", now this happens.
The issues at stake here are fairly trivial. It is not worth going to the mat on them just to be on the "right" side.
Here are two better scenarios than the existing situation:
(1) Wade just folds and rubber stamps whatever the BoT wants for the sake of peace and is thereby restored to full functioning in the BoT.
(2) The BoT rescinds its censure. After all, at worst, the stuff Wade but in his blog is a tempest in a teapot.
Even better (3): Someone steps in and brokers a peace deal. Evidently, the BoT leadership won't even talk to Wade. So an external third party is going to have to step in to bring sanity to this process. It's kind of tough to work out a problem when one or both parties won't talk to each other in good faith.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Wade
I use to believe and practice the idea that those in leadership must present a unified front. So, I led deacons or elders that as long as there was one dissenting vote we would not take something to the floor of the church. The idea was used as a check and balance in seeking God’s direction and guidance. Starting out, I denied it was a means of control. But from that position it was only natural (sin nature) to assure that no dissention went public to lead to a behind close door policy that whatever the majority decided behind closed doors would be unanimously supported in public.
Those who desire control, wrongly define unity as a publicly unified front. Once it becomes a control issue, it doesn’t matter whether it is really unanimous. The father of lies tells us, “A little lie is okay when we have the greater good at heart.” Openness, honesty, integrity, transparency is no way to be a godly leader. Let’s use deception and dishonesty to get our way. When that doesn’t work let’s use shame and blame. And when that doesn’t work let’s use censorship.
Even the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES allows the public recording of dissenting views.
The majority may rule but they do not reign supreme.
Chuck
If trustee policies like these had been in place 25 years ago there would have never been a conservative resurgence. It would have been a tool for the power-that-be to silence dissent.
If churches would escrow lottie moon funds there would be some action by June.
I recently have started attending an SBC church again. I thought I'd give it another shot. But after this, I just don't know if its worth it. Some things never change.
When I drop my offering check in the plate at the end of the service, I can't help but think that a sizeable portion goes to support the actions of these trustees. I don't know if I want that on my conscience.
2 family members and Ben Cole isn't an "accountability" group.
Even Ted Haggard had folks outside of his church and area that he was accountable to (he probably never imagined that he would have to use them.
Get some respected people outside of your inner-circle (which includes the yes-men that comment on this blog) if you want some real accountability.
What is infuriating about this is that the board members know better.
They know full well what their reaction would have been 30 years ago if a moderate-dominated board misused "closed meeting" rules to obscure its decision-making procedures. There would have been a nuclear explosion among we conservatives had a moderate-dominated board written rules making it an offense for trustees to publicly *disagree* with board decisions.
There needs to be a motion at the convention next June to emphatically reverse these unBaptist rules.
On the other hand, I am glad that the IMB members have chosen to be so artless. The moderate trustees would have had the cunning sense to hide in the tall grass until after the new president is elected.
Well, on the upside this may start a trend toward more small church pastors being appointed to the IMB Board of Trustees. That way in the future if they get censured and told their way won't be paid to the meetings, they can't still afford to show up anyway.
:)
Wade -
I hardly know what to say. Realistically whether you voted for or against the new "gag order" guideline, it was technically the official rule. As long as you didn't quit over it and stayed around, it seems to me you were obliged to follow it. That verse in the Bible about obeying human authorities and all that comes to mind. Just because I vote against a law in the rest of the world, if it passes I still have to abide by it.
Which is where the matter of dissent comes in. If we break a law, then we must face the consequences of ending up punished for it. Such is how we find biblical characters in jail in the Bible, they were told not to preach, but they did anyway. So you chose to dissent and it seems you are taking the result in stride.
To be honest I find little of interest in the whole matter of whose feelings were hurt by whom. Not that I don't care about people's feelings, indeed I do. But anyone in Southern Baptist life knows by now that if you make it through to the end of your life without someone saying something uncharitable about you ... well you have lived an incredibly lucky life. I don't like it. It isn't the way it should be in God's kingdom. But right now that is the way it is.
What concerns me more is that this motion seems to read "Wade hurt our feelings and made the IMB look bad, so he can't serve in a real role with the IMB Board of Trustees." On the other hand what Wade seems to be fighting against is the limitation of missionaries being allowed to go to the mission field, who are ready, willing and able, because of two unwise Board policies.
So do I think sometimes you could be slightly wiser in your blogging choices? Well yes. But so could I for that matter. It really seems sometimes you operate on an "it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission" way of approaching things. Yet in the balance of the two sides ... one side saying "you hurt our feelings" the other side saying "you are keeping missionaries off the mission field", I'll stick around here for a while.
I am waiting. Waiting to see if this can be about more than mere "free speech." To see if you, indeed all of us, can get past the subissue of "Baptists have the right to dissent," and on to the real issue ... Baptists have the right to go serve on the mission field without running against ever narrowing parameters of cooperation.
I really think this is your ultimate goal. Some are looking to you as a leader, under God's guidance of course. Have you a plan of how we are to get there from here? And what can we all do to help in a tangible way to make that happen?
The right to dissent alone is a hollow right, if the underlying issue is able to be buried.
Dorcas
I understand why you wouldn't want to share this on your blog in that it would detract from what your passion truly is. I've met you. It's obvious what your passion is. It's the salvation of multitudes. It's missions at it's deepest core. But, I thank you for sharing it. It must be shared. It's part of your story that is so similar to many in the past 15 years. This type of culling has been going on for some time. This is not surprising at all. It's the tactics that have been used for years.
I read with interest the view of the soon to be missionary and their perspective on how they have been reading things here. I can understand some of their perceptions of you and how your words come across. It was great to be in the beginning process. The excitement of going where you knew God wanted you to go. Nothing will kill that excitement. Even through what they read here and what they thought, it will not stop them from going where they are to go. That's conviction. The same type of conviction that even you, Wade, have to continue.
But, being on the other side of the appointment process by 13 years, I have a different view from the couple being appointed. I read your post today with clouded memories of many who have been "politely" run off. I have memories of former BoT members rotating off and telling of the secret caucus groups and how things were already decided by a few before they even gathered. How they felt powerless. Basically, I have all these things in my recollection that I finally see being 'exposed' for what it is. I have memories of Ms writing letters to all the BoT members expressing their concerns over actions taken and only one member who responded back to those letters (sent snail mail)... That gave a sense of they don't care what we think. Oh, how the memories go on and on. Satan can use those memories and feelings to discourage us. But, God is bigger and He keeps us to our convictions and we keep keeping the main thing the main thing. Just as you are trying to do.
I hope that what is happening to you will not be just another memory. I hope that we can be a transparent organization. I think sometimes that this problem of transparency is a generational thing. Our generation seems to be more open about our personal problems than the older generation. Maybe it's a generational problem in how we see how things should be handled. Maybe our culture is ruling more than what is Biblical. I know we struggle with cultural issues all the time on the field. Those are some of the hardest barriers to brake.
I thank you for speaking positively about our leadership. We do have a rich resource of highly educated, God inspired, and humble people who lead us. We do have a great support staff in Richmond. Thank you for all your positive comments about those people. They deserve every bit of it.
I believe that God is in control and He will prevail and we may be surprised by what He is doing. We are quite often surprised by the way He does things.
We'll keep tuning in from time to time to see where all this is taking us. May God bless this mess in a huge way. :-)
M with YOUR organization
Wade
I asked earlier and yet still no reply. I know it is a busy and troubeling day for you brother. Will you consider allowing your name to placed into nomination for President of the SBC in Indy?
jrm
By remaking themselves into a secretive new Catholic Magisterium, the IMB Board of "Trust" may hurry the reform of the SBC so often called for by many pastors, missionaries, and laymen. This no-names-please vote by insiders and wannabes shouts to the people paying for all this capricious stomping about that the cause of Christ can easily be shunted aside so that political axes may be ground. Why, "saving a lost world" simply has to wait while the next auto da fey is served up!
So, Dr. Frank Page, are thou a man or a mouse?
Wade,
I grieve deeply for you. Having been there, done that, and experienced that, I know the thoughts and feelings going through your mind and soul. I am praying for you.
Proverbs 3:5-6
-- David
P.S. Let's get together for lunch sometime soon. It'll be on me.
Anonymous "bravely" advised, "Get some respected people outside of your inner-circle (which includes the yes-men that comment on this blog) if you want some real accountability.
Anonymous, do you mean "respected" and "accountable" like one who doesn't reveal his/her identity when dispensing unsolicited advice on an internet blog? Methinks, you need to go on a "gall" diet. . . ;^)
In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb
I would just like to urge everyone posting here anonymously to quit it. I am tired of reading "Anonymous said such and so" where "such and so" is the diametric opposite of what I had just seen posted by "Anonymous". I realize there may be people who need anonymity here, and I'm not arguing against anonymity; but please adopt a handle and stick to it, so that your comments cohere and can be replied to, instead of just being "Anonymous" and being smeared with the muck of all the other "Anonymous" posters. Then we could see which of you really deserve TD's gall award...
M to be:
Take it from another M who's already on the field that your current perspective will change once you're out here. You will soon see that occasionally the decisions by the BoT are neither representative of the SBC churches as a whole nor of the M's on the field. Sometimes these decisions hinder the work that we can do on the field and force us to be sidetracked by secondary issues instead of focusing on the main thing, which you, I and Wade all believe to be the proclamation of the gospel to all nations.
