Thirty Days of Thought and Prayer for Me

To My Fellow Southern Baptists:

For over three years now I have sought to live by principle in the face of intense personal pressure placed upon me by some of my fellow trustees at the IMB. My wife Rachelle, my Emmanuel church family in Enid, my fellow Southern Baptists in Oklahoma, and a host of new friends from all over the world have been extremely supportive during these difficult times. From a 2006 recommendation for my removal from the International Mission Board of Trustees and its reversal, to the 2007 attempt to bar me from IMB trustee meetings and its reversal, and through the ongoing public statements about my character by Southern Baptists with whom I do not have the pleasure of friendship, there has been an incredible amount of negative publicity for both the Wade Burleson family and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole.

Through it all I have sought to be gracious, to always see the best in people, and to be extraordinarily forgiving of those who have either intentionally or unintentionally sought to hurt me or my ministry. There have been times when I have lost my patience, and apologized for my shortness. There were occasions when I was blind to my own faults, and listened to people who wisely counseled me and helped me see my shortcomings. Through it all, I can honestly say I have never sought to intentionally denigrate any single person, whether those who deem themselves my friends or those who see themselves as my foes.

I realize it is my natural tendency to come to the defense of those broken or defenseless Christians who I perceive to be weak or powerless to either protect themselves or find a place of healing and rest. My desire to defend the defenseless, speak for the voiceless, and protect the vulnerable leads me to come across very strong to those I perceive to be bullies. I have sometimes justified my firmness by pointing out that Jesus was soft to the broken adulteress, but He took a whip to the religious Parisees. But . . .

I am not Jesus. I don't have His judgment or His wisdom. Sometimes the human judge of the Pharisees can become the Pharisee. It was my privilege to spend the past four days at the International Mission Board with my friend, John Parton, who travelled with me to Gainseville, Florida for the meeting. John is gruff. He'll tell you what he thinks. His family has abandoned him for his treatment of them. He cursed often during the week, and I cringed every time a fellow trustee was near, lest they hear. John was a Navy Seal for four terms in Vietnam and twelve years total. He became a mafia enforcer in California after the war, and he has broken every commandment and many U.S. laws multiple times. But God is doing a work in John. To see this man weep as I talked with him of Christ in a restaurant booth, to hear his voice break as he shared with me the fear of dying alone, and to spend four 24/7 days with John helped me know that I am not at heart a Parisee. That's not what I'm saying about myself - that's what John said to me.

Yet, today, I felt like a Pharisee. I do not expect anyone to understand, nor do I ask for your sympathy. I posted a blog that detailed the reasons why I have stood by principle in the face of extraordinary pressure over the past three years. Yet, in giving my explanation, I identified people and their actions, rather than speak to principles and issues. For over three years I have sought to address issues and stay away from anecdotes and narritives with names. After landing in Oklahoma City and driving through a snowstorm back to Enid, I read what I posted last night, again, and I was struck with the fact that it is not my responsibility to create brokenness in another human being. Only God can do that kind of work.

'Discipline' in the Bible is a beautiful, medical word. It represents the actions of one who will take precautions to set a 'broken' bone. It is to always be done with grace, humility, tenderness and kindness, and when set properly, the bone is stronger than it was before it was ever broken. It is a majestic experience to help bring healing to a broken person through Christ and His grace. Unfortunately, it is beyond our power to create spiritual brokenness. God has called us all to be men and women of peace; people of the gospel, not a people of the Law.

But to be a person of peace does not mean that you or I cannot have deeply held principles that we live in the face of fierce opposition. I believe deeply that Southern Baptists should have the freedom to debate issues and enjoy one another in spite of our differences. I feel strongly that brothers and sisters in Christ who possess a different skin color, or pray in another tongue, or worship in a freer manner, or view the world through a varied lense, or whose interpretations of tertiary doctrines are different than mine should all be accepted as worthy participants in the missions and ministry efforts of the Southern Baptist Convention. Jesus Christ is our bond. He is the Living Word, and if we miss Him, we will never truly either rightly interpret or apply the Written Word.

Therefore, I wish you to know that I stand by my decision to not seek forgiveness for violating the new trustee standard of conduct that states a trustee shall publicly affirm that which he cannot privately support. It was right for me to break that policy in following my conscience and deeply held principles, and it was right for me to resign from the IMB. However, before I write the narrative of my experiences at the IMB over the past three years, I need to give a great deal of thought and prayer to whether or not this is God's desire for my life. I am not saying it is or it isn't. I am saying that I do not know. I do know my post from last night was not appropriate at this time and I have taken it down.

