Stifling Dissent Is Not Baptist, And It Is Not Good

We had another great Sunday of worship yesterday at Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, Oklahoma. Our church is filled with wonderful people who not only understand grace, they live it. We enjoy freedom to express our divergent views on the non-essentials, celebrate the diversity of backgrounds from which we come, accept each other as equal members of the family of God, and encourage one another to be true to his or her convictions without imposing those personal convictions on others. I think serving as pastor of this church for the past 16 years has probably caused me to assume all Southern Baptists were like this in spirit. Not only is individual dissent, both public and private accepted, it is encouraged. We just ask that people have a gracious, civil spirit when they let their views be known - even their views are opposite of the pastors'. I assumed, it seems now wrongly, that this philosophy was the warp and fabric of Southern Baptist life.

I have discovered in the last two years that some Southern Baptist leaders believe public dissent over decisions that have been made is a sign of denominational disloyalty, or worse, a lack of Christian unity. For this reason, those Southern Baptist leaders see nothing wrong with asking trustees to 'publicly support that which they do not privately support.' To me, that kind of thinking encourages Southern Baptists to either pretend or lie and opens up our convention to a very dangersous future. A better standard would be for Southern Baptists 'to practice courteous and gracious dissent when one cannot personally support what has been approved.'

I believe I have practiced courteous and gracious public dissent in these blog posts for the past two year. The sum total of what happened last week in Springfield, Illinois is that the Executive Committee of the International Mission Board requested I apologize for my courteous public dissent - which they said violated the 'new' Trustee Standards of Conduct passed on March 22, 2006. I refused because I believed that new guideline which stifles dissent is one of the worst guidelines passed in the history of any agency of the Southern Baptist Convention - other than the 1845 IMB policy that allowed the appointment of missionaries that owned slaves. Imagine for a moment that the March 22, 2006 guideline which stifles dissent had been actually been in force in 1845 and I was a trustee then. I might be opposed to slavery, but to abide by the new policy that forbids public dissent I would have to say . . .

"I support missionaries owning slaves because this is the board approved policy."

If grassroots Southern Baptists honestly cannot see the danger of stifling dissent, somebody please tell me right now so I can leave the Southern Baptist Convention tomorrow morning. I personally don't think that this is the case. I believe Southern Baptists desire courteous, gracious, honest, and transparent dissent instead of prohibitions of dissent, and it is for this reason I refuse to apologize for violating the new trustee guideline that forbids dissent. It is also why the controversy which began two years ago is really a referendum on whether or not we as Southern Baptists will allow the stifling of courteous dissent. I believe there is inherent danger in forsaking our Baptist heritage by demanding absolute conformity and pretentious harmony rather than allowing gracious dissent and seeking transparent, Spirit-filled unity in the midst of diversity.

The Background for the Current Censure Controversy

When the 2005 International Mission Board Personnel Committee, chaired by current board chairman John Floyd, passed the new policies prohibiting the appointment of new missionaries who either had a private prayer language or had been biblically baptized but not in a Southern Baptist Church, most Southern Baptists had no idea that the two new doctrinal policies had been inacted and that they exceeded the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and most importantly, that they excluded from cooperative missionary service hundreds of otherwise qualified and active Southern Baptists who felt called to the mission field.

When I was contacted in early 2005 by sitting International Mission Board trustees and asked to serve with them on the Board, I had no idea that these two policies were being formulated by the Personnel Committee of the IMB. When the Nominating Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention contacted me a couple of weeks later to begin the process of appointment, and when the Nashville Southern Baptist Convention in June 2005 appointed me as a trustee, I still had no idea about the new policies.

My first meeting with the International Mission Board was in July of 2005 in Richmond, Virginia at the International Learning Center. I was placed, like all new trustees at the time, on the Personnel Committee. I very distinctly remember the first meeting I attended where we approved a missionary candidate for appointment and the statement was made by the chairman that had that particular candidate come before us at our next committee meeting, he would have been denied because the new policies would be in effect.

That was the first time I heard about the new policies. It is also the very first time I spoke at an International Mission Board committee meeting. I asked a two word question that would eventually change my entire understanding of the Southern Baptist Convention:

"What policies?" I asked.

When I was told of the new policies that banned the appointment of missionaries with a 'private prayer language' and banned from appointment those missionaries who were not baptized by a 'proper administrator,' even though the missionary candidate's home Southern Baptist Church had received the candidate's baptism as both biblical and valid, things began to click in my mind.