It is in these situations when dealing with secondary issues gets in the way of our ministry, knowledgeable and peaceful dissent is necessary. For the past few years, Wade Burleson has stood up for those of us on the field who feel supported by the leadership of our organization, supported by our home churches, yet alienated by the BoT and relegated to focusing on tertiary issues instead of focusing on the spread of the gospel.
Maybe your perspective will change once you're out here, but let me assure you and everyone else that there are many M's on the field who are extremely thankful for what Wade has done over the past couple of years.
Yet Another Anonymous M
Wade said, "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."
You failed miserably and are an embarassment to the Board, your fellow trustees, and the SBC in general. I ask you to prayerfull cease and desist and possilbe resign for the sake of the mission.
Mike J.
Mike J:
I'm sure your view is the minority view!!
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
---Martin Niemoller
Becca,
There is truth like you and I see as a necessary part of life and especially in the life of a Christian, brother and sister, but then there is the hierarchy of truth which is practiced by various people in our SBC leadership. Then truth is given on a "need to know" bases and only the few who are in the inner circle would ever “need to know” the truth. The "grass root" churches who support the CP would never understand what they are doing or the rationale behind their decisions.
For example the trustees at SWBTS seemed excited about the unveiling of $100K plus, 6 feet, portrait at their last meeting and how many of our "grass root" SBC churches feel that same way.
I believe it may have been possible for them to have acquired the massive portrait at SEBTS for discounted price and replaced it with a 16" x 20" to hang in the hall of president to compliment the other portraits hanging there.
Then the portrait at SEBTS would have matched the other presidential portraits and SWBTS could still have erected a shrine for Dr. Patterson.
Karen Scott
who is this corbaley guy anyway? i learned much more about him by readying his 153 page treatsy than by anything posted or commented on in this blog and was frankly embarassed. he obviously does not embrace or understand the modern "blogworld" and i would guess he is around 85 years old. i attend a baptist church but do not consider myself baptist. please check out podcasts or posted transcripts of The Village Church's Matt Chandler's sermons on Luke (Denton, Texa). One, i can't remember which, really tackles the issue of "sin" and might enlighten Dr. Corbaley. we are called to "turn the world upside down" and be just as radical and as much of a dissident as Jesus was. I pray that you remain strong in your convictions and graceful in your reaactions to those who oppose you. jan431
I ask you to prayerfull cease and desist and possilbe resign for the sake of the mission.
Mike J.
I see we have someone who did not agree with you Wade. Let take a vote? If Wade is speaking up for you and you agree with him. Please take the time to tell him so.
"Wade I agree with you."
Thank God that the majority has spoken and lets hope that you will
have a change of heart and stop been the HERO of the FAITH and the PROTECTOR of the SBC and please stay at home and save your money
Wade, I'm very sad see this happen for more reasons than the obvious. I have always been dismayed by heavy-handed leaders.
HUMOR WARNING--IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY BLATENT CONTEXTUAL HUMOR click here.
On a more humorous note, I'm wondering if the Trustees' dinner was a Diet of Worms. :) And now you can say that you are officially a "Protestant."
The majority? You mean the majority of trustees maybe.
As for the ones actually do the work...that would be missionaries on the field like my family and I and every other missionary on the field that has commented here...it is overwhelming supportive the other way my friend.
Or do the views of the missionaries in the field, including the Regional Leaders that support Wade's position, not matter to home bodies like you and Mike J. in comfortable America?
I am not surprised at any of this. This has been the norm for long time. Wade got on Board by being in the Group in control. And, once he got inside, he saw. He responded. Now he knows why many feel hurt and left out. Opposing is not going to happen. You can fight but you lose. And, continuing to fund those in control --you figure. Wade has many good ideas but they are opposed to power and control. The one's for thinking and opposing have moved on. Lottie Moon would never have made it today...Her name is tied to a most interesting group. Blessings to Wade and may God help us all. As one often says--follow the money trail--that is where power and control is...like oil prices!! wayne, Alabams
Mike J.,
Using your logic Luther should have just kept his pie hole shut.
Wade-i'm sure it doesn't mean much, but I'm with you.
dm
Wade:
I support you and agree with you. The Lord will work all of this out for his Glory!!
Mr. Valdes:
The majority spoke in a Lifeway Poll of SBC ministers about openness to gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The majority spoke in a vote by SBC messengers about not using issues beyond those specified in the current BF&M as a litmus test for those who are called to serve as missionaries and ministers.
A minority of denominational employees -- like yourself -- have chosen to ignore the wishes of the churches that pay your salary.
You wish to have the freedom to question the methodology of the Lifeway poll and to question the mental capacity of those who voted for the Garner motion... yet you demand that there be no dissension allowed among those who pay your salary?
These are tactics more appropriate for use by the government in Castro's Cuba than by servants in God's Church.
Wade, we are praying for you as well as Dr. Rankin and- most of all - for those in the field.
Blessings,
-jack-
Wade, your ‘fruit” is plain to see to all who CAN see. Live in peace. Our Lord knows your heart.
Math 7:16 “By their fruit you will recognize them.”
---------------------------------
John 1:5 “The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it”
----------------------------------
Math 6:23 “But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”
Wtreat@centurytel.net
Wade, please don't give up. Don't quit. Keep showing up at the meetings. Keep speaking the truth. Keep blogging.
There are many Ms depending on you. They need to know that there is at least one rational, competent, humble, and caring trustee on the Board whom they can turn to. They need to know there is at least one true leader on the Board whether or not you are allowed to officially serve under any title of leadership within the Board. It's obvious the Board needs true leadership at this time. So please keep leading. You have a much bigger following than you might imagine.
The majority of trustees sought to "fire" you, but I think they may have kindled a wild fire that may not go out till it has purged the old ways of secrecy, abuse of power, arrogance, and narrowing of parameters that now prevails.
I understand that all IMB Ms have already received a message from their V-President regarding the actions taken against you. This is big news. You are on the side of truth and openness. Keep on speaking. You are making a big difference for good.
Jesus was opposed by many his entire ministry. Yet he lived a life that pleased God. Keep on pleasing God regardless of what others may say. In a few short years (months, maybe days?), their opinion will be worthless. But His evaluation is the one that matters. The Audience of One, Wade.
We are praying for you and your family.
Steve
Leland Bryant Ross said,
"I realize there may be people who need anonymity here, and I'm not arguing against anonymity; but please adopt a handle and stick to it, so that your comments cohere and can be replied to, instead of just being "Anonymous" and being smeared with the muck of all the other "Anonymous" posters. Then we could see which of you really deserve TD's gall award...
This Okie could not agree more that there are legitimate reasons for some posters on this blog to remain "anonymous". Missionaries and employees of the IMB immediately come to mind, given the vindictiveness of the current leadership in the IMB BoT. Isn't it ironic that the very exercise of open and free speech jeopardizes the missionary services of Southern Baptist Missionaries here in the U. S. A. (and their lives in certain areas of the foreign mission field), while the IMB BoT leadership hides behind a cloak of secrecy, in the hopes that their backroom political machinations will not be held up to the light of public scrutiny?
By the way, those who have demonstrated that they already "have the gall" to anonymously and vainly attempt to muck up men of principle, such as Wade Burleson, have mired themselves in the process. In any case, the least of their needs is to be awarded an additional quantity of "gall". Therefore, the Okie "award" is a large bar of lye (not to be confused with "lie" ;^) soap, a proven and effective cleanser of fouled mouths and dirty hands for each of the recipients.
In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb
Lebron James got game
Wade Burleson's got grit
Grassroots SB's got presence [in Indy--?]
BCR
P.S. IMB Missionaries who support Wade need to make sure their SB churches back home bring a full slate of messengers and Marty Duren, 3 months before Indy, needs to come out of retirement [with "Eye of the Tiger" music in the background] and make one of those n yo face "Now's not the time to 'get away from it all'" speeches so that there are actually baby carriages in Indy and not just oxygen tanks.
Realistically whether you voted for or against the new "gag order" guideline, it was technically the official rule. As long as you didn't quit over it and stayed around, it seems to me you were obliged to follow it
Dori, you are dead wrong. The rule is unbaptist and a betrayal of the SBC churches it was instituted to serve. Are you saying that the board can write a policy that trustees cannot publicly dissent from board policies and therefore no one can dissent from *that* policy because it is a rule.
That's circular and orwellian.
But, again, I'm glad they have come into the open about this.
Wade, I'm curious. Since your suspension will end before the Convention, does these mean that seeking a motion on whether trustees can suspend a fellow trustee will be ruled as "moot" by the parliamentarian?
To the missionary going through appointment: No one wants to go through the process of appointment and orientation thinking less of the organization and its leadership than we feel we ought. You are at a very positive place in your lives and you SHOULD feel positive about it. There are many good things about serving with the IMB as you have already discovered, and will discover even more. There is much you can trust in those who will serve as your leaders.
On the other hand, you don't need to go into your assignment with blinders on, either. You will discover that your perspective on some things will change. That can be positive and negative. You will also discover that just as now, you will have to move with God in your own convictions of what He is saying and leading you to do. Richmond and the BoT will seek to make many decisions for you. Some will meet you at a place of loyalty where you are quick to respond in affirmation, although you might have a lot of unresolved questions and thoughts. Others, will hit you at a point of conviction, leaving you with a choice as to what you will do, based upon your beliefs on that matter.