I appreciate your prayers on my behalf. I will not blog about the IMB through the month of February and I will seek the Lord's direction for the future of my involvement in the Southern Baptist Convention. I would much rather spend my time building something. I am afraid my story might only tear down. I trust the Lord will give me clear direction. Contrary to what some might say, I love my fellow trustees, I love those who are ideologically, philosophically and theologically different from me, and I love the Southern Baptist Convention. I will let you know my decision by March 1, 2008.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Far Enough: The Imbroglio in the IMB and SBC

I have read a handful of comments by people who appreciate the spirit and tone of my 'letter of apology' but can't understand why I would not seek forgiveness for violating the 'new' trustee standard of conduct (2006) that states an IMB trustee must publicly affirm a board action even if he cannot privately support it. Allow me to explain why I cannot apologize for violating that standard in 2006 and early 2007, and why I believe it to be a 'standard of conduct' that may well go down as one of the worst policies ever adopted by any Southern Baptist agency in the history of our Convention.

When an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention allows her trustees to ask any and all questions related to a proposed board action, when agency business and all corresponding debate by trustees is held in plenary sessions under the open view of Southern Baptists rather than behind closed door in Executive Sessions, when every agency trustee is allowed to follow through with due diligence when attempting to examine proposed policies, and when trustees experience a free and open debate on important issues before the board, then it is absolutely unnecessary for an agency to pass a 'standard of conduct' that prohibits trustees from public dissent of any board approved action. For 161 years every agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, including the International Mission Board, did not feel it necessary to stifle trustees from expressing public reservations over board approved actions. But in March 2006, IMB trustee leadership led the board to adopt a four page document called 'Trustee Standards of Conduct' that forbad public dissent of board approved actions by IMB trustees and it superseded the fifty page policy manual (called the 'Blue Book') that formerly governed IMB trustees in terms of their responsibilities and accountability. It was at that same March 2006 trustee meeting in Tampa, Florida where IMB trustee leadership also led the board to rescind the recommendation for my removal from the board, a motion that they had just passed the meeting before.

I was recommended for removal from the IMB board in January 2006 after months of attempting to work behind the scenes as a duly elected trustee to wrestle through some serious issues before our board, but being stymied at every turn by trustee leadership as I sought to find answers to some very important questions that I had as a new trustee. It was only after I repeatedly experienced an unconscionable and heavy handed attempt to stifle debate over the proposed doctrinal policies, and received no anecdotal evidence for their need - though I REPEATEDLY asked for it - that I wrote in December 2005 that certain trustees (without naming them) were pushing some horribly written doctrinal policies for political purposes, including the end of Dr. Rankin's era as President of the IMB. You can rest assured I can support what I have written on this blog, and I will soon do so with the names of those involved. Further, I wrote that these two policies would exclude from Southern Baptist missionary service otherwise qualified Southern Baptists. I also pointed out that both doctrinal policies in question (baptism and private prayer language) exceed the clear statements of the BFM 2000. I said it was time to stop 'the narrowing of doctrinal parameters' of cooperation within the Southern Baptist Convention. The post was entitled "Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives: The War for the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention."

I felt the need to go public with my opposition to the new 'doctrinal' policies at the IMB because the Southern Baptist Convention needs to see clearly the danger of excluding her own from cooperative mission work, and the importance of a Convention based on cooperaton expanding her cooperative mission efforts, not reducing them. Trustee leadership absolutely refused to allow me to ask IMB staff and Candidate Consultants their opinions of the trustee 'proposed doctrinal policies,' and NOBODY in trustee leadership would or could give me ANY evidence that problems on the mission field necessitated such policy changes. In the end, I was told by John Floyd that there was NO anecdotal evidence from the field that these policies were needed. To him this was a 'doctrinal' issue and the IMB needed to be 'doctrinally' pure and those who disagreed with him and others on the Board on these 'doctrinal' issues were not 'worthy' of appointment. That, my friend, spells trouble with a capital T.

The IMB Trustees Exceed Their Convention Authority

So, you have the very bizarre scenario of trustee leaders of the International Mission Board exceeding their convention mandated responsiblities and taking the action of implementing doctrinal policies that exceed the BFM 2000. Ironically, if those new policies were to be made retroactive, then Dr. and Mrs. Jerry Rankin would be terminated. Of course, it was stated at the time that the new 'doctrinal' policies would not be made retroactive. Yet, the same thing was said in 2001 when missionaries on the field were told that they would NOT have to sign the new BFM 2000 and could serve under the old 63 Faith and Message. Later, the trustees broke their promise and terminated more missionaries in one day than any other day in the history of the IMB. Who's to say those kind of broken promises would not occur again?

At the IMB in 2005 you had the absurd circumstance of a former employee of the International Mission Board, John Floyd, who himself left the IMB as a regional supervisor for reasons that will be articulated at a later date, now serving as the Chairman of the Personnel Committee of his former employer and pushing policies that would disqualify the very President under whom he had previously served if those policies were to be made retroactive. Trustee leadership was furious that I publicly questioned the rationale for their actions. When, in then end, the trustee board voted to adopt the new policies (by a controversial vote total), I took my objection to the SBC through my blog.