It dawned on me why sitting IMB trustees were contacting me about serving with them.
It dawned on me why I was being asked to join a subset of trustees that were meeting concurrent with the official IMB board meetings.
It dawned on me what some tenured trustees were meaning when they told new trustees that there was unfinished business at the IMB.
It dawned on me why Southern Baptists were being excluded in an agency that is supposed to be known for Southern Baptist cooperation.
It dawned on me why sometimes Southern Baptists were viewed as isolationists on the mission field.
It dawned on me why Jerry Rankin's vision for the IMB was opposed by some.

The Problem Stated

There are some Southern Baptists in leadership who hold to a very narrow doctrinal view of Baptist identity (i.e. "I'll tell you what a Southern Baptist is - look at me - and if you aren't like me, you aren't a Southern Baptist"), so the idea that someone could pray in tongues in the privacy of his or her prayer closet and be a true 'Southern Baptist' was unthinkable to these leaders - even though the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message was silent on this issue and eventually a LIFEWAY survey showed 50% of Southern Baptists considered a private prayer language to be a legitimate gift of the Holy Spirit.

Further, the leftover vestiges of Landmark influence among southern Baptists is sometimes seen in a very strict view of the 'local' church. The inability to see all believers, regardless of local church affiliation, as 'The Bride of Christ' and the 'Body of Christ' causes southern Baptists, influenced by Landmarkism, to refuse to embrace other believers from different denominations and conventions as partners in fulfilling the Great Commission. When there is a strong focus on Baptist identity to the point of religious sacerdotalism there arises more of a concern that converts be identified as Baptists - even more so than Christians.

Ironically, this strong view of the pure, local Baptist church is being morphed by some into a belief that 'The Southern Baptist Convention' should be treated like a church as well. The SBC is the mother church if you will, and in the case of the baptism guideline, if the mother church tells the members of the 'daughter' church that the baptism they recognized (by immersion, after coming to faith in Christ, trusting in Christ alone for salvation) is not valid because the person who performed the baptism was not a valid administator (i.e. 'a Baptist'), then the 'little' church must listen to the mother and rebaptize that missionary.

I would fight tooth and toenail for any Landmark Southern Baptist who is a cessationist to be free to articulate his views, serve on boards and agencies, and even lead fellow Southern Baptists. But when CANNOT be allowed to happen in a convention built on cooperation, is those who hold to this narrow view of Baptist identity to seek to EXCLUDE other Southern Baptists who do not hold to thier particular views.

A Catostrophe in the Making

In the summer of 2005 I could see the Southern Baptist Convention was headed for catostrophe through the actions of the International Mission Board. But instead of making my concerns known to the Southern Baptist public at large in July 2005, I worked diligently to try to change the policies within the structure of the IMB.

For five months I sought to get the policies reversed:

(1). I pointed out that the Personnel Committee of the IMB did not have the authority, according to our bylaws, to establish policy without full Board approval.
(2). Though I was told that the two policies were 'guidelines,' when I asked why they kept being referred to as 'policies' by certain trustees, it led to a discovery that there is functionally no difference between a policy and a guideline.
(3). I asked for the rationale behind the need for such policies. Where was the field evidence that there was a charismatic problem on the field not being handled appropriately by International Mission Board staff? Where was the documented evidence that there was a problem with 'tongues' being spoken publicly and not handled properly by staff? Where was the evidence than even ONE missionary had been appointed under the old policies that had not been scripturally baptized? I was not given any evidence because there wasn't any. Eventually I was told by Dr. Floyd that there did not need to be any field evidence of a problem - that this was a 'doctrinal' matter, and the IMB could establish a new 'doctrinal' standard - even if it went beyond the BFM 2000.
(4). The questions I raised, behind closed doors (my blog did not begin until December 2005), caused the matter to be brought before the entire board for discussion and debate in November 2005.
(5). During the debate over these policies I asked to hear from each of our staff Candidate Consultants and Regional Leaders on their views of the new 'policies.' My request was denied. I requested that Dr. Rankin's views on this matter, detailed in a letter which had been withheld from trustees by trustee leadership, be given to us.
(6). I was always very respectful and courteous in my speech, and in no form or fashion did I ever hinder debate or disrupt meetings. My behavior was Christian, civil and respectful at all times. I cannot control what others say about me, nor the gossip and rumors spread about me, but I can control my behavior, and I am confident that everything was done with Christian grace.
(7). I know for a fact that trustee leadership resented a 'rookie' questioning them. They told me. They told others. But I pressed on seeking a full and free debate.
(8). The policies were voted on in the November 15, 2005 IMB trustee meeting and passed. There was a very public dispute over the reported vote totals.
(9). Since the policies (or guidelines) have been adopted, I have asked for the number of missionary candidates that have been excluded as a result of the new guidelines. I have not yet been given an official number.
(10). Once the board took action, and believing that the adoption of the policies were a violation of our purpose as a board and the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole, I decided to take the matter to the convention at large. As a trustee appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention, I was obligated to make my concerns known.