One thing you may quickly discover is that so many times the pressures you face are not a direct result of the field on which you serve, but the decisions and sudden reactions that form policies, which come out of Richmond. Then you will be left with the feelings and questions of "Do these people even know what it's like to be a cross-cultural missionary?"
My humble advice? Stay the course that you are on and stay out of the politics of our Convention. First, staying the course is so important to you as a missionary. If you will do this it will become a value to you as you lean on God and His call upon your life in the difficult adjustments you will make on the field. Second, SBC politics will tear you apart if you let it. As much as possible, don't be quick to make value judgments. Over time these will be made for you. But go into this venture with the understanding that one day you may be called on to stand upon conviction and principle when you don't agree what is coming down the policy pike from IMB leadership. If you can have this perspective you will not be too quick to judge the stand that Wade has taken. This is from one former IMB missionary who, just like you, was once starry-eyed, but over the course of several years, slowly and painfully had his eyes opened. God is faithful--sometimes people are not. And when you have to make the hard decisions they will not always be there to cover you, but God will.
has the imb also excluded the use of minority reports?
there's almost always a minority opinion in baptist work.
Special for BEnji:
HEY! Don't go dissin' us "oxygen tankers".
Brother Wade,
I am so sorry for the actions of the IMB Board. I know that most Southern Baptists are in the dark on this issue. Thanks to you and others some of us are seeing the truth of the matter. I could argue many points in your defense, but the one that most concerns me is the attempt to silence dissent. Where would we be today if this had been practiced when the Conservatives were reasserting their dominance in the Convention? It is clear to me and many others that this is NOT about mission, Biblical principle, or Board policy. It is simply and clearly a POWER PLAY. This kind of attitude will continue to choke the life out of the SBC.
Please do NOT close your blog. It serves a very important role in the future of Baptist ministry. The affects cannot be judged now.
I will continue to uphold you in prayer!
I believe the words of Jesus when He said, "You shall know the Truth and Truth will set you free".
Seems to me the best way to support Wade and to publicly (and constructively) send a message to the IMB BOT would be through a HUGE Lottie Moon contribution from a certain church in Enid, OK.
Wade, how can we funnel our Lottie Moon contributions through Emmanuel Baptist Church?
"Special for BEnji:
HEY! Don't go dissin' us "oxygen tankers"."
yeah! us young guys may need some depending on the decisions made at indy.
come to think of it, i could use some now with the recent decision by the imb.
An oxygen tanker who uses the word "dissin'"
Come one and all, we can work together!
Whooooohooooooo!!!!:)
BCR
Bob,
Do you know how many guys would probably spill the coffee in their laps if Marty came out of retirement before Indy?
This is insane! I can't believe this censure has taken place. I honestly thought that there would be some discussion on the 130+ page diatribe that was set forth by what's his name...but I figured that'd be it.
And to those who accuse him of discouraging ms, let me tell you, Wade has been nothing but a source of truth and encouragement to many of us out here in security 3 regions. As a 'field reps' of the IMB, I've appreciated Wade's blog! It's tough to read of his journey. The things that he and his family have had to endure have done NOTHING BUT INSPIRE many of us out here on the front lines of reaching the lost! He's shared with honesty his personal concerns, and has pulled back the curtain on the goings on of evil, power seeking men and women!
He's taken the high ground and stood with transparent integrity on the difficult issues. His writings about the use of alcohol should have been published by LIFEWAY as guide lines for parents in teaching their children about drinking. We'd have far fewer good old Southern Baptist boys and girls who sneak off on Friday and Saturday nights to drink with their Bible study buddies! (But that's the former youth pastor in me speaking).
He's done NOTHING but support Jerry Rankin...as oppossed to many of the trustees and other men in power(most of whom hide behind other's shirt tails!!!).
You know...first it was the whole issue of signing the BFM, then what...baptism, PPL...now this!? Can any of this please the Father? How can any of these issues be to His glory? Getting up from the table when a brother wants to share a meal...AND IN FRONT OF PEOPLE AT MLC NO LESS!?!?!? I guess he didn't wear his WWJD braclet that day, or he'd of sat with Wade, prayed over their meal and had a decent conversation about the AMAZING things the Father is doing through the IMB!
And AMAZING THINGS INDEED! Sharing T4T with gov't sponsored sem students...I heard a fellow m just tonight share about an angelic deliverance of two young sisters who live in the heart of Satan's kingdom of Tibetan Buddism. These are the kinds of things that the BOT should be focusing on. Not closed door meetings, and pushing personal agendas. The Father is doing AWESOME things, and people like Wade have done nothing but prayed for, served, and supported those of us out here! (And I know he doesn't like the use of !'s, but I hope he'll forgive me!!) And his blog has once again, given me faith in, and hope for my Southern Baptist heritage. I've been an SB since 1973, and it's been such a joy in these several months(as I'm fairly new to the bloggin scene)to watch as God has raised up Wade to hold forth a torch of truth and integrity! And yet, there is a sense of saddness and pain as we've watched him come under such vicious, satanic attack!
Wade, I can only pr that you can find that sense of joy in the midst of this season of personal attack and persecution, knowing and trusting that you are bearing HIS cross. And that in that Heavenly sphere, He's holding you close and tight! And probably with tears streaming down His face, smiling because He knows you're becoming more like HIM!!!
Thank you Wade!! Please know that there are many of us out here pr for you and your family!
Your faithful, fellow servant,
Jallen
I was reading another website and heard someone say they would not be giving to the Lottie Moon offering this year. I know that does not seem like the majority of comments but I post what I said there in the interest of ourr missionaries...
On behalf of our missionaries and their efforts I beg any and all who have said they will not participate or will limit their participation in the Lottie Moon Offering to reconsider. Any shortfall in giving will penalize the missionary in the field and not the BOT. Please do not harm the servants of Christ who so desperately need us to keep on giving so they can keep on going.
If you want to support either Wade and those who agree with him or the BOT and those who agree with them then let's have it fleshed out in Indianappolis, not in the far reaches of the lost of this world and those who so faithfully strive to proclaim the Gospel to them.
Chuck Bryce
Dacus Baptist, Montgomery TX
brycechu@mssblue.net
Chuck,
A hearty Amen from me. If you hear of anyone who has similar sentiments to the man you mention above, let me know the name and how I can contact them. I will personally appeal to them not to lower their Lottie Moon giving.
As long as the Southern Baptist Convention acknowledges that they desire me to work toward reform I will continue - with unconditional support for our mission enterprizes.
James -
Suppose there was a really popular lady in a town who loved her prize winning rosebushes. She wanted everyone to stop and look at them. However, what once used to be a lazy boulevard is now a bustling thoroughfare with cars whizzing by. So no one looks over at her house or the roses anymore. This makes the lady upset. But she has friends, who have friends, and “owns” half the town. So she is able to work it out where the town votes that a stop sign will be placed on the street, right at her house. There is not an intersection there. There is no obvious reason for the stop sign to be there. However, it is the law that people stop at stop signs. So people must stop. Because this is a bustling thoroughfare and the stop sign is unexpected, it causes many wrecks. And the police use it to collect a lot of tickets. Yet it is the rule, no matter how insane it may be. People can choose to obey the law (with some risk … traffic accidents), or to disobey the law, and get a ticket, lose their license or jail time, depending upon how many times they have refused to stop at the legal, though incredibly misplaced stop sign.
I did not say that the “gag order” policy was right or good, I merely said that it appears to currently be legally binding on the Trustees. It seems that it is incredibly misplaced, and will cause more harm than good. And seems to be only designed for appearances, much like the lady’s desire to have people stop and look at her rosebushes. As I see it Wade balanced the risks of going against his convictions (the traffic accident in the analogy) or sticking with them (running the stop sign and getting a ticket).
What we have to do now as a Convention is decide if we will continue to let certain people keep control such that we are hindered from efficiently spreading the gospel by rosebush laws, or if we are going to come together and work together to make changes that will keep the IMB thoroughfare running smoothly for the good news of Jesus Christ to spread around the world.
Ironically Wade I was just reading the history of T. T. Eaton's assaults on Mullins, Dargan, and Robertson for their audacity to question the legitimacy of Baptist succession. Keep up the fight.
Jallen,
You said "The things that he and his family have had to endure have done NOTHING BUT INSPIRE many of us out here on the front lines of reaching the lost!"
That's what Wade does--he INSPIRES! And I think some folk in response to this perspire.
To be candid, I feel energized. I've been playing with a little blue plastic ball with tigger on it.
I'm a new pastor and I want to go to Indy.
Everyone,
You don't have to agree with every jot and tittle of what Wade says to support him. Look at how God has blessed the church he pastors, look at how God has blessed the state convention he was president of.
Imagine that blessing spilling over to the SBC.
Grace
BCR
Dorcas,
Your analysis of the situation is a good one.
I voted against the March 22, 2006 new trustee guidelines - rushed into approval the very day the motion for my removal was rescinded and expunged from the record.
Initially, I struggled with seeking to abide by the new policies. I really desired to do so, but as time went on, I saw how the stifling of dissent is precisely the way control is kept - even when the direction is beyond the BFM 2000 and in some instances detrimental to our cooperative nature of missions.