Trustee leadership then recommended my removal for 'gossip' and 'slander' but immediately changed the wording (when challenged to prove it) to 'loss of trust' and 'resistance to accountability.' When they realized I would be able to defend my objections to the IMB policies before the entire convention (as I did for over one hour to a select group of Convention leaders in February of 2006 in St. Louis), trustee leadership led the IMB board to unanimously rescind the recommendation for my removal at the very next IMB meeting in Tampa, Florida, in March 2006. In that same meeting trustee leadership asked that a NEW Trustee Standard of Conduct be adopted which states that "trustees must publicly affirm a board action even if they cannot privately support it." I voted against the 'new' trustee standard of conduct, arguing that (1). it was the worst possible policy any Baptist agency could ever pass because it violates every sacred and historic Baptist principle associated with religious liberty and freedom of conscience, and (2). it was a cowardly way to deal with my public dissent because it removed the issue of my objections to the doctrinal policies that exceed the BFM 2000 from being dealt with by the SBC at large. Trustee leadership felt it was better to seek to control me and contain me within the board than to allow the full and free public debate that would occur over these very important issues before the entire SBC if the recommendation for my removal were to move forward.

The Reasons The 'New' Standard That Forbids Dissent Was Violated

After March 2006, several important motions began the process of appearing before the Southern Baptist Convention. One of these motions was offered by me and necessitated that I intentionally violate the 'new' standard of conduct in order to explain the need for the motion. Some of the motions before the Convention included the request to establish an investigative committee to determine whether or not prospective trustees of the International Mission Board were being called, vetted, and approved by sitting IMB trustees to the Board in violation of the bylaws of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the infamous 2007 'Garner Motion' where the Convention was asked to adopt the statement that requested SBC agencies to view the BFM 2000 as the only convention-wide approved doctrinal statement, and as such, a sufficient guide for cooperation. I intentionally violated the "new" trustee standard of conduct that prohibits dissent and wrote about the two poor doctrinal policies of the IMB and how they were damaging to the future of the SBC in order to 'garner' support for those motions. By the way, the Convention passed both motions.

I do not regret violating the 'new' standard of conduct that forbids dissent in 2006 and early 2007 and therefore I cannot apologize for it. The Convention needed to address the issues at the IMB, and they did for the good of our cooperative mission work. I can and do apologize for the fact that my dissent has distracted board leadership from focusing on missions, but I make no apology for following my conscience. Even though I have not written anything about trustees in the last several months, every IMB meeting since the summer of 2007 has been filled with attempts by trustee leadership to 'deal' with Wade Burleson, and I absolutely regret that. However, I have no regrets that I joined dozens of other Southern Baptist leaders in 2006 and early 2007 throughout the Convention to speak to the very important issues within our Convention. The SBC eventually adopted the 2007 Garner Motion and now everyone knows that the narrowing of doctrinal parameters of cooperation at individual SBC agencies is unacceptable in the SBC.

An Olive Branch Rejected

My heartfelt statement last night was an attempt to extend the olive branch to my fellow trustees and put the focus on missions at the IMB and off of me. However, my statement was not accepted. Trustee leadership desired for me to state I was wrong in violating the new trustee standard of conduct that forbids dissent. I cannot apologize for that which I believe is right. My public dissent expressed over the IMB trustees adopting 'doctrinal' policies that exceed the BFM 2000 only BECAME a violation of 'Trustee Conduct' in March of 2006; I had been publicly dissenting for three months. This blatant attempt to stifle me placed me in a position of either continuing and being censured or resigning. I chose the former. I chose to follow the path that I deemed would bring about the higher moral good for our Convention. Others may disagree with my view that I was doing the higher good, but I was willing to put my name, my reputation, and my future on the line. That is how deeply I believed in resisting the narrowing of the 'doctrinal' parameters of cooperation (regardless of the motivation of those pushing it), and how strongly I felt about the attempts to stifle dissent

I have seen the good that has come to our Convention through the Garner Motion and the election of Frank Page. There are a great number of new IMB trustees who do not have any historical context, but certain other trustees have been around for a long time, and they are the ones who are now in leadership. These trustees now understand they are under a great deal of scrutiny in any action they take - as it should be. Nevertheless, current trustee leadership led by John Floyd, Chuck McAlister, Jerry Corbaley and others would not accept anything from me last night but a statement that said, "I was wrong for violating the 'new' trustee standard of conduct that forbids dissent."

Again, I cannot apologize for those things that I did that I do not believe are wrong. History will be my the judge. It did become crystal clear to me last night that for me to continue in my service as a trustee of the IMB, I would be a distraction. Questions would continually be asked, "Has Wade apologized yet?" or "Is Wade on a committee yet?" or "Has the censure been lifted?" These questions are a distraction for the board when they meet. The board needs to focus on missions, listen to the vision of the President and staff, and help them implement that vision.

A Needed Reprimand

The Executive Committee of the SBC strongly reprimanded the Executive Committee of the IMB this past Monday for seeking to bar me from trustee meetings, stating that the IMB Executive Committee had opened up the IMB to a lawsuit from the SBC or myself for violating the bylaws of the convention. The inability for trustee leadership to understand they were violating Convention bylaws when they sought to bar me from meetings is ridiculous, particularly when I told Chairman Floyd this very thing prior to their action. I would have informed the entire board before they voted, but I was not given the opportunity to speak, and after the vote, when I went to the microphone to ask a question, I was told I would not be recognized.