The Major Issue in the Southern Baptist Convention

There are some Southern Baptissts, driven by a denominationally narrow ecclesiology and a very narrow definition of Baptist identity that believe Dr. Rankin, and current IMB administration, have gone too far in their efforts to partner with other evangelicals in doing “whatever it’s going to take” to reach the unreached people groups of the world and make disciples of all nations.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is within the purview of IMB trustees to hold Dr. Rankin responsible for the implementation of his vision. But what is wrong is when a people feel, whomever they may be, that the doctrinal standards of missionary cooperation and denominational service can be altered without convention wide approval. It also doesn't help when the doctrinal changes, implemented through the 'newly adopted' private prayer language and baptism guidelines, disqualifies the President of the International Mission Board from serving as a new missionary appointee were he to be appointed under these new guidelines.

For this reason, I began my blog in December of 2005. I took my dissent, which had been private for six months, to the Southern Baptist Convention at large. In January 2006 a trustee alleged my blog was filled with 'gossip' and 'slander,' and the trustees voted to remove me without ever having presented to the public the proof of the 'gossip' or 'the slander' - even though I requested the proof be made public repeatedly. I knew that if Southern Baptists saw the 'proof' they would see that it was simply courteous dissent. The 'proof' never came.

Of course, the recommendation was altered when read to reporters later that same day in January to say the motion for my removal was for 'loss of trust' and 'resistance to accountability' and not a word was said about 'gossip' and 'slander.' Eventually the entire recommendation for my removal was rescinded and expunged from the record on March 22, 2006 - less than three months before the entire Southern Baptist Convention would hear my defense and vote on the recommendation of whether or not I should continue to serve - and the exact same day the internal 'new' Trustee Standard of Conduct Guidlines which stifled dissent with threat of censure was passed..

The March 22, 2006, new conduct trustee guideline, adopted by a majority of the International Mission Board, contained the following regulation:

Individual IMB trustees must refrain from public criticism of Board approved actions . . . 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.

Initially, I really thought it best initially to attempt to follow the guideline prohibiting dissent, and I did my best to 'support that which I didn't support,' but I saw very quickly that when Baptists, or any Christian group for that matter, take away the cherished principle of free and courteous dissent, the group can quickly deteriorate under the whims of autocratic leadership. Exerting absolute authority over missionaries, fellow trustees, or IMB administrators, to the point that everyone fears to speak out lest they lose their job, their position, or their reputation is highly unhealthy and dysfunctional for any organization, but particularly any Christian organization. Further, when you publicly state you support what you don't actually support, you are at best pretending, and at worst lying. Transparency is the opposite of such pretension.

What began with me publicly dissenting against the majority decision of the trustees of the International Mission Board to use a back door approach to narrow the doctrinal parameters of missionary cooperation - without going to the Southern Baptist Convention - has now come full circle. My public dissent began after months of working privately, behind the scenes. What started out as a concern over the direction we were heading as an entity by leadinng our convention, post de facto, to narrow the doctrinal parameters of denominational cooperation has now, again, come full circle.

I am being censured for my public dissent.

The censure is not over behavior - I have been only gracious and civil in my dealings with my fellow trustees. The censure is not over disrupting meetings - I have always spoken softly and only when acknowledged - never disrupting the decorum and order of a Christian organization. The censure is not over anything immoral, unethical or sinful.

I am being censured for my public dissent.

The ironic thing about this whole mess is the censure did not have to happen. I offered the olive branch.

Stifling dissent is the tool of control. But in the grand scheme of things, when autocratic leaders resort to the stifling of dissent, it is a sign that they fear losing control. It is a sign that change is in the air.

I confess, again, my love for all my fellow trustees, and for trustee leadership, including John Floyd, Paul Chitwood, Bill Curp, Jerry Corbaley and others on the Executive Committee who stood by these men in recommending the censure. I realize that the majority of trustees may not fully understand all the issues at play, nor my offer to the above men to step out of the controversy so that the focus could be on fulfilling Dr. Rankin's vision for the IMB. Regardless, the action in Springfield, Illinois seemed to me to be the Lord giving to me clear direction for my immediate future.

I shall continue my courteous public dissent.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson


Wade