Therefore, when the Garner motion was passed at the SBC in 2006 - I felt the CONVENTION - the people who appointed me - said, "We do NOT want agencies to implement guidelines that go beyond the BFM 2000."
Bingo. Now, I had a choice. If the IMB Board of Trustees refused to abide by the Garner Motion and refrain from adopting doctrinal guidelines that go beyond the BFM 2000 - or reverse guidelines that do - so that otherwise qualified and and God-called Southern Baptist missionaries are excluded from missionary service, then I could voice my dissent and risk censure (which I did and those posts were cited as the basis for censure), or I could abide by the newly, ill-placed stop sign and never let those missionaries being excluded know they have a voice on the Board.
I chose the former for the greater good of the SBC and the IMB (though at a huge personal cost for me personally). Others might have chosen the latter. There is not a moral judgment to be had.
I humbly accept my censure and will probably receive more since I will not quit blogging, not quit attending meetings, not quit expressing my courteous dissent, and I will not quit being interested in cooperative SBC missions.
Blessings,
Wade
Correction. The Garner motion was approved in June of 2007.
Yesterday, while the comment string was at about 16, I spent an hour out of my day and wrote a letter to Dr. Floyd objecting to the censure and requesting his resignation and the resignation or removal of Jerry Corbaley. I cc'd the BoT and Frank Page. I included Tom Hatley because he was mentioned in my email to Dr. Floyd.
I heard back within a very short time from Tom Hatley who said "Taking up an offense for someone else is dangerous according to scripture and I would only ask you to keep in mind that this board is full of the greatest heroes of the faith living today."
He went on to say a lot more stuff that I'm personally not interested in sharing (because it doesn't really matter since he is no longer with the BoT). I have yet to hear from any other trustee. (I know they are busy with the meeting, so that doesn't bother me too much).
I have the upmost and greatest respect for our trustees. I know that they are heroes of the faith. But even heroes can be distracted or even misguided by folks with personal vendettas.
In my letter, I called for the immediate reversal of the censure and the immediate assignment of Burleson to a committee. I am offended that a representative from my home state is not afforded the opportunity to sit on a committee.
I served with the IMB for 11 years (including J'man) and I love the Board! I had the privilege of meeting many of our trustees at our AGM's and at RVA. I think the IMB is the best thing going for missions right now. I saw what other missionaries from other sending agencies had to deal with and I knew that WE were spoiled! And to that I say, "Praise the Lord!"
I am outraged that Hatley's animosity toward Burleson carried over to Floyd. This is absolutely insane!
I am outraged that Corbaley's tirade was used against Burleson and BURLESON received the censure, NOT CORBALEY!
Did the other BoT members not actually read the "evidence" from the blog entries or did they just accept them as truth? I read that infernal 153 page collection of nonsense and each and every one of the blog entries that it references. To me, it just didn't hold water.
I believe that some big ego's have been hurt and that pride is at the very basis of this.
Can we not move on? After all, Burleson's removal was unanimously rescinded!
Now, some one who writes a novel simply is listened to just because there are many words? Give me a break!
Again I say, I call for the resignation (or removal)of John Floyd and Jerry Corbaley from Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board; they appear (to me) to have placed their personal agendas above that of the Board, the IMB, and the missionaries they are sworn to serve.
May God have mercy on us all.
dorcas,
What the lady in your example had not only got the sign put up in front of her house, but also got a law passed making it illegal for councilmen & councilwomen to suggest the new law was not in the best interest of the neighborhood. That's not legislation. That's a coup.
If rules like this one had been in effect in 1977, there would have been no reformation of the convention. If moderate trustees had tried to pass such a rule in the early 80s, Baptists would have been justifiably outraged.
It is very troubling that NOW that the trustees are much more unified in their beliefs about their scriptural mission that a board would find such a rule useful. It is not Wade that is being misused here. It is the contributing churches. And trustees who abide by it quietly are not doing our business.
Benji:
Likely enough to let Juan Valdez retire, or send Kevin Bussey's Starbuck's stock through the roof.
Wade,
I've been meaning to say this: If the SBC/IMB doesn't listen to those inside who dissent ... just as Israel consistently refused to hear the prophets who had their best interests at heart ... perhaps God will send the Babylonians to clean up the mess that the IMB BoT, and perhaps others in the SBC, are making.
When you stand one day and survey the wreckage, you will be found to have been faithful, I'm sure.
Feel good about that.
Maybe I am a little late to the conversation, but how about a motion permitting or directing agencies to publish minority reports with any major policy actions? Attack the problem, instead of the people?
I believe there are two important things to note...
1. As a pastor, like many of you who read this blog, I understand that often when there is a disciplinary action taken there is much more to the story than leadership can share. There have been times in my ministry when I have had to take the lumps knowing I could defend myself if I said everything I knew, but that it would not be the right thing to do. I have had to 'let the Lord defend me.'
2. I tend to trust what a majority of people agree to. Certainly there are exceptions all of us could cite, but the exceptions prove the rule. My understanding is that a majority of the trustees, after hearing the whole story behind closed doors, decided on this action and no trustee was so conscientiously opposed that he or she resigned and walked out of the room to tell of the injustice.
My prayer is that no one on either side of this issue will allow this to continue to be a distraction. I pray that everyone involved will have the humility to work this out.
Rick,
I appreciate your letter. I read it with great interest. I think you have some excellent insight, but the content of Mr. Hatley's email and others who seem to have an obsession with me do not necessitate any judgment of their hearts, egos, or motives.
Their words do enough.
I certainly appreciate the fact that you not only have strong convictions, you act on them.
Blessings,
Wade
Pastor Noel,
If you have a chance, go look at the slavery exhibit in the Abraham Lincoln Museum in Springfield, Illinois. Read what Lincoln said about slavery. Read what others said in castigating Lincoln. Then ask yourself this question. Would Lincoln agree with your statement:
I tend to trust what a majority of people agree to.
By the way, the reason people aren't fighting and leaving a room in protest, etc . . . is because when the censure was passed - with both yes votes and no votes - the censure was graciously accepted.
Christians should be civil even in the passing of censures.
In His Grace,
Wade
"Maybe I am a little late to the conversation, but how about a motion permitting or directing agencies to publish minority reports with any major policy actions? Attack the problem, instead of the people?"
08 November, 2007 14:15
Absolutely. The focus is on the issue. We are all adults and publishing minority positions just like the Supreme Court does, documents both sides for the future.
Those of us who are strategic planners do this all the time and it is amazing how often we come back to an issue 2 years later and adopt idea brought out in the minority reports.
This is how adults behave instead of passing gag rules that say you can only say positive things about every decision. How childish.
"Pastor Noel said...
I believe there are two important things to note...
1. As a pastor, like many of you who read this blog, I understand that often when there is a disciplinary action taken there is much more to the story than leadership can share. There have been times in my ministry when I have had to take the lumps knowing I could defend myself if I said everything I knew, but that it would not be the right thing to do. I have had to 'let the Lord defend me.'"
With all due respect, Pastor Noel, this type of thinking is a big problem in our churches and para church organizations.
A church is not a business. I cannot tell you how many churches and para church organizations I worked with that said there are no secrets here only to find there are hundreds of secrets and everyone knows it! So basically all you are doing with this type of thinking is fueling the gossip vine and breaking down trust.
When a church is operating as a true Body, where do you find this need for closed door meetings, arbitrary decisions and secrecy?
Wade,
So, you are suggesting there would have been trustees 'fighting and leaving [the] room in protest' had you not graciously accepted the censure?
Lin,
There are many secrets in churches. A church must trust its pastor and the lay people they have put around him to make wise decisions that they cannot always elaborate on. The leadership in my church made a decision a few weeks ago based on some 'secret' information. We haven't shared all of the information so as not to embarrass some of the people involved. Most of my church trusts me, the rest trust the eight men they've elected to oversee these kinds of issues.
It's not unspiritual to not share everything you know.
Will the real fake anonymous please stand up?
Do you remember the time I slandered an anonymous missionary that I thought was you, and you yelled at Wade for letting you be criticized?
Wade said he would remove the comment if you told him where, but you did not reply.
You stopped commenting under your name, but ever once in a while I could recognize your words as you criticized Wade even though you faked your identity with important positions.
So on this sad occasion, where would you be? You could not pass up such an event—like a murderer returning to the scene of the crime.
To hurl your poison arrows, you would need a perfect reputation…ah yes, the wife of a preacher; and better yet, a “missionary to be”.
Rex,
Who are you referring to?
Pastor Noel,
Early in my pastoral ministry of forty years I had a situation of a staff person who had committed a moral sin with which we had to deal. I had three desires that were at the forefront of my heart in that situation. One was the good of the Church. Another was to maintain personal integrity. Then I saw the need to recover a staff person's life and family.
To save the congregation some pain, in my way of thinking, we simply presented it as personal issues being the reason he had to step aside. This was decided behind closed doors. That was presented on a Sunday morning to all. The rumors were rampant. The truth got lost. people were confused. Questions were manifold.
Two weeks later I, along with the deacons, and the personel team, stood and apologized. We stated the problem, presented our [the church] commitment to the Staff person's recovery, the providing of counseling for him, the care of his family, and requested the folks to pray and not pry with questions. Then said we would give periodic reports.