Last night in my final plenary session with the IMB I went absolutely as far as I could go in seeking to bring about a resolution through drafting the statement I read to the full board. I even offered to shut down my blog immediately if the statement were accepted. The Executive Committee said that my statement was not acceptable. The impasse is clear and no resolution can be seen; and the impasse is is distracting to our mission work. The idea that the board 'removed' the restrictions this Monday to my participation in board meetings and was reaching out to me is absolutely absurd. Several trustees told me that both I and the SBC Executive Commitee were excoriated behind closed doors Monday by trustees who were furious that they would have to remove the 'restrictions' from me serving on the Board. One trustee went so far as to say something needed to be done to bar me from trustee meetings, just as if I were a 'pedophile' or a 'murderer.' Two trustees told me they almost resigned on the spot when they heard that, but others 'amened' the suggestion. Such speech would be tempered in open meetings. Nevertheless, any trustee who is tempted to be giddy that I am no longer serving as a trustee might consider waiting until June before they allow themselves to rejoice.

For the sake of the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole, I will continue to stay involved in seeking to keep the basis of our cooperation intact and resisting the temptation in the hearts of some to narrow the doctrinal parameters of SBC missionary and ministry cooperation. The Convention will change - or we will die a thousand Convention deaths (Dwight McKissic, Sheri Klouda, Jason Epps, etc . . . ). Jerry Rankin will not now be a victim as others before him. By God's grace, the SBC fold will stop decreasing and start increasing because we are NOT interested in disqualifying everybody who disagrees with us over tertiary issues.

I'm sure not going anywhere.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

A Decision I Believe Is Best for the Future of All

The following statement was read by me during the plenary session of the International Mission Board, Tuesday night, January 29, 2008.

My fellow trustees,

I want to briefly share with you what a great privilege it is to serve with you as a trustee. It is my belief that God has uniquely gifted and called each one of us to this role so that we can work together to advance the IMB’s mission. My earnest desire is to be a working member of our team so that we can accomplish that mission together. While I understand that some of you may harbor doubts about my ability to actually be a “team player”, I want you to know that I am committed to being a team player and that perhaps you have not yet seen or understood a full picture of me. Accordingly, as we move forward into a new year of serving the IMB together, I would like to say a few words to clear the air of past events, express my commitment to working with you within our internal standards, and then once I’ve spoken, let the proof of my verbal commitment be seen in my future actions.

To begin with, I do admit that I have in the past intentionally violated our newly revised (Spring 2006) internal standards of conduct. In particular, I publicly disagreed with certain actions taken by this board, rather than speaking in supportive terms or staying silent on matters about which I disagreed. The new standards of trustee conduct, adopted in the Spring of 2006, state that a trustee must publicly affirm a board approved action even if he cannot privately support it. I want you to know that I never expressed my dissent out of a desire to harm the work of the IMB or any of you, my fellow trustees and brothers and sisters in Christ. Instead, I did so out of an exercise of my conscience. Simply put, I believed in my conscience that it was the right thing to do to further our mutual goal of supporting the IMB’s purpose of cooperatively taking the gospel to all peoples of the world. I recognize that many of you may have been upset by my decision to express my disagreement and feel that it has hurt the work of the IMB. Scripture teaches us that sometimes we can exercise our conscience in a way that offends others. I am sorry that this seems to be the case here.

Therefore, it is my goal going forward, to the extent it rests in my power to do so, to live at peace with all of you and not cause you offense. It is also my goal to have a greater focus on the work of the IMB than on me. Accordingly, I commit to you this day that I will no longer violate, intentionally or otherwise, our new trustee standards of conduct. If I find myself in disagreement with a policy or proposed policy of the Board, I will express my disagreement using the channels that are available—for example, plenary forum sessions, trustee forum sessions, and private communication with fellow trustees—but will not take my disagreement outside of those confines to the blogosphere or world at large. In fact, if this statement is accepted, I intend to shut my blog down immediately after this board meeting. I should add that it is possible, however unlikely, that an occasion might arise where I believed that we had enacted a policy that violates Scripture or conscience. If that were to happen, I would resign and express my disagreement outside the structure of the IMB or understand I will be censured. I do, however, consider such a future occasion to be unlikely. It is my belief that God has blessed the work of the IMB because it is carrying out a mission close to his heart and that so long as we collectively continue to seek him in prayer, he will guard us from error and bless our work.

I do look forward to working with you as a fellow servant this year and in the years to come.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The above statement was not deemed an acceptable apology by the Executive Committee of the International Mission Board. I was informed by Chairman John Floyd of its unacceptablity last December when I initially sent it to them. I had also been told at the time, however, that the Executive Committee would present my letter to the board at this January 2008 trustee meeting for the board's discussion and possible approval. However, that promise was not fulfilled. The Executive Committee chose not to bring my statement before the full board at this trustee meeting for their consideration. When I realized today that my letter would not be discussed as I was told, I requested that I be allowed to read it to the full board during tonight's plenary session. I was recognized and read the statement in full. Chairman Floyd then informed the trustees that the Executive Committee had not deemed my statement to be an acceptable apology. Nothing else was said.