They gave an "amen" and we went on with Kingdom work giving peroidic updates. The Church was wise, understanding, and much more capable at handling truth than I had supposed. I've practiced that learned belief since.
The circumstances may vary, the participants may change, the problems may be different. The need for transparancy and openness does not change. The Spirit is able to protect, deliver, and sustain the Body. But He uses people who present the truth, are transparent and open in the doing of His work.
Paul,
I agree that often complete transparency is the best and the biblical (1 Tim. 5:20) way.
But can you really tell me that as a pastor you didn't know all kinds of secrets that influenced who you asked to do what and who you 'moved along' to some other area of service? It would not be helpful or practical for a pastor to share everything he knew about every person's lifestyle choices. But those 'secrets' influence many decisions a pastor makes.
But I think I've gotten away from my original point.
I am in no way suggesting that Wade is guilty of some secret sin. I just believe that when this many godly people stand up without any strong dissent and say there is a problem from their inside perspective, then I think we should give them a little more respect and credence.
How many trustees are there? None have voiced a conscientious dissent?
" The Church was wise, understanding, and much more capable at handling truth than I had supposed. I've practiced that learned belief since.
The circumstances may vary, the participants may change, the problems may be different. The need for transparancy and openness does not change. The Spirit is able to protect, deliver, and sustain the Body. But He uses people who present the truth, are transparent and open in the doing of His work.
08 November, 2007 15:05
Thank you for sharing this story. I have seen the exact opposite happen over and over and to the detriment of everyone involved.
Recently, an old aquaintance of mine was fired from his very public position within a mega church. I had not seen him in ages but heard (notice I said 'heard') from a reliable source he was fired for looking at pornography.
He was simply dismmised with not a word to the staff of 400 or the congregation of 18,000.
So..now there is NO opportunity for his brothers and sisters to love on an erring brother and hold him accountable. His family (including teens) is in shame and ruins all because
'Christians' ignored the scriptures and operated in secret. So, the rumors and wondering continue. And I pray a brother is not lost for good.
Pastor Noel, I mean no disrepect to you. I hope you understand. Secrecy is not best. Someday it will all be known anyway.
Lin,
A couple weeks ago I heard of someone being unfaithful to a spouse. I had considered putting that person on a list to become a Bible study teacher. I decided not to do it. Should I have put in the church bulletin or in a blog what I heard about this person? Should I have worked it into Sunday's Powerpoint presentation following the message?
I think we're getting a little off topic.
Pastor Noel,
Are there times we should avoid unnecessarily embarassing an individual? My human nature says there are, and in churches, we often take that to an extreme--even to the point of avoiding embarassment to one individual at the cost of someone else's feelings, or even their good name. Funny how it often sides (it seems to me) with the individual with the most political clout. Our Baptist churches, for the most part, operate as a pure democracy--well, as least as a pure democracy of those who bother to show up for business meetings, which of course biases decisions to begin with when we brag about our democracies. At their best, the Holy Spirit is in control, and that is a beautiful thing. But at their worse, Baptist votes are a tyrany of the mob, in which not even the shadow of the Spirit can be discerned. Now perhaps my experiences are very much different than yours. Actually, I hope they are, because I have spent most of my ministry (deliberately) in dysfunctional churches. But although I have no personal experience with the IMB or other upper levels of SBC administration, there is a point of contact: the conclusion is inescapable that many SBC instirutions indeed operate dusfunctionally. And if we are to survive--churches and convention alike--that must be overcome.
Decisions to avoid "embarassing someone" are human nature--but can you back that up with Scripture? Jesus said to let your yes be yes and your no be no; and if that is not a call for transparency, I don't know what is. And transparency, as well as simple Christian honesty, require one to disagree where there is disagreement, and not cover it up or pretend to support decisions and actions with which one disagrees. What do you think?
Pastor John
John Fariss
[Wade] when the censure was passed - with both yes votes and no votes
[lin] A church is not a business...When a church is operating as a true Body, where do you find this need for closed door meetings, arbitrary decisions and secrecy?
I think this is quite revealing of how we got here. In small churches, committees avoid controversy surrounding decisions by trying to adopt decisions that don't have to be "sold" to the church body. So, the decisions tend to be consensus decisions.
In public companies, decisions are arrived at by power politics. Do you only get 60% of the vote? That's a "win". That's not true for small churches. It is in the interest of a business for meetings to be secret so the marketing department can spin every final decision as wonderful.
In very large churches, the danger of the congregation organizing against the leadership is low so decisions are made from "above" without the expected detailed involvement of the congregation.
It seems to me that a business-oriented/VLC-oriented approach to administration (from what I hear, not limited to the IMB) is affecting the extremity of the decisions made and the tone in which they are arrived at.
How is it in the interest of the convention for controversial votes to be taken by voice rather than by record? Why would board members be embarrassed by their choice in this matter? Presumably, they have acted Biblically and spoken to Wade beforehand. So he knows the opinion of each board member anyway, right? Or maybe not.
Lin said:
"A church is not a business. I cannot tell you how many churches and para church organizations I worked with that said there are no secrets here only to find there are hundreds of secrets and everyone knows it! So basically all you are doing with this type of thinking is fueling the gossip vine and breaking down trust."
A bigger issue is that the term secret is impossibly benign. Many of those "secrets" are hidden agendas. Wade exposed one of those hidden agendas: there are those who have been on the board that have an agenda of enforcing appointment only of professing cessationists/dispensationalists.
Add to that the insistence of proper Baptistic baptism or what I call "baptismal succession" (because it requires clergy to baptize that have also been properly baptized). Wade exposed these agendas and made a public issue of them. The fine folks of the BoT thanked him for that by gagging him.
We need Trustees digging out these agendas and opposing them. It's WHY Trustees are there: to call the Board of Trustees AND the IMB and her missionaries to account. We do NOT need people who have hidden agendas using the power of the churches to undermine the consent of the "governed" (so to speak). That's wrong.
And, yes, usually the majority in church life are right. Except when they're not. Perhaps this is one of those occasions?
As evidence of how likely it is that secretive Boards of Trustees can botch calling to account powerful ministers, I offer:
Jimmy Swaggert,
Ted Haggard,
Richard Roberts,
and the ministries of Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland.
While I know we have a tendency towards innocence and naivete, these kinds of efforts to choke out dissension is how ministries get derailed.
Pastor Noel:
You said:
"There are many secrets in churches. A church must trust its pastor and the lay people they have put around him to make wise decisions that they cannot always elaborate on. The leadership in my church made a decision a few weeks ago based on some 'secret' information. We haven't shared all of the information so as not to embarrass some of the people involved. Most of my church trusts me, the rest trust the eight men they've elected to oversee these kinds of issues.
It's not unspiritual to not share everything you know."
In our church, while we do not vote on everything, we at least inform the congregation on the decisions. The bigger the decision, the more impute we seek from the congregation, and the more we inform the congregation about the decision making process.
At times some information is held back. Usually because such information, as you well stated, would harm one of the individuals involved. The purpose is not to protect the reputation of the church, but to protect the individuals in the matter.
For the IMB, I can see two areas where privacy is appropriate: (1) Information on M's in sensitive areas, where disclosure could result in compromising their ministries and/or their safety, and (2) Personnel matters, in which disclosure might harm the reputation and/or livelyhood of the specific individuals under review (not the reutation of the organization).
While you and I might disagree on (2) as it applies to Trustee Burleson (I do not believe the closing of the sessions was to protect his reputation), the primary matter of the right of dissent on policy matters does not fall under either of these categories. In fact the lack of open dialogue could easily lead some to conclude that opposing views or objections were never considered. It could lead some to believe that their own hesitations were not considered, that perhaps the committee had overlooked some problems that should have been addressed. Only by disclosing the discussion on policy matters can it be demonstrated that the trustees have thoroughly studied the issues and have come to a reasonable conclusion, regardless of whether I agree with it.
"It's not unspiritual to not share everything you know..." but it is unspiritual to present something (unanimity, as opposed to unity) that you know to be false.
Pastor Noel,
I am sure there was dissent. It's just that now that it has happened, no one can say anything about it but, "Hey, this is great, look what we did!"
[pastor noel] Are there times we should avoid unnecessarily embarassing an individual?
That's really not relevant in this situation, unless the embarrassed party is someone who pushed through a controversial board policy. In that case, it is not in the interest of convention to respect that person's privacy in that regard.
As I said before: If policies like this had been in effect in the 1970s, there would have been no reform of the convention. Why enact these policies now when trustees are much more in agreement about their mission than they were in 1980?
Wade,
When and where is the next BoT meeting?
OK... a few points in response...
Pastor John,
I do believe in transparency, but I also believe in trust. The IMB is a big organization. What they need is not more transparent micromanagement of every decision that is made. What they need are a group of godly overseers sent by the convention. And what they need is for us to trust them when they make a majority decision with no strong dissent.
To others,
Several of the responses to my original post are debating whether the trustees should keep the knowledge of some sin a secret. Let me be clear on this: So far as I know Wade is the most upstanding, godly trustee we have. I have no reason to think otherwise. Please no one construe my remarks to mean otherwise. I think the issue is not 'has Wade done some terrible secret thing', but rather, do we trust our many trustees who are much more knowledgable than most of us about the circumstances to make wise decisions?
Wade,
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.
Be a Baptist and support that which you believe in but run like a scalded cat from their committees.