Then, Chairman Floyd dismissed all guests, reporters, and staff and called the trustees into Executive Session. Chairman Floyd related to the board that the Executive Committee rejected the apology because I needed to specifically apologize for violating the new trustee standards of conduct that prohibit any public dissent of board approved actions. Since the new trustee guidelines that prohibited dissent were adopted in 2006, I have intentionally violated that policy by writing my objections to doctrinal board policies that exceed the 2000 BFM. I have written that my fellow IMB trustees have passed new doctrinal policies - without any field evidence that there was a need for such policies - and as a result of these doctrinal policies that exceed the BFM 2000, and in the minds of some, violate the clear teaching of Scripture, the IMB is now NOT appointing otherwise qualified Southern Baptist missionary applicants to the field. The narrowing of these doctrinal parameters of cooperative mission work is dangerous to our convention and threatens our belief in the historic Baptist principles of the sufficiency of Scripture, cooperative missions, and religious liberty. Worse, the 2006 revised trustee standard of conduct that prohibits public dissent is unconscionable, unbaptistic, and will one day be viewed by Baptist historians as a tragic mistake. I have stated, repeatedly, that I cannot apologize for expressing my public dissent on these issues since the IMB trustees should have never taken the actions in the first place. It is a matter of conscience to me.

However, in an attempt to put these issues behind us and to move forward as a board, I offered the above statement tonight as a genuine expression of what I was willing to do to take the focus off me and place it back on missions. But in that specially called closed door meeting after the plenary session I was, again, pressed to apologize to my fellow trustees for violating the new trustee policy that prohibits public dissent. I reiterated my desire to apologize for any unintentional offense among my trustees that my dissent may have caused, but I could not apologize for my choice to publicly dissent. I had voted against the policy that forbids dissent, and in my mind, to publicly affirm the policies I have questioned, when I cannot privately support them, would make me a liar. I told my fellow trustees that I stand by the statement I read into the record and could go no further. My desire was that we could put this issue behind us as a board and focus on that for which we are responsible - missions. Let me reiterate the preceding sentence, it is the heart of tonight's action.

Though I do not believe it is within the purview of the International Missions Board of Trustees to establish doctrinal policies that exceed the BFM 2000, and though I believe at least one of those policies was initially pushed to embarrass the IMB President, and though I believe the convention's Garner Motion has affirmed the inappropriateness of such policies that exceed the BFM 2000, and though I have expressed my courteous dissent on the basis of principle, my statement tonight was simply an attempt to get our board refocused on missions and off of tangential issues and to let my fellow trustees know I was desirous to move forward with them in the work of cooperative missions.

Again, my statement of apology was deemed unacceptable by the Executive Committee of the IMB. The board seemed to accept the Executive Committee's recommendation that my apology was unacceptable because no board member made a motion to reverse the Executive Committee's decision not to accept my statement.

It became crystal clear to me tonight that it would be impossible for me to continue as a trustee of the International Mission Board. The appropriate forum for my continued service to the Southern Baptist Convention is now outside the IMB Board of Trustees. I deem it better to be censured by man than to be condemned by conscience. It is my decision to resign, effective immediately, from service as a trustee of the International Mission Board. I will continue to work to effect change within the Southern Baptist Convention and will post later this week my plans for the immediate future.

I will also be leading our church to increase her involvement in our cooperative missions work. I hope you do so at your church as well.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Problem in a Nutshell - A Censure Synopsis

I had a new reader of this blog write me and request a brief synopsis of the problem, from my perspective, at the International Mission Board. Interestingly, he told me that he was more excited about SBC missions and felt he knew more about our cooperative work because of my blog. He couldn't understand the basis of the censure after reading about it in his state Baptist paper and asked if I would write a brief synopsis to help him understand the issue from my perspective. With new readers in mind, and realizing that many, many great things are happening on the mission fields, I offer below a synopsis of the problem among IMB trustees.

The Beginning

The International Mission Board of Trustees passed two new policies on November 15, 2005 that forbids any Southern Baptist from being appointed for missions service who (a). honestly admitted when asked that he/she had a private prayer language, and/or (b). were baptized by an administrator of the ordinance, deemed qualifed by the candidate's local church, but 'unqualified' by the trustees of the IMB.

These two doctrinal policies put emphasis on two things the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message treats with silence. To exclude otherwise qualified Southern Baptist missionaries on 'doctrinal' grounds NOT addressed in the BFM is a backdoor way of 'narrowing the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist cooperation' without changing the BFM.