The Catholic Church saved up all their embarrassment for one big coming-out party. I don't think we'd like where the SBC (et al) will wind up if we do the same thing now.
David Philips said: "I am sure there was dissent."
Actually, by moving the meeting in to executive session, John Floyd has leveled a threat to any of the trustees who might side with Wade. If they attempt to talk about the discussion or even their vote on it, they face the same action as Wade has endured.
John Floyd has gone nuclear.
Pastor Noel,
Of course things were often known by me that always remained within me and guided my personal responsibilities as Pastor unless I had to go to the person because of personal offense.
But, in context, we're speaking of things that demanded a public action. That's the limited context in which I took your original comment.
That said, from my limited personal perspective, "none have voiced a conscientious dissent" is a conclusion that comes from too little information being given it seems to me. It is the kind of thing I think is a disservice to all the SBC.
But, knowing I could be wrong and we are brothers in Christ, we'll, I'm sure, not disrespect each other because we see things differently. That is my commitment to you.
[pastor noel] What they need is not more transparent micromanagement of every decision that is made. What they need are a group of godly overseers sent by the convention. And what they need is for us to trust them when they make a majority decision with no strong dissent.
Why do you think a new "gag" rule is necessary now when it was not been necessary for the previous 150 years?
Perhaps the trustees need to trust their fellow Baptists more.
Paul,
I share that commitment to you as well.
And I'll admit, that I am not the most knowledgable person in the world about the politics of the IMB. If it turns out that there are a number of trustees that feel like this is a real injustice, then I believe it would then deserve some closer scrutiny. I suppose time will tell if one or more of the other trustees feels so pasionately that this is wrong that they should speak up.
"'. . . I think . . . Baptists just got tired of the fact that they really didn’t feel like they were given a choice,' he explained. 'Everything was already handpicked for them, the committees were being built and stacked, and there was great dissatisfaction with that . . . Baptists want to be heard.'
"'I think we’re just wanting to get on with the task of evangelism and missions and soul-winning and building churches and quit bickering, fussing and fighting . . .'
"'. . . we are just interested in getting down the road,' he said. 'We can spend our time tearing up one another and tearing up churches and everything else. But there’s no need for it . . .'
"'. . . As far as I’m concerned, it can stop right now,' he said . . ."
--Sick-and-tire-of-it Missouri Baptists' recently-elected convention President, Gerald Davis (as quoted in Associated Baptist Press article here: http://www.abpnews.com/2833.article
Got the idea?
A couple weeks ago I heard of someone being unfaithful to a spouse. I had considered putting that person on a list to become a Bible study teacher. I decided not to do it. Should I have put in the church bulletin or in a blog what I heard about this person? Should I have worked it into Sunday's Powerpoint presentation following the message?
08 November, 2007 15:30
Until you go to this brother and discuss it is a rumor. Scripture is pretty clear on handling cases such as these. 1 Corinthians 5. Matthew 18. However, it if is NOT true then what? He was falsly accused maybe through misunderstanding or worse. In any event...what could be better than getting the concerned parties together and dealing with this?
But Wade was censured for disagreeing publicly. Not morality.
As to the majority being right...I cannot read the OT without seeing many prophets standing alone.
I also know the story of Morton Thycol and the Challenger disaster. ONE man on the team would not sign off on the O-ring and it could not fly until the entire team was in agreement. Weeks of peer and leadership pressure and shunning took it's toll and he signed off. And you know the rest of the story.
Peer pressure...wanting to be in agreement with the leaders and go along is more prevalent than you can imagine. Maybe you do not see this being the top guy at your church. I saw it everyday in my field. And I can tell you...most people...especially Christians...go along to get along. They are told if they don't they are divisive and not obeying their leaders. It works.
Pastor Noel,
You would have never favored the Revolutionary War effort because there was no majority for American Independence. I like Paul believe it is time we put an end to SBC secrecy. We are in need of a motion that would eradicate closed door meetings, undisclosed salaries, and backdoor politics. Put a cap on what the salaries of the heads of SBC state and see how committed they are to the SBC and her agencies. They will abandon ship for a pastorate quicker than you can blink. Patterson's hypocrisy is blatant as he has mandated living quarters for IMB personel that are smaller than the wing addition he had constructed to the already huge presidents mansion at SWBTS. And this addition was reportedly for his dog. The closed secrecy is not biblical nor is it beneficial to empowering and magnifying God's kingdom. They only enable the continued brokering of human power in the SBC. Addtionally, full disclosure would bring accountability for words and actions. The other way power is brokered is through stifling dissent. When Dilday was fired any one who dared to question and petition the BoT were put on a list as one former trustee informed a close friend of mine. I had a professor who related to me how Patterson personally sabotaged the career of a colleague over dissent. He continues to do this even to this day. Dissent is contra status quo; speak out and you are the enemy. These are really dangerous times for the SBC. Let's face it the super hero agency heads have much to lose.
James,
"Why do you think a new "gag" rule is necessary now when it was not been necessary for the previous 150 years?"
Good question. Why do we all of a sudden need a rule that says we debate the issues in the room and then we walk together with the majority decision?
How is it that the operations of the IMB are all secret and that they don't file a 990 so everyone can see what is really happening? So how much is used for secular stock investments and benefit of the hierarchy and how much is really used for direct missionary support?
Is it not like that large church in Memphis, Tn (Bellevue Baptist Church) that has $20 million stashed in the bank from when Dr Rogers was there, so they can do whatever they want under the new leader, Dr Gaines, as the membership is dwindling, and as they drive out all those who want to question anything.
Wade should'a known better...any fool knows passin' a censure - not ta mention ACCEPTIN one - is a fire hazard. What are you people thinkin? Is this some kinda pagan ceremony?
Curious in Lynchburg
ML,
Seems like there were at least a few strong dissenters that prompted the revolutionary war.
John Adams, etc...
How many trustees are there? None have voiced a conscientious dissent?
I am thoroughly confused. I thought Wade was just censured for voicing dissent about the boards actions. Now you are wondering why there is no dissent about the boards actions?
Wade,
First… I am praying for you as you face this un-Just, un-Baptist and un-Christ like action by these misguided “Temporary Leaders” of the IMB Trustees. I use the term “Temporary Leaders” for that is indeed all that they are… be it the actions of an outraged convention, an outraged God, or simply the passing of time, they will soon be gone and the great missionary work of the IMB will go on without them. Why? Because we Southern Baptist are a “Great Commission People”… We believe in missions… we may not believe in our leaders… but we believe in missions.
Second… I am praying for these misguided Trustees.
Gentleman, the Churches and the People of the Southern Baptist Convention will not be ruled from behind closed doors!
The Southern Baptist Convention (including the IMB) is built upon a Foundation of Cooperation… Cooperation requires Trust… and Trust requires TRUTH.
That this action was taken behind closed doors, and that the Trustees were not required to go on record just how they voted, and the fact that you are attempting to implement a “Gag Rule” that has not been authorized by the Convention demonstrates for all to see that you are attempting to keep the truth of just how the IMB is being governed from the Convention…
“We the People…” require that every vote of our elected leaders be done in the light of public scrutiny that we may hold our leadership accountable for their actions and that we may fully know that our leaders are “Representing” us and not themselves. As Southern Baptist we deserve and expect no less from the BOT’s of our agencies than we do our elected leaders…
Regardless of how you attempt to spin it in the BP… take my word for it, this will not play well in the local churches, and this will not foster greater cooperation between the agencies of the SBC and the local churches.
Keeping my powder dry,
Greg Alford
David,
A large group of trustees(I am embarrassed I don't know how many), from many different parts of the country, from many different walks of life got together and reviewed this issue. With their information they voted in favor of this. Sure, some probably voted against it, but apparently none of them felt like this was such an injusice that they bucked the system or walked out of the meeting, or expressed their strong dissent in any other way.
There have been times in my life when I have been in the minority on something (like on this blog today :)) and I have been able to go along with the majority because it was the right thing to do. But if my church deacons or leadership team decided to do something that was simply unjust, I would have to speak out, regardless of the consequences. Nobody is doing that for Wade, so far. If they do, then that may change things.
At the risk of saying too much, I do understand what Pastor Noel is desiring in trusting those assigned with leadership responsibilities. But I'm convinced that trust is "earned" and not a blanket grant given to leaders.
The earning of trust when a decision is made by leaders in that "rare" need to deal with an issue where ALL is not known by the congregation [translate-Convention-Missionaries in non-secure regions] comes about by having the complete confidence that openness/transparency is the NORM for those leaders in charge.
A policy that forbids a leader from disagreeing with any decision made by leaders once it is made and not responding with facts when they are pertinent to such decisions ESPECIALLY when the congregation [Convention] has spoken that those decisions need to be thought through more completely, and then rebuking that leader for speaking of them, does not foster trust. It shouldn't.
I can honestly say this is my belief no matter the name of the leader being rebuked.
[pastor noel] Good question. Why do we all of a sudden need a rule that says we debate the issues in the room and then we walk together with the majority decision?
You don't need to be an expert in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention to know that there have been much heated public debates among SBC board members than this one. Whether the reform movement that began in the 70s, the backlash in the 80s, or the Norrisites the early 20th century.
Your proposed policy was not followed in any of those controversies...thank goodness.
Debate is not a right that Baptists surrender to trustees doing their buisness. How can Baptist come to a Convention and vote for improvement if their trustees (whom you say they should trust without verification) are telling them everything is wonderful? Even trustees who believe just the opposite?
I suggest you go right out and purchase "Truth In Crisis" by James C Hefley to get a better understanding of the Baptist way of leadership from below.
Noel,
I was writing a PS to my comment saying: “I did not make it clear that your name was not mentioned in my comment to the anonymous missionary”, but I decided to check the comments and read your question of who I was referring to.
I checked your blog to see if you had a real name, and if not, I was going to reply ‘I’ll tell if you tell your name.’ I had to laugh at myself for not accepting your last name was “Dear”. I had to read the newspapers that had your name in it.
Anyway, I was referring to an old thorn in the side of Wade by the name of Brad Reynolds. If I’m wrong, it won’t be the first time, and I’ll apologize up front if I am.
I'm all for trusting trustees and all, but I have to point out that they are no more infallible than 10/12 of the scouts ... presumably all trusty ... that were sent off to survey the Promised Land.
The majority may always rule, but they are not always right. And in spiritual matters, that is doubly serious.
And I think that when the doubters all die off (figuratively speaking), Wade will still be around to inherit his piece of the land. In whichever land that may be.
Rex,
No, I really am Noel Dear. You can read my blog ( http://pastordear.blogspot.com )for the last couple of years and see I'm a real person pastoring a real church.
No anonymous posts by me.
[Bob Cleveland] [the trustees] are no more infallible than 10/12 of the scouts...that were sent off to survey the Promised Land.
Good point. Why couldn't Joshua and Caleb have voiced their opinion to the other 10 spies and then "moved forward together" on the majority policy?
Pastor Noel that is precisely the point. Dissenters move against the majority by the nature of the name. You said, "2. I tend to trust what a majority of people agree to." The majority did not agree with the Revolutionary War. In fact the majority of people did not agree that black men and woman should have a place in a white diner or church unless it was in a balcony. The majority believed that black men and woman should not drink from the same water source. The majority is always right and stiffled dissent is dangerous. It is also called group think. See the info at wikipedia for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_think
Pastor Noel,
I appreciate what you are saying. I really do. I too have gone along with decisions I did not agree with and carried the water on the issue from the leadership. All of these instances were on matters that were not primary.
What you are saying, I think, is that if Wade was being unfairly censured, SOMEBODY would come out and say so.
I am suggesting that this may not be the case. I have been in meetings where people were vehemently opposed to an action but would neither say so in the meeting or afterwards. They would come by my office later and voice their displeasure. More than once I have been the lone person in a meeting wiling to say what many others were thinking.
The fact is, people have many different reasons for not speaking up. Maybe you are right. Maybe they feel it was the right thing to do. After all, it was a majority vote.
But I don't think that you can use the argument that just because nobody is voicing dissent that there isn't any serious dissent to the decision. History tells me otherwise.
So how can we know for sure and clear the air? Their meetings can be public like they should be except for security issues.
This is exactly what Wade is arguing for. Openness, so rumor and innuendo do not rule the day.
And he just got censured for it.
And your analogy of pastors having to keep some things "secret" doesnt really work here. This is not a pastoral position. This is a board that works on behalf of the people of the SBC. But they dont want people to know exactly what is going on. And that stinks to high heaven to this nose.
I'm all for everybody "manning up" and just laying their cards on the table.
Pastor Noel, i think the point Wade, correct me if i am wrong Wade, has been making over and over and over, over the past few years [at least as long as I have been visiting this site] is that dissenting voices are disenfranchised from the system due to their dissent of the powers that be. They are labelled the enemy [which is not even biblical] And because there are no or few dissenting voices a false shroud of majority and unity is given as evidence that the majority is right. And no one dares to say they disagree due to the very real threat of a loss of position, opportunity, and influence. SO yeah no trustee has dissented, except that the vote was not a unanimous measure.
Pastor Noel,
Absence of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. Just remember that.
Also, let's say someone else had the guts to buck the system like Wade did. The example given to us is that they would censured and essentially excommunicated. Now let's say that everyone who did vote no did that, and were censured. All you have at that point are the same folks running the show and there is NO announced dissent anywhere, even at times of voting. These folks would do anything they wanted to with no resistance and there's no telling what they would do.
Sometimes if you want to change the system, you have to work in the system.
Wade,
I read your post with a heavy heart, then got really angry. This type of politics is wrong no matter what faction is responsible. We served in a church where the pastor said publicly that he wanted a "united front." Some of us on staff did not agree with is dismissing a youth worker without consulting with him or anyone else. I agree with some who make a comparison with some autocratic groups who do not permit any dissent, and those who do not toe the line are punished.
I am at once grieved and infuriated that these so-called "heroes of the faith" do not have the courage to register their votes publicly. I also agree that this is not over by any means. If you will recall, in an earlier post, I quoted the scripture that says "it is time for judgment to begin at the house of God...
God will not allow these actions to go on without recompense. I am now renewing my commitment to pray for all of these men, because they will need all the help they can get when God's judgment comes down. My prayer will also include an intercession on behalf of those who stand for the right of all SBC members to know what goes on with our trustees, as well as those serving actively overseas as m's with the IMB.
Please join me in interceding for these men that God will bless them with vision, wisdom and the love of God that along with peace passes all understanding.
Former M.s
Pastor Noel (Father Christmas??)~
This:
"But can you really tell me that as a pastor you didn't know all kinds of secrets that influenced who you asked to do what and who you 'moved along' to some other area of service? It would not be helpful or practical for a pastor to share everything he knew about every person's lifestyle choices. But those 'secrets' influence many decisions a pastor makes."
sounds an awful lot like gossip.
Becca,
To be fair, I dont think that is gossip. I just dont think it is a good analogy of Wade's situation.
Pastor Noel said, "I do believe in transparency, but I also believe in trust. The IMB is a big organization. What they need is not more transparent micromanagement of every decision that is made. What they need are a group of godly overseers sent by the convention. And what they need is for us to trust them when they make a majority decision with no strong dissent.
Pastor Noel, "trust" is an earned commodity. The current leaders of the IMB BoT have demonstrated through their words and deeds that they cannot be trusted by their true constituents, the Southern Baptist Convention through the Messengers sent by Southern Baptist churches composed of millions of Southern Baptist members. Let's be clear. The current majority (even, vast majority) of the Trustees on the IMB Board did not take their censorious stance against Wade Burleson because of any ground swell demand made by the SBC, the Messengers of the churches, or the majority of Southern Baptist church membership.
This group of Trustees took their signals from the hierarchy within their own agency. Several carryover Trustees have willingly continued to march lockstep with the currently entrenched leaders of the BoT. Others know that if they don't do likewise, they will quickly find themselves receiving treatment similar to what Wade has had to endure.
The IMB BoT might have revisited their fiasco decision of over a year and a half ago to seek the removal of Wade Burleson through a legitimate process at the next SBC meeting in Indianapolis. However, they and we know that such an initiative would have been summarily rejected by caring Southern Baptists who have historically held to the tenet of the free exercise of principled dissent.
Therefore, the current Trustee leadership embarked on a tactic to effectively marginalize Wade Burleson's role as an elected Trustee, circumventing the SBC and Southern Baptist Church Messengers across our land in the process.
Pastor Noel, you claim to "trust" the "majority" of the IMB BoT. This Okie respectfully submits that the current IMB BoT majority has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with the oversight of the IMB. History has demonstrated time and time again that the "majority" in an oligarchial power setting pose a dangerous threat to those over whom it claims authority.
The IMB BoT must conduct itself according to the will of the SBC, not on an autonomous basis, and certainly not through a majority voice vote of the Trustees from the self-same agency.
In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb
James:
Bingo. Caleb did tell them, they voted him down, he went stayed right there with them, and was still around later when he received what had been promised. After the naysayers had all died off.
Wow! I'm just amazed at the veracity of dismissing a great many men on the BoT who have walked with God their whole life for one man who is bent on the "policy of dissent". Do you all REALLY think that you (commentators and Wade) are the only ones who walk with God? Do you buy the arguments of Scripture being taken completely out of context and applied to this situation (such as the spies into the Promised Land and the Israelites on the verge of Babylonian captivity)? The use of both of these assume that we are dealing with men who do not have great faith and who do not walk with God. The ones who know what went on behind closed doors are the ones who are held accountable to God for their actions and the motives behind their actions. Can't we just leave it in the realm of God rather than making uneducated assumptions and thereby building an already rigid discord that is authored by Wade himself. And if there is to be accountability . . . let's be sure it is educated and fair and not assuming spiritual immaturity on the majority side of the BoT, many of whom you do not know personally.
-Anonymous missionary to be
This has to be the nadir of the history of the IMB. This is a body that has completely lost its way and hides its sin behind a veil of pious talk.
The way this process was handled will help to eliminate dissent from other trustees on the IMB board and also on other boards. The public censure will stop quite a few people from doing what Brother Wade was brave enough to do.
In the past on some of our other boards it only took the treat of action by a few of the pawns on the board to control the dissent. Few people would be willing to stand seemingly alone as has Brother Wade.
On our BOTs, and most every arena in which we operate the majority of the people choose to remain silent. For some reason Christians feel that their silence on issues makes them appear more spiritual.