For six months I sought to reverse the new policies by working within the Board of Trustees. I was surprised at what seemed to me to be attempts by trustee leadership to stifle free debate and dialogue over the proposed policies. A letter from Dr. Rankin voicing his opposition to the policies - a letter which he requested be sent to all the trustees - was intentionally withheld from trustees by trustee leadership. My requests to hear from the IMB's Candidate Consultants and Regional Leaders (staff members) regarding the need for these policies was denied twice by trustee leadership. I found it very disconcerting that our focus on missions was being sidetracked by an attempt to narrow the doctrinal standards of cooperation - with no justifiable reason for doing so.

Public Dissent Begins

In December of 2005 I began this blog in order to graciously and courteously express to the Southern Baptist Convention my dissent over these Board approved actions. In January of 2006 a recommendation for my removal was presented to trustees, by trustee leadership, behind closed doors. Originally the recommendation was for 'gossip and slander' (which was completely without merit), but within twenty four hours the basis for the recommendation was changed to 'loss of trust' and 'resistance to accountability,' which I assumed meant 'you aren't doing what we want you to do.' There can be no legitimate or believable denial that the issue was my public dissent on this blog. The powers that be felt that the policies passed and I should be quiet. I remained both courteous and gracious to all trustees, including trustee leadership, throughout the effort to remove me.

On March 22, 2006, the Board of Trustees unanimously rescinded the recommendation for my removal. Though I was asked to apologize for my public dissent - before the trustees voted to rescind the recommendation - I graciously declined, telling all the trustees that I stood by everything I had written, and that courteous dissent is both healthy and Baptist. However, later that same day the BOT passed new policies that forbid trustees from expressing public dissent of Board approved policies. Rather than allowing the Southern Baptist Convention to decide if I should remain a trustee, IMB trustee leadership determined to deal with it internally by passing new policies that threatened censure for anyone who publically dissented.

I was not particularly keen on receiving a censure and so I initially thought I would cease any public dissent over Board approved policies that exceed the BFM 2000 and violate Scripture. However, I received affirmation from the Southern Baptist Convention through the LifeWay survey that revealed over half of Southern Baptists believe a private prayer language is a legitimate gift from God, and I was emboldened when the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention adopted the Garner Motion which states the Baptist Faith and Message is a 'sufficient' doctrinal standard for Southern Baptist cooperaton. I began to use my blog, again, to seek to implement the Convention's desires.

The Censure Motion

Late last month the trustee who originally went behind closed doors in January 2006 to seek my removal sent an email to all IMB trustees requesting I be censured because it is obvious I had not repented, much less apologized. I published the email for all to read. The email was about me, and I learned two years ago that the best protection for my reputation and character is to have everything said and done be in the open so all Southern Baptists can see. I am ashamed of nothing and welcome complete transparency.

When I arrived in Springfield, Illinois for the last trustee meeting, I felt that trustee leadership was desirous of censuring me. Though no trustee had ever personally contacted me by phone or email with concerns over my blog, I had grown accustomed to things being handled behind closed doors at meetings where the body only hears from trustee leadership.

In my meeting with the Executive Committee on the Monday before the start of the Springfield, Illinois Board meeting I made known my desire not to become the issue - again - within the IMB. I informed the Executive Committe that I would shut down my blog on December 6, 2007; I would resign from the IMB before the end of the year, and I would personally apologize to any trustee who felt he had been 'disparaged' by my blog. I did request to speak to the entire Board - uninterrupted - before I resigned. I asked to speak to the trustees in the Public session, but since I knew trustee leadership would not allow that, I said I would acquiesce to speak to them behind closed doors.

The trustee chairman asked me to put my proposal in writing and dismissed me from the meeting. I was interrupted in the process of writing out my proposal by an event that is so bizarre I felt I was in the Twilight Zone (one of these days I will write about it). I had not completed the proposal by the allotted time, so a sub-committee from the Executive Committee was sent to meet with me. I gave more information to the sub-committee, including the reasons for my decision to resign. They wrote everything down to 'report' back to the Executive Committee. I reiterated to this small committee of three that I did not want Wade Burleson to be the issue at this IMB meeting during the very important Lottie Moon season, and if they would just leave well enough alone, I would be gone by the first of the year. However, if the Executive Committee proceeded with a censure, then I would not be resigning - for reasons that were very clear to that committee.

I did not meet again with the Executive Committee. I assumed through conversations I had the next morning that nothing was going to happen in terms of the censure. However, that night, trustee leadership called trustees into Executive Session, read the three page motion to censure me, did not afford me the opportunity to speak to the Board, did not reveal my offer to the Board, and allowed 'Question' to be called after only one person spoke. One of my trustee friends said after the meeting 'those railroad tracks went right across your chest.' I just smiled.

The Future

The deacons at Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, met last Sunday night and voted unanimously to express to anyone who will listen their unqualified support for their pastor. They also did some other really nice things for me that I feel no pressing need to elaborate. I did not know the meeting was being called, and I was not present - having a previous commitment in Oklahoma City for our Oklahoma's Centennial. Needless to say, I have a church that knows me and understands my convictions well. They know their pastor believes courteous dissent is essential for any healthy organization, including their church. Sunday School teachers are free to teach opposite of what their pastor teaches on tertiary issues of Scripture. Deacons and members are free to publicly express their disapproval of church actions. All we ask is that everyone maintain a gracous, loving and courteous spirit. I think I just assumed all Southern Baptists were like us.

Let me assure my Southern Baptist partners in missions and ministry that I will continue to fulfill my service as a trustee of the International Mission Board. I will be paying my own way to the Board meetings. I will continue to try to keep grassroots Southern Baptists informed, and I believe with all my heart progress is being made.

Happy Thanksgiving to All!

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Don't Get Mad Over the Censure: The Policy That Forbids Dissent Should Cause The Pain

In December 2005 I began to express my courteous and public dissent - through this blog - over the two IMB policies that excluded othwise qualified and God-called Southern Baptists from serving on the mission field. The policies excluded Southern Baptists who were (a) baptized by ordinance administrators deemed unqualified to immerse by the IMB trustees, and/or (b) who responded truthfully, and in the affirmative, when asked if they prayed in private in an unknown tongue.

Three weeks after I began my public dissent on this blog I received an email from the attorney of the IMB, a very godly man who is no longer with the IMB, who clarified the freedom of sitting trustees to publicly dissent from board approved actions. In the email, dated January 6, 2006, the IMB attorney states:

I know of no bylaw or policy that would preclude public expressions of opposition to Board approved policies on various blogs. As long as you act in good faith, you can, in my opinion, publicly oppose and even seek to pressure other trustees into re-examining past decisions.

That was exactly what I was doing. My blog was designed to inform Southern Baptists of two doctrinal policies that exceeded the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and that otherwise God-called and qualifed Southern Baptist missionary candidates were being excluded from missions service and ministry participation. I began to call these policies "the narrowing of the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist cooperation."

Within three days of receiving this January 6, 2006 email from the IMB attorney, trustee leadership of the International Mission Board sought the adoption of a recommendation for my removal. This recommendation had to be presented to the June 2006 Southern Baptist Convention for approval. The basis for the recommendation for my removal changed from time to time, depending upon who one asked and when one asked, but it was obvious to everyone in the know at the time that my blog - filled with what I believed courteous dissent and written in good faith - was the issue to the trustees who voted for the recommendation.

Then, with a sudden change of heart, on March 22, 2006, just three months before the Southern Baptist Convention was to vote on the motion for my removal, the IMB trustees who sought the recommendation just a scant two months earlier, unanimously reversed themselves and voted to rescind the motion for my removal and expunge it from the record. Ironically, that same day, the trustees passed a four page Trustee Standards of Conduct designed to any stifle public dissent.

The March 22, 2006 'Trustee Standards of Conduct'

For 162 years, the International Mission Board did just fine without a guideline that forbad public dissent. But on the very day the motion for my removal was rescinded, the IMB board of trustees passed a statement saying:

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.

What is not known by many is the last paragraph of the new "Trustee Standards of Conduct." It made clear what would happen if a trustee chose to 'publicly dissent.'

Depending on the circumstances, appropriate action could include . . . a motion to censure the violating trustee or trustees, or suspend their active involvement with the Board or to take the final action of removal from the Board by action of the SBC.

I opposed this policy, stating to anyone who would listen at the time, that it was the worst policy ever passed by any agency of the Southern Baptist Convention. It was illogical, irrational, and violated the very essence of Baptist identity. We Baptists are, by nature, dissenters. To stifle free and courteous dissent is to deny our Baptist heritage and identity.

I initially thought I would stop my public dissent of Board approved policies on this blog - simply because I did not enjoy the prospect of a censure. But then I realized the only way Southern Baptists even knew about the new policies that were excluding missionaries was through my blog. The only way the SBC knew we were 'narrowing the doctrinal parameters of missionary cooperation and participation' was through this blog and others like it.

I told my wife in April of 2006, less than a month after the policy that forbad dissent was passed, that I was going to intentionally violate it by continuing to publish my courteous dissent of the two policies that continued to exclude otherewise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary appointment. Everyone who reads my blog knows that I have been only affirming of the vision of President Jerry Rankin, am absolutely supportive of the Cooperative Program and the Lottie Moon Offering, and desire MORE missionaries on the missions fields not less. But I intentionally chose to express my public dissent to help get those missionaries on the fields white unto harvest - the very place they belong. I also submitted myself to the guideline which calls for my censure if trustee leadership so desired.

However, in 2007 the Southern Baptist Convention passed the Garner Motion which stated that agencies SHOULD NOT exceed the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message through the implemention of doctrinal policies that go beyond the convention-wide approved confession of faith. I not only felt affirmed in my gracious and courteous dissent, I looked forward to the Board rescinding the two doctrinal policies that went beyond the BFM 2000, and I looked forward to seeing the appointment of those Southern Baptist missionary candidates who were wrongly being excluded.

Yet, the two unbiblical and narrow policies were not reversed after the convention, and I wrote a post about the unwillingness of trustees in our agencies to follow the desires of the SBC. This was one of the posts referred to last week as the basis for the censure. The majority of the IMB trustees last week (not all) voted to censure me. It seems there has been another overwhelming backlash toward the actions of the IMB Board of Trustees regarding this censure. The anger of grassroots Southern Baptists, however, is misplaced.