Also on BOTs we have trustees who are there to use their position to further their careers so it is not in their best interest politically to voice dissent.
You will seldom find someone as bold as Brother Wade has been who is willing to endure the garbage thrown at them by men who are supporting the leaders promoting secrecy and using them as pawns to accomplish their agendas.
Anonymous m to be.
I am amazed at your naivete. Do men who walk with God make mistakes? Are they swayed sometimes by their own prejudices. And are they sometimes wrong in their actions? The answer is yes. I have worked with many "godly men" who made mistakes but were not willing to admit them. This includes one pastor who left his wife and ran off with the church organist, and another m who was going to divorce his wife one day and marry the daughter of his housekeeper the next and still planned to collect his IMB salary.
No matter who these men are, they are accountable to ALL Southern Baptists who contribute to the support of the IMB and help to pay their expenses to these meetings. We expect them to represent US, not their own prejudicial views of theology. AND, we expect them to act like "godly men", and not refuse to sit with a fellow trustee. They along with their actions should be answerable to the SBC, and not hide behid closed doors. If they are "godly men" then they should act like godly men.
Anonymous missionary to be:
How will we ever know the positions of all the Trustees as there was no recorded vote? It is hard to draw a judgment without knowing the facts. Do not think you will not be treated unfairly if you dissent in any way as a missionary by these same people..
Anon M to be, I personally have nothing against a censure. But let's be fair. In this situation, as in all situations, neither the BoT nor Wade is completely just. Wade has offered his apologies. Will the BoT offer an apology, too? Let's end the shroud of silence, mystery, and secrecy in the SBC so we can have complete accountability for all words spoken and let the chips fall where they may. Then the censure cannot be assumed to be motivated by any other reason than wrong doing. Otherwise, uneducated assumptive reasoning will always be our only recourse unless we want to blindly trust the BoT. Even Congress publishes its movings and doings. Somehow I doubt that Wade Burleson and the IMB equates to national security since God is the one securing his kingdom. We simply have the SBC kingdom being advanced by the machinations of a few, draconian maneuvers, all with Machiavellian glee. Why not open the doors and bring out our dealings into the light of the day? That is what I want to happen.
Pastor Noel,
Any trustee who voted "no" on the censure and then later produced his or her "conscientious dissent" would be declared guilty of breaking the same rules Wade has broken and would also be up for censure at future BoT meetings. Perhaps that's why we won't see any public dissent from trustees, conscientious or otherwise.
It doesn't mean they were unanimous in their actions by any stretch of the imagination.
--another disappointed future M
Wade,
I am very sorry this has happened. I will pray for you, your family and your church. I will pray even more for this convention.
I think Noel's concern is valid, however, my bigger concern is not that I questiion that perhaps there was something that we don't know. My biggest concern is that there have not been any trustees so far who are willing to stand up and say this is wrong and stand with Wade.
Where are men and women of courage? Surely they are not all gone? I am also sure that some of them are reading this. Would you please take a stand.
Curtis Clark
Do you all REALLY think that you (commentators and Wade) are the only ones who walk with God?
Anonymous M,
Get a grip. The issue here is accountability. In this case we have a board that wrote a "gag" rule because it didn't like what a single board member was saying about its policies (something never deemed necessary for trustees in 150 years).
Furthermore, while I presume they believe they "walk with God", they are certainly not "walking in the light" because they didn't want their individual votes recorded on a censure of that trustee.
This is about transparency and accountability in the activities of the SBC boards. If the IMB has a good reason why they should not be subject to these things, I hope they will at least let their fellow Baptists (who are fully funding those boards) know what it is.
Wade and Rachelle,
My prayers are with you. Your family has a special place in my heart.
Tlinasia,
Other than your 'nuclear' assessment which I cannot affirm, the rest of your comment is dead on target.
Does anyone else find it incongruent that the person who is being censured (me) desires openness in everything associated with the censure (i.e. 'the charges,' the statements for, the statements against, full debate, etc . . .), and those bringing the censure do not wish it publicly debated and take it into Executive Session?
There are several questions that cannot be asked and properly answered because of the Executive Session
How many voted against?
Who voted for it?
Was Wade allowed to speak?
If so, what did he say?
Did anyone speak against it?
How soon was 'the question' called to end debate?
This is one of the reasons I believe EVERY decision of the BOT should be debated, discussed and voted on in PUBLIC session - unless the lives of missionaries are at stake.
Wade
Going nuclear means that John Floyd has not only gagged you. Every single trustee who sides with you or even those who disagree with this entire process cannot speak about it.
Floyd's actions are a travesty.
I think you were baited, my brother, by Corbaley's email into what you have done, with a plan to do to you what Floyd wanted done.
If it were any different,if there were genuine integrity in this process (yes, I am questioning John Floyd's integrity; a man's integrity is know by his actions not his words) John Floyd would have censured Corbaley, because he spoke ill of you in contravention of the policy manual (there is ample evidence of that and it has been widely read).
John Floyd's actions have severely compromised the trust of the entire BoT.
This is pure power politics and is a denial of our faith in Christ and our commitment to His inerrant Word.
So, Wade,
What you are saying is that no one can ask any questions about anything and get an answer?
ml
Thanks for your kind hearted response. I agree that it would be good to have all out in the open. I'm just troubled by the assumptions being made in this commentary about events and trustees that are completely unjustified. Isn't there a way to pursue openness without slander?
anon m to be
OC Hands,
Not if the action was done in Executive Session.
Sorry to pursue this, but was the censure done in executive session?
Does anyone else find it incongruent that the person who is being censured (me) desires openness in everything associated with the censure (i.e. 'the charges,' the statements for, the statements against, full debate, etc . . .), and those bringing the censure do not wish it publicly debated and take it into Executive Session?
Wade, This is EXACTLY what I was abou to point out to Anonymous before someone came in my office and you had time to steal my thunder.
This is why I am supporting your position. I find that the person who wants things to be in the open is generally the person with the cleanest hands and heart.
Btw- Was the rule to disallow dissent a unanimous vote? Other than your "no" vote obviously. And was that vote made public, or was it beghind closed doors and voice vote like this one.
I just received an email response from a trustee. Gracious in every sense of the word. They said that since I wasn't at the meeting, I didn't have all the information necessary to fully understand why this decision was made.
I responded and asked if there was any way that it could be made public so I could understand.
I would like to see a transcript of the entire event. Why was it secret? Who is hiding what?
If I don't have enough information to understand, then give me the information and let me make up my own mind. I'm a big boy; I can handle it.
Rick Boyne
Pastor
Immanuel Southern Baptist Church
Wagoner, OK
WADE:
CAN YOU TELL ME IF THE TOTAL LOTTIE MOON OFFERING GOES OVERSEAS TO MISSIONARIES? Thank you for your honesty.
TMAX
"I agree that it would be good to have all out in the open. I'm just troubled by the assumptions being made in this commentary about events and trustees that are completely unjustified. Isn't there a way to pursue openness without slander?
anon m to be"
What slander?
Anonymous M to be:
The judicial standard for slander requires that the statement be provably false. It isn't slander if it's true.
So you have the responsibility now of producing the slanderous statement and proving that it is false. Go for it.
Greg Harvey
Tmax,
Lottie Moon is an essential part of the budget for the IMB. I am quite comfortable with the way the Lottie Moon receipts are accounted for and spent, but I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
Closing in on comment #200 I doubt anyone will be reading down this far, but did want to add my 2-cents...
As an IMB M, I would appreciate some clarification at the conflicting signals we are getting as missionaries when it comes to the freedom to question, disagree, or debate ideas and issues related to our work and ministry.
In my 20+ years on the field we have always been free to discuss, wrestle with, challenge, and debate missiological and Biblical positions, ideas, interpretations, strategies, methodologies, and approaches to church planting. We get into all kinds of difficult issues that do not have easy answers. Honest men/women from both sides of issues with Bibles in hand go around and around trying to discern truth.
Maybe I am not getting the full story, or am missing something; but if we M's are encouraged to wrestle with the tough issues on the field (ppl and baptism being only two of many), are not trustees equally free to do the same?
Is God divided? Can he be saying one thing to some and something else to others? No! On our CP team we have many disagreements, but choose to not move on any issue until we are all in agreement. Sometimes this means delaying a decision, praying some more, exam again our own positions, pray some more, discuss further, reword things, compromise a bit, make things right with each other...keep pursuing the truth in love until all come to a consensus of what God is leading us to do, and then together doing it.
It would be nice to get some reassurance that it is still OK to disagree with one another as long as we don't sin against the one we are disagreeing with. All important issues are going to be debated from various angles. Input from all sides is needed if we are going to make wise decisions.
As organizations pass their prime and begin their perilous decent into traditionalism, uselessness, and ultimately the dusty pages of history, dissidents are censured rather than considered, diversity is discouraged, petty political infighting is exchanged for mission focus, and healthy discussion and appropriate compromise crumble into regimentation. Unfortunately, these tendencies seem to have emerged in our associations, state conventions, and national boards. I hate to be a pessimist but the momentum of collapse may be difficult to slow, let alone turn around. My prayer is that this assessment is wrong, however, Wade’s experience certainly suggests otherwise.
Dennis Newkirk
Henderson Hills Baptist Church,
Edmond, OK
dnewkirk@hhbc.com
Post a Comment