You Should Be Upset Over the Policies, Not the Censure

I humbly and genuinely accept the censure approved by the majority my fellow trustees. They not only were within their rights to censure me, they should censure me to abide by the illogical policy they passed on March 22, 2006. I chose to publicly dissent knowing full well I would likely be censured. I told my wife last year that the day might come when a motion to censure would be brought.

So be it. I accept it. I will not apologize for courteous public dissent.

I will continue to respectfully and publicly dissent when I cannot privately support board approved actions. To publicly dissent is not a question of loyalty, is not evidence of a lack of unity in the Spirit, but it is in the end, the only way to ensure that the boards and agencies of our Southern Baptist Convention maintain our Baptist identity and live by Christian principles of openness and transparency and refuse to change the Baptist Faith and Message - the doctrinal basis of our cooperation - through back door, hidden agency policies.

The Southern Baptist Convention will eventually decide if it is wise, prudent and Baptist to stifle dissent. I already believe I know their answer. The adoption of the Garner Motion affirms my place in the SBC. Southern Baptists do not desire the largest missions sending agency in the world to narrow the doctrinal parameters of missionary participation beyond the BFM 2000. I am also convinced that the SBC will desire to hear from any trustee who feels we are in danger of violating Scripture and exceeding the BFM 2000 by narrowing the parameters of our cooperation to exclude otherwise qualified, Bible-believing Southern Baptists from SBC missionary and ministry service.

What should upset Southern Baptists is not the censure of Wade Burleson. What should upset Southern Baptists is the policy that stifles the dissent of majority opinions through threat of censure.

The Offer to Resign

There have been some who have questioned why I would offer to resign at the last Board meeting. Quite simply, it was the first time I had ever been confronted by trustee leadership about violating the 'new' guidelines that forbids public dissent and I knew a censure, which would distract us from our mission and purpose, was more than likely coming.

So, instead of distracting the Southern Baptist Convention our from mission business during Lottie Moon, I offered to . . .

(1). Shut my blog down on December 6, 2007, the two year anniversary of it's start, and
(2). Until December 6, 2007, since I was now being confronted about my public dissent, I would abide by the March 22, 2006 guideline that forbids it until I shut down my blog, and
(3). I would resign before the end of the year, and
(4). I would apologize to any trustee who was personally offended by anything said on my blog, because I have never sought to disparage any trustee, but only to write about the issues we face.

However, I said, quite emphatically, that I would NOT apologize for my public dissent because I INTENTIONALLY violated the policy that forbad public dissent because there was, for me, a higher principle at stake. It is like an ambulance speeding because a wounded passenger needs to get to the hospital. It is like a pastor who breaks confidentiality because he has heard that abuse is taking place. To break the guideline that forbids dissent is the lesser of two evils: It prevents our convention from losing her sense of Baptist identity by modeling gracious, courteous dissent.

However, I also said, IF trustee leadership decided to put the focus on Wade Burleson and censure me, then I would accept their decision to censure, respect them for it, humbly receive it as fulfillment of the 'new' Trustee Standards of Conduct, BUT

(1). I would also continue my blog, and
(2). I would not resign, but fulfill my term as appointed by the SBC, and
(3). I would also continue my public dissent, if and when needed (that is, when I could not privately support a board approved action because it exceeded the BFM 2000 or violated Scripture), and
(4). I would humbly accept any future censures as the fulfillment of the March 22, 2006 'Trustee Standard of Conduct Guidelines.'

In other words, nobody should be upset over the censure. I'm not. I freely admit I violated the March 22, 2006 new guideline that forbids dissent. I knew that a censure - more than likely - would be coming. Southern Baptists should be upset with the policy that forbids dissent and threatens censure when it occurs. In other words, if you are angry today, your emotion is misplaced by about eighteen months. You should have been upset, as was I, eighteen months ago on March 22, 2006.

Closing Thoughts

Don't forget that others besides me are being excluded by illogical and ill advised policies, but these God-called missionary candidates are not being heard at this time. They have no appeal. I do, and I intend to represent them to the end.

Also, it is ironic to me that I heard from a former trustee who gave me multiple examples of public criticism by sitting trustees of Dr. Jerry Rankin and his vision for the IMB over the past fifteen years. This trustee asked a very simple question to me: "Is public dissent only forbidden when trustees express disapproval of trustee decisions, or is public dissent also forbidden by trustees for decisions made by the IMB President and his administrators?"

Great question.

I believe that Southern Baptist trustees should be free to express courteous public criticism and dissent for decisions made by both trustees and administrators.

The SBC will soon decide.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

I Support Lottie Moon, the IMB and the SBC

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION FOR CENSURE OF TRUSTEE WADE BURLESON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support Lottie Moon, the IMB and the SBC.

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

__________________

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

STATEMENT OF TRUSTEE WADE BURLESON
November 7, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________

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


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

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson