Farewell, Jerry Corbaley

Jerry Corbaley, Director of Missions for the North Coast Baptist Association in California resigned yesterday, September 9, 2008, from his trusteeship on the International Mission Board because he is moving from California to Hawaii to beome a pastor of a Southern Baptist Church. I do wish Jerry Corbaley the best in his new ministry, and would like to articulate the reasons why I believe this move is good for the International Mission Board.

It was trustee Jerry Corbaley who wrote the initial "paper" for IMB trustee leadership that proposed you could not possess true "Baptist Identity" and have a private prayer language. It was Corbaley, John Floyd, Tom Hatley, and about twenty other trustees who pushed very hard for the International Mission Board to exclude missionary candidates who professed to having a "private" prayer language, and to further exclude those missionary candidates whose baptisms did not occur in a Southern Baptist Church. Corbaley was so confident of his ability to speak for all Southern Baptists on the issue of private prayer language that he wrote on his May 29, 2007 blog these words.

The IMBoT has defined glossolalia. I am confident that about 95% of Southern Baptists would agree with that definition. That would be 19 out of every 20 people. If the vast majority of Southern Baptists agree with the definition of glossolalia that the IMB has adopted, then the tiny minority who advocate glossolalia have a monumental task. You will have to convince the vast majority. I doubt that rhetoric alone will succeed.

In summary, the attitude of Corbaley and other IMB trustee leaders could be expressed this way: "Farewell, those of you in the tiny minority of Southern Baptists. You will not be able to cooperate with us in mission work. We know what true Baptist Identity is, and you don't meet the standard." No longer was the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message the consensus doctrinal statement for cooperative missions. IMB trustees had doctrinally "backdoored" the SBC and narrowed the doctrinal parameters of SBC missionary cooperation without full Convention approval.

Three days later LifeWay come out with their survey that 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believed glossolalia was a legitimate gift of the Spirit of God and glossolalia could be used in private prayers. Conveniently, Corbaley removed his blog post that trumpeted 95% agreement in the Southern Baptist Convention with his cessationist views.

It was Corbaley who also called Dr. Rankin, a man who possesses a private prayer language, an idiot. Corbaley said that the IMB administrator who told me that there was "no internal investigation of the IMB" as had been required by the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention was an idiot. That administrator was Dr. Rankin. Corbaley deleted the offending blog post shortly thereafter.

It was Corbaley who publicly threatened David Roger's job as an IMB missionary because David Rogers, son of Adrian Rogers, dared to question IMB trustee leaders' rationale and authority to implement "doctrinal policies" that exceeded the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Corbaley wrote to Rogers (19th comment from the top):

I find such (criticism) intolerable.

Please immediately contact your Regional Leader and discuss your need to criticize the IMBoT publicly. That is my strong preference. I think he would concur.

Or, please ask me directly to contact the trustees and ask the proper subcommittee to consider your criticism of the Board of Trustees. I will not choose to “rat you out”. Nor do I particularly look forward to the public accusations that will come my way should you outright ask me to contact the trustees. If you want it to happen this way, and have me involved in it, you will have to ask me directly.

I will not insult your sincerity and integrity by asking you to stop criticizing the Board of Trustees. That is your choice.

Of course, the implication was clear. You choose to criticize, you lose your job. Mr. Corbaley is like others who held trustee leadership positions from 2005-2008; all of whom were not comfortable with being challenged. They seemed not to be able to understand that there is a difference between Southern Baptists challenging a "position" and Southern Baptists attacking a person. For whatever reason, Mr. Corbaley believed that for someone to challenge his "position" on tongues, was an attack on his personal integrity.

It was Mr. Corbaley who, without even once approaching me personally about his intended actions, made the extraordinary motion to remove me from the International Mission Board. Less than 60 days later that motion was unanimously rescinded by the trustees of the International Mission Board due to the uproar in the Convention over such a drastic action to silence a minority view. Mr. Corbaley sought to defend his repeated, over-the-top actions to silence anyone who disagreed with him by starting a blog called The Most Excellent Way. Corbaley said of his blog.

"Dozens of articles were written, comments were posted, and the interactive exchange of information continued through the months and years.

However, I became a lightning rod in an electrical storm of half-informed voices who interpreted patience, kindness and gentleness as an opportunity to attack. So I have ceased addressing convention political issues, deleted the vast majority of articles, and closed this blog to comments.

Truth has a way, in the end, of standing the test of time. When it is difficult to defend one's positions under the intense scrutiny that comes when one declares he speaks for 95% of Southern Baptists, then the temptation comes to remove the blog. When it is frustrating to realize that you have to answer tough, penetrating questions from people who challenge your assumptions, then it is tempting to call those who question you "half-informed voices" and close all comments to your blog. When it is obvious that not all Southern Baptists hold to your "doctrinal" views, and will not sit by and allow you to impose your "doctrinal" convictions that exceed the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message on all Southern Baptists through forbidding those who disagree from serving on the mission field, then it is tempting to threaten the employment of those who dare challenge your "authority."

But truth, in the end, will stand the test of time.

I wish Jerry Corbaley the best in his new efforts in Hawaii. I pray his ministry prospers and his family enjoys serving Southern Baptists as a pastor of a local congregation. I also hope that Jerry will be able to express more tolerance to members of his congregation who may disagree with his teaching, or at least, allow members to question him without assuming it is a personal attack.

Our International Mission Board is one step closer to overturning the two "doctrinal" policies that have ripped the thread of cooperation from the fabric of Southern Baptist cooperative missions. For that, I am grateful. In time, they will be overturned. That time can be measured one trustee at a time.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Never Take for Granted the Freedom to Dissent

I have had a very cordial phone conversation with Dr. Hershael York, and I wish to sincerely apologize to him for unintentionally misrepresenting Hershael on two fronts.

First, my original post about Hershael was written from the perspective that he was involved with Dr. John Floyd, Jerry Corbaley, and other IMB trustees to bully and threaten me - once again. Though Hershael is new to the board, I assumed he had becoming involved with men who have made it a pattern to counteract dissent by attacking the dissenter. From over-the-top recommendations for my removal, and motions to censure, etc . . . the pattern of behavior of a handful of trustee leaders is to intimidate into silence those who dare speak against their policies or decisions. When Hershael York asked me "When are you going to publish Dr. Rankin's letter?" in the comment section of my blog, I had not yet received the letter. The next day, I did receive Rankin's letter, and then the following day a threatening letter from Dr. Floyd's attorney. Of course, Dr. Rankin wrote his letter because he was asked to by Dr. Floyd. The day after I received the attorney's letter, the attorney called and apologized for sending it, admitting that he did what he did based on the information he had been told; information that was false. I was not responsible for the comments regarding Dr. Floyd, and I immediately removed them when they were brought to my attention weeks earlier.

I apologized over the phone to Dr. York for assuming that he was a part of the group who initiated involvement of an attorney, and even worse, being part of the group of trustees who have continually attributed to me things that I have not done. He assured me he had nothing to do with the attorney, had no previous knowledge of Dr. Rankin's letter, and only knew about it because Dr. Floyd emailed him a copy. He did not know how many other trustees received a copy, and he expressed to me he thought Dr. Floyd was wrong in requesting that a letter from his attorney be sent to me. I accept Dr. York's explanation.

Second, Dr. York feels that my post misrepresents his love for Southern Baptist missions and IMB missionaries. I'm not sure how my original post creates that perception, but I sincerely apologize for anything I wrote that might have caused someone to doubt Dr. York's love for Southerrn Baptist missions. His love for missions and IMB missionaries has never been, nor ever will be questioned by me.

Finally, the reason I have chosen to take down the original post and all comments is because of the following statement Dr. York made to me on his blog:

I hope you can see that even while I have felt so very wronged I have tried to be Christlike. I value you as a brother and I do not want to have any personal animus between us. We certainly disagree on ecclesiology, but I would point out to you that one of my dearest friends is a Free Will Baptist pastor and neither of my two closest pastor friends calls himself a Calvinist nor has my ecclesiology. I can easily get along with and work with those who disagree theologically. I have pledged that to you before and I do so again now.

With an attitude like that, I have absolutely, positively no issue with Dr. York. Again, I do apologize for misunderstanding his intentions. In regards to the other trustees involved in this little matter, I will continue to expose their tactics. My desire is to always deal with the issues, but I will resist tooth and toenail the bullying and intimidation tactics of Southern Baptists who wish to silence dissenter - not only when it involves silencing me, but particularly when other Southern Baptists happen to be the recepients of such intimidation.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Free Flow of Information in Christian Ministry

In the comment section to yesterday's post regarding the resignation of IMB Regional Leader Rodney Hammer, IMB trustee Hershael York wrote the following comment:

Hershael York said,
"When are you going to publish Dr. Rankin's letter to you?"
Tue May 06, 11:58:00 PM 2008

I was completely oblivious to the letter to which Dr. York was referring, but assured him that I would be happy for any correspondence between Dr. Rankin and myself to be made public. When I arrived at my office on Wednesday morning, May 07, 2008 after a three day staff retreat, behold, there was a letter from Dr. Rankin on my desk. I read it and immediately called IMB trustee Hershael York at Southern Seminary and asked a question:

"Hershael, how did you know about Dr. Rankin's letter to me when Dr. John Floyd was the only person listed as cc'd on the letter?"

It does not upset me that Hershael York is privy to private correspondence to me, particularly since I believe all ministry of the SBC, including correspondence of trustees should always be available to the SBC public. However, it is ironic to me that some complain there are 'breaches' of confidentiality on SBC blogs, when in reality, blogs simply make available the information that has been held tight and secure by a select few who have been privy to it for decades. I am of the firm conviction that unless safety of missionaries is in question, all information regarding debates, motions, business, and other matters involving SBC ministry should be made public. The free flow of information, transparency and Christian openness should be the norm for Southern Baptists.

Dr. Rankin's letter to me, dated April 25, 2008, was written to call my attention to two comments on my blog, made by someone I do not know, that misrepresented the truth about Dr. Floyd's tenure at the IMB. I had not even read the comments until John Floyd himself called me on April 14th, 2008 and informed me that they were inaccurate representations of the facts. Again, I was unaware of the comments in question until Dr. Floyd called me to ask me about the author who made them. You can read the details of how I handled the matter with Dr. Floyd in my response to Dr. Rankin's letter to me below. What is odd to me is how and why Dr. Rankin would write to me about those comments nearly two weeks after they were deleted? Obviously, someone had to print them, keep them, and show them to Dr. Rankin, and others - well after they were gone. It seems that the motivation for showing them is not the restoration of a reputation, but the denigration of a medium through which the comments were made.

When I called Hershael York yesterday and asked him how he knew about Dr. Rankin's letter to me, I informed him that I would happily comply with his request that I publish Rankin's letter, and I also told him I would also publish my response. I then called Dr. Rankin's office and left a message informing him of Dr. York's request that his letter be made public. To that end, below is Dr. Rankin's letter to me, made known to me by Dr. York before I even received it, and my response.

____________________________________________________

April 25, 2008

Dr. Wade Burleson
2505 W. Owen K Garriott Road
Enid, OK 73703-5224

Dear Wade:

I haven't been following your blog closely since your resignation from the board in January, but it was called to my attention recently when you released the position paper I had written on the personnel policies that was subsequently distributed to the board. I am not writing to comment on that subject and your commentary, as I choose not to engage in this channel of public communication.

Although you are not responsible for the comments others post on your blog, I feel that you should be responsible for correcting inaccurate and slanderous comments that enter the public domain through your site. Therefore, I am writing to correct two erroneous facts.

(1). Dr. John Floyd was not fired as regional leader for Central and Eastern Europe nor was he asked to retire or resign. This was a personal choice of Dr. Floyd when he became eligible for retirement and chose to return to teaching. In fact, I personally tried to persuade Dr. Floyd to continue in his leaderhsip role on the field with the IMB at the time.

(2). It was also mentioned that Dr. Floyd was known to abuse or harass a woman during his tenure on the field. One may not agree with Dr. Floyd's personal position on various issues, but no one could accuse him of anything other than being a person of impeccable character and integrity. There is absolutely no record or awarenes of anyone who knew Dr. Floyd during his tenure on the field of inappropriate actions toward women on the field.

I don't know if you will choose to correct these inaccurate perceptions generated on your blog, but I did feel obligated to write and express my disappointment at these mischaracterizations of someone who served our board faithfully over the years.

Sincerely yours,


Jerry Rankin

cc: Dr. John Floyd




__________________________________________________


Dr. Jerry Rankin
The International Mission Board
3806 Monument Avenue
P.O. Box 6767
Richmond, Virginia 23230-0767


May 7, 2008


Dear Jerry,

As you affirm in your letter to me of April 25, 2008, I keep an open, un-moderated blog where people can comment without my knowledge or my approval. I, too, grieve over any comment that misrepresents the truth. The only thing worse would be official statements to Baptist Press or other news agencies that intentional distort the truth. I was unaware of the two comments you reference in your April 25, 2008 letter that misrepresented the truth about former Trustee Chairman John Floyd's career at the International Mission Board. I was unaware of them until John called me on April 14, 2008. I have hundreds of people who comment on my blog and I have neither the time nor the will to read or respond to every comment. John called desiring information about the author of the two comments. I informed him that not only did not I know the author, I was unaware of the comments. He directed me to where they were located on my blog, and I told him that I would immediately remove them.

He stopped me. He told me not to remove them because his attorney was looking into the comments and when they found out who wrote them they would then address how to correct the matter appropriately. I asked him to clarify what he just said by asking, “Dr. Floyd, are you telling me that the two comments that offend you, that misrepresent the truth, and that are located deep within an un-moderated comment section of this blog should remain so that you can sue the person who wrote them?” I assured him that I was not unfamiliar with public statements about me that were distortions of the truth or outright lies, and because of my own experience, I was sympathetic to his dilemma and would be happy to correct the matter for him immediately. But, I said, I would do as he suggested. After a momentary pause, John said I should delete the comments.

I tell you this because your letter is dated nearly two weeks after my conversation with John and the deletion of those comments. Further, the author of the comments, a Southern Baptist layman, had phone conversations with Dr. Floyd the very day I deleted those comments, and called me to apologize for making them. I told him my concern is that he resolve the matter appropriately with Dr. Floyd. He assured me the matter had been resolved satisfactorily. Again, I am unsure of the reason why you chose to write your letter to me dated April 25, 2008, or why trustee Hershael York requested me on May 6, 2008 that I publish your letter to me, a letter that I did not even know existed until my arrival back in Enid on May 7, 2008 after a three day staff retreat. I can assure you that I believe the desire to protect the reputation of John Floyd is admirable. I am pleased to publish both your letter and my response at Dr. York’s request.

While I find it admirable to protect the reputation of the former trustee chairman, so too, I find it just as admirable when all of us seek to protect the reputation of our missionaries. So, too, it is praiseworthy to come to the defense of people like Regional Leader Rodney Hammer. So, too, it is admirable to fight for those God called young men and women in the Southern Baptist Convention who are disqualified for missionary service because of two doctrinal IMB policies that exceed the BFM 2000 and even, in some minds, the Word of God. So, too, it is worthy to correct any trustee who publicly makes the absurd claim that using the Arabic word for God (Allah) is a sin, and Jehovah or Yahweh should be the Arabic substitute word for God used by our missionaries in Arab lands. So, too, it is praiseworthy to refuse to allow trustees who have never set foot on a foreign land to correct our professional missiologists and their methodologies in reaching unreached people groups with the gospel of Jesus Christ through books they write. So, too, it is an honorable action to ensure that the International Mission Board abide by the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention and implement the Garner Motion. So, too, it is wise to stand up to trustees who are turning the International Mission Board into an agency that silences dissent, demands conformity, and threatens the termination of anyone who dares question trustee or Richmond directives.

I respect you, Dr. Rankin, and appreciate your service to the Southern Baptist Convention. I, like you, desire to do everything I can to protect the reputation of the former Chairman of Trustees, Dr. John Floyd. I am ashamed that someone would misrepresent the truth about this man. Likewise, I am ashamed that our missionaries are subjected to the heavy handed, obstructive policies of a small, but powerful Landmark, cessationist, and very political group of trustee leaders who are harming the work of the International Mission Board. We need a Gospel Resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. We need to restore the freedom of God’s people to dissent over tertiary matters, but to love each other enough in order to cooperate to reach the world for Christ. Since 1992 I have been uninvolved in any political processes of the Southern Baptist Convention. My appoint in 2005 as a trustee to the International Mission Board opened my eyes to the some incredible, negative changes that have occurred at the IMB. As you know, I sought to correct the problem for six months behind closed doors. After being treated in a manner that defies Christian logic, I am sympathetic toward anyone who receives similar treatment, particularly those whose employment and careers are on the line.

I do hope that our communication by letter has given Dr. Floyd and other trustee leaders satisfaction that any misrepresentation of the truth concerning Dr. Floyd's tenure at the IMB has been corrected. I enjoy my fellowship with Dr. Floyd and his lovely wife, and I consider them friends. I do not enjoy, however, his and others’ desire to exclude those from the SBC who do not think, act, talk, believe or practice faith the way they do. His admission to me that the new policies were ‘doctrinal’ in nature, and there was no anecdotal evidence from the field that they were needed, nor was any evidence necessary, is enough for me know that a narrow, ideological group is attempting to direct our convention. I cannot be silent about the efforts of those who are changing our convention before our very eyes, and I commend Dr. York’s desire that this communication be made public. I hope the matter with Dr. Floyd is considered resolved satisfactorily, and I trust the other matters mentioned will also be dealt with in as satisfactory of a manner as that which precipitated your letter.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Hammer Has Fallen

Rodney Hammer is one of the finest missiologists ever employed by the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. He has served for the last ten years in various leadership positions, including Regional Leader for Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) the last eight years.

Yesterday, May 5, Rodney Hammer resigned as Regional Leader, effective immediately.

He resigned his position as Regional Leader because he was not free to further share his convictions about the new IMB missionary candidate policies. It seems Rodney and the missionaries in his region were visited by a group of trustees from the International Mission Board, and Rodney dared expess, again, his contrary views to the new policies. It would be interesting for you to know the trustees who serve that region, particularly the regional trustee chairman, but in essence, Rodney was given an order - be silent, accept trustee decrees or resign.

Rodney sent a letter to the missionaries in CEE explaining that the Lord had clearly led him for two and half years to speak further about the policies to both Trustees and Southern Baptists. Some IMB trustees have sought his termination due to his conscientious dissent on these issues, and senior leadership at IMB instructed Rodney that he cannot appeal further from his position as a Regional Leader. He is expected to accept, own, and support the policies of the IMB trustees. He reached the conclusion that he would rather obey the Lord than man.

I was informed by an IMB trustee this afternoon that Dr. Rankin sent all trustees a letter explaining that Rodney had sent a letter requesting that it be forwarded to each of the trustees. But in the good wisdom of those who make the decisions of what information is (or is not) acceptable at the IMB, Rodney's letter is not being forwarded to the trustees, as he requested. This type of heavy handed, hardball religion is one of the reasons every Southern Baptist ought to show up in Indianapolis. I do not know what Rodney's letter to the trustees contained, but here's hoping that the information I present below might shed a little light on why the Southern Baptist Convention is losing her luminaries.

Several IMB missionaries on the field forwarded to me a personal letter Rodney wrote to them expressing the reasons for his departure and his love and appreciation for them as missionaries. I have chosen to publish just the last portion of the letter to show you the kind of Southern Baptists we are losing from the mission field. Read carefully the following, unedited explanation that Rodney gives for why he had to resign. Pay close attention to the last section of Rodney's letter which describes those who are being disqualified from Southern Baptist missionary service. For those who think these issues are not important, a reality check is needed. Rodney writes:

"I am in fundamental disagreement with the current IMB missionary candidate policies concerning baptism and private prayer language, and the unnecessary, extra-biblical narrowing of parameters for Southern Baptist cooperation in the Great Commission they represent. While I have other serious concerns, I believe the missionary candidate policies are most in need of redress and illustrate most significantly why change is needed.

The IMB is its people. The missionaries and Board personnel ARE THE IMB and what makes it great in so many ways. Southern Baptists and IMB personnel deserve not only continued prayer and financial support, but also a Kingdom-oriented, transparent, accountable, BF&M-aligned trustee board and missionary candidate policies and guidelines that do not exceed the only consensus doctrinal parameters of the SBC nor move us from sounder biblical foundations. Even more importantly, the unreached people groups, the unevangelized of the world's cities, and the lost without Christ everywhere compel us to biblically maximize our efforts and missionary force, not restrict it unnecessarily.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE POLICIES?

The current "guideline" (a de facto policy) for IMB missionary candidates regarding baptism puts the emphasis on the faith/beliefs of the baptizer, rather than the one being baptized. This seems to be a shift away from biblical teaching and Baptist tradition.

The BF&M 2000 Article on Baptism states: "Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."

Romans 6:3-5 states "Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the Holy Scriptures put the emphasis on the work of Christ, and the faith and testimony of the believer being baptized into Christ, not the particularities of the beliefs of the Christian administrator of the baptism.

The new missionary candidate policy regarding baptism goes beyond the above consensus doctrinal parameters of the SBC, and Scripture, adding extra-biblical stipulations concerning the church and administrator of the baptism. It also puts the IMB in the place of the autonomous, local Southern Baptist church in determining the validity of a candidate's baptism…and worse than that insists to some that they re-baptize the missionary candidate. Organizational compliance is not a biblical reason for baptism or re-baptism. A Southern Baptist church member whose baptism was by immersion, after regeneration, in obedience to Christ and as a testimony to their faith in Christ, should be accepted for service in a Southern Baptist entity or agency.

PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE

In regards to the "guideline" (another de facto policy) about private prayer language, three things should be noted.

1.Much of the discussion and rationale given for needing such a policy forbidding missionary candidates from having a private prayer language was that there were widespread problems regarding this among our missionaries on the field. Regional leaders demonstrated that was not and is not the case.


2.Many biblically conservative Baptist scholars disagree on the hermeneutic that was used to support disqualifying candidates who pray privately in a prayer language.


3.Trustees were assured that the vast overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists could not and did not support the concept of private prayer language. This contention was proven false in a survey by LifeWay research last year.

I will forgo revisiting the ample cessationist and continualist viewpoints on spiritual gifts. I will simply say this…in our IMB Manual for Field Personnel we have a robust, sufficient policy against the advocating of any particular spiritual gift as normative for all believers, or the public use and causing of division by such advocacy or practice. This policy is enforced whenever necessary, although that is rare. It has been an adequate protection against inappropriate behavior or teaching.

What we are talking about now is the forbidding of a private prayer language. Private. Prayer. We have no business going into anyone's private prayer closet who calls Jesus their Lord and Savior, nor forbidding otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from service through the IMB because they may pray differently in private than you or I may, nor judging any current or potential IMB policy-abiding missionary to privately utilize under the Lordship of Christ a gift they believe is bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit. There was and are no field realities requiring or necessitating such a move.

Upon the outcry in opposition to these policies from many Southern Baptists, IMB Trustees made minor, cosmetic semantic changes and made both "guidelines." They are de facto policies and applied comprehensively.

We've been led down a Landmarkist ecclesiological path by some influential IMB Trustees. They used unfounded rationales to justify missionary candidate de facto policies that overly restrict and disqualify many good, conservative, God-called and otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary service through the IMB.

WHO IS BEING DISQUALIFIED?

Dozens and even hundreds of Southern Baptists for short and long-term service through the IMB, INCLUDING SOME CURRENT STUDENTS OF OUR SBC SEMINARIES, who…

... are God-called to cross-cultural missionary service.

... are members of an SBC church for at least 3 years.

... are conservative Christians baptized by immersion after conversion as a testimony to their faith in Jesus Christ.

... affirm the BF&M.

... meet the qualifications for service OTHER than the new, overly narrow restrictions.

... are willing to abide by IMB policy and parameters.

... are willing to sacrificially go to the ends of the earth.

HOW DO I KNOW THESE THINGS TO BE TRUE?

I have attended multiple IMB Board of Trustee (BOT) meetings per year now for the last 8 years. I am personally well acquainted with the methods, policies, and practices of our collective Board of Trustees, its leadership, and their impact on our work on the field, our support within the Convention, and upon candidates for missionary service. It brings me no joy, and no personal gain, to express these concerns and appeal for change. I have no illusions of any real or perceived personal influence within the SBC. However, I firmly believe that God would have me express these concerns further, and to advocate for those who can no longer serve through the IMB due to these policies. I will trust God to do with it what He desires.

Regarding the policies, I sought to dialogue and express my concerns along the way. I waited, prayed, sought counsel, and asked for wisdom and peace from the Lord to move on when they were enacted two and a half years ago. While I sought to address the overseas committee and entire trustee board unsuccessfully, I did internally discuss with staff, my regional committee and some trustees for almost one year. After those efforts I made one public appeal for reconsideration of the rationale given and the policies that were enacted. I was formally reprimanded. I accepted that and submitted myself again to Senior Leadership and to the policies and direction of the Board.

The IMB BOT received much concerned feedback and decided to review the policies on baptism and private prayer language. Again I waited, prayed, sought counsel from Scripture and others, dialogued with some Trustees and asked for wisdom and peace from the Lord to move on. I repeatedly requested the opportunity for myself and other regional leaders to give our perspective and field input into the review process. It was finally granted after many months. But then our field leadership input that the policies hurt our legitimate candidate pool, the work and morale of many missionaries on the field, and the lack of any field realities requiring such policies was summarily dismissed.

I have sought to pray, understand, yield, reconsider, search the Scriptures, and dialogue with Senior IMB leadership and Trustees about these concerns and policies over the last two and a half years now. I have submitted to them. I have watched as the supposedly softened "guidelines" are implemented as de facto, hard policy and many a good missionary candidate is turned away. I know of some personally, I hear of many others. I am expected as a regional leader to accept, own, and support the policies of the IMB Trustees. I can do so no longer.

I am now forced to resign my position as regional leader because of my biblical convictions and leadership from the Lord to dissent further and to advocate for those Southern Baptists who cannot serve through the IMB now, and have no voice. I would like to think that Southern Baptist agencies can tolerate conscientious dissent based on biblical convictions. However, Senior IMB leadership have instructed me that further dissent and appeal of said policies voted by our Trustees would result in my removal as regional leader.

I believe part of the reason for the decline in the SBC (as reported by LifeWay's Annual Church Profile and LifeWay Research/Ed Stetzer's blog) is unnecessary narrowing of parameters for Great Commission cooperation. I know for sure it is keeping us from getting many additional Southern Baptist missionaries, turning off a younger generation of future missionaries and leaders, and harming the confidence of some IMB missionaries in their stateside supporters and Trustees.

I simply want to appeal to our IMB Trustees and Southern Baptists to return to a sufficiently conservative, yet broader consensus and parameters reflected in the BF&M 2000 for missionary service through the IMB. I am asking that all born again, bible-believing, BF&M affirming, otherwise qualified Southern Baptists who are called to overseas missions and desire to serve through the IMB be allowed to do so…for the glory of God, the betterment of the SBC, and the sake of making disciples among all nations.

Respectfully submitted,



Rodney L. Hammer, Regional Leader


P.S. Let me state unequivocally that I love our IMB Trustees in the Lord. I appreciate their voluntary service. I recognize that they love the Lord Jesus Christ and wish to see Him glorified among the nations as well. I appreciate that they have put up with my own faults as well. There are many who serve with no agenda other than faithfully supporting Southern Baptists' obedience to the Great Commission, and to send and support God-called Southern Baptist missionaries. Some have worked behind the scenes to resist the implementation of these policies and opposed these practices. A few have dared to publicly dissent until such was also voted out of order. I appreciate them greatly. I also love and appreciate those with whom I disagree."

It is because of people like Rodney that I remain a Southern Baptist. It is because of people like Rodney that I will be in Indianapolis. It is because of people like Rodney that I will continue to resist the narrowing of the doctrinal parameters of gospel cooperation and the Baptist Identity initiative within the Southern Baptist Convention. When God called, Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, Southern Baptists are being forced out, then it's time for the silent majority to make their voices heard.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Pulling Back the Curtain on SBC Power Politics

The International Mission Board convened this week in the Dallas/Fort Worth area for a trustee meeting. The Chairman of the Board for the past two years has been Dr. John Floyd, an administrator at Mid-America Seminary. Dr. Floyd was Chairman of the IMB Personnel Committee that introduced the policy changes for missionary candidates regarding baptism and a private prayer language, and he often publicly chided me for my blog. I felt I was keeping the Southern Baptist Convention informed of events occuring at the IMB, but obviously, he and others viewed it differently. Dr. Floyd believes that ministry matters involving the IMB should be dealt with behind closed doors, and the Southern Baptist Convention at large should not be informed of issues being dealt with by the board until after decisions have already been made. The notion that a blog would inform the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole of the issues, and the debate surrounding them, was anathema to certain trustees. One such trustee. a member of Dr. Floyd's generation, publicly informed the full board that she believed blogging was like 'internet porn,' an obvious indication she had never seen either.

The International Mission Board has been tightly and secretively controlled by a handful of trustees over the past few years, and the politics of getting additional like-minded trustees appointed to the IMB and elected to board leadership was often more manipulative than national politics. It is not widely known that the real control of the Southern Baptist Convention is not through the President of the SBC, but through the trustees who control the boards. I served six months on the International Mission Board of trustees (June 2005 - December 2006) before I ever began to blog. The reason I began to blog is because I saw trustees who were undermining the leadership and vision of the President of the International Mission Board, using power and control to silence dissent on the board, unfairly marginalizing those who dared to disagree, and ultimately attempting to remove anyone from staff positions or trustee positions that they could not control.

I'll give you one example. When trustee leadership, led by Dr. John Floyd, began to propose that new policies on private prayer language and baptism were needed, Dr. Rankin expressed his belief, in writing, that if the proposed policies being pushed by Dr. Floyd and his Personnel Committee were actually implemented they would be "detrimental to the unity and focus of the board." Dr. Rankin wrote a nine page letter on April 28, 2005 articulating his concerns and showing, point by point, why the proposed policies would create unnecessary difficulties for the Board. Dr. Rankin requested assurances that his letter be given 'appropriate consideration" and that his concerns "be communicated (to the board) constructively."

I do not know if Dr. Rankin was ever given any assurances, but his requests were not granted. I and other trustees did not find out about the President's letter till the fall of 2005, six months after it had been written, and it took a motion from this 'rookie' trustee (as Dr. Tom Hatley called me), to get the letter before the Board before the vote on the policies. My recommendation for the trustees to see the letter, a recommendation opposed by trustee leadership, barely passed during a lunch meeting of the full board, and when it did, we were told that we would be given the letter several hours later, after trustee leadership had an opportunity to prepare it for distribution. We did get the letter several hours later, with hand written notes from Dr. John Floyd scribbled all over it. Dr. Rankin's letter may be viewed here, exactly as we trustees received it, with Dr. Floyd's handwritten notes penned in the margins.

The notes that Dr. Floyd wrote speak for themselves. It illustrates the very thing I have said has been taking place for the past few years in the IMB and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole. Ideological like-minded Southern Baptists are attempting to marginalize, and in some instances remove, those who disagree. To call the arguments and conclusions of the President of the IMB "ridiculous," "unscriptural," "illogical," and the like, is unconscionable conduct, particularly considering the timing of the release of the letter (right before a vote by the board on the policies).

I have a question. What is the difference between a blog that sways SBC opinion after the adoption of a policy, and Dr. Floyd who used his position to keep from the board of trustees valuable information in a letter from the President, only to release it when forced to do so, and then with handwritten criticisms all over the letter? The old way of keeping control by limiting the flow of information, stifling dissent, and ridiculing those who disagree is over. The Southern Baptist Convention needs and demands transparency, the free flow of information, the ability to dissent, and cooperation in the midst of differences on tertiary issues.

Our convention of cooperating churches is harmed over demands for a uniform, homogenous Baptist identity that some seek. In addition, agencies are harmed when there is never any true debate allowed among the trustees. To act as if God is only on one side of an issue, and it is 'our side,' is the heighth of spiritual arrogance. Unhindered and transparent debate keeps all Southern Baptists humble and honest. Southern Baptists better realize that the power of the gospel must not be replaced by the power politics of a Baptist identity religion.

Finally, I believe the letter above proves that the reason some don't like blogs is because they lose control of the both the amount and kind of information they wish released. The IMB President desired his letter to be communicated widely. Southern Baptists operate CHRISTIAN ministries, and Rankin's request for open communication is the mark of genuine, Christ-like leadership. The ability to debate issues among Southern Baptists with civility, cooperate with brothers holding to divergent views, and keep our focus on the gospel is the need of the hour. Hopefully, the new IMB Chairman, Paul Chitwood from Kentucky, will help the board keep the focus on the mission and purpose of the IMB and not digress into narrowing the doctrinal parameters of participation by adopting policies that exceed the BFM.

John 12:42 said that of the many who believed on Christ some "did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." It is high time Southern Baptists become more concerned about cooperative missions than we are our fear of being branded or removed from denominational service by leaders who wish to define Baptist identity according to their narrow beliefs. In time, the SBC will be better because the pastors and churches who support her Cooperative Program speak up and speak out for cooperation and not against it.

In His Grace,


Wade

Trustees Not Susceptible to Political Agendas

Chuck Andrews is a pastor friend of mine in Oklahoma and one of the wisest men I've ever met. Chuck sent me this email yesterday and gave me permission to copy it here. Through his and others influence and encouragement, people whom I respect, I will be continuing to work in the direction which they request. I am recording the narrative but not publishing it (in fact, most of it has already been recorded) I am by no means giving up on the SBC. I will continue to seek to bring about change for the reasons Chuck articulates below:

Dear Wade

"I respect you and your decision to follow prudence. I don’t know whether I agree with it or not. Still, you are correct, in the post you deleted, when you said ‘until people get fed up with being bullied and stand on principle to stop the bullying nothing will change’ (paraphrased by my interpretation). Spiritual abusers thrive off of the timidity and tentativeness that they can create. Regardless of why someone does not want his/her name made public, you are absolutely correct, nothing will change. Spiritual abusers depend on it.

I don’t agree with the ones who say it is belittling to point out the obvious. Obviously, there are many, besides the woman mentioned, that didn’t mind their names being identified when placed in their positions but, now, do not want their names to be made public. Am I the only one who wonders where the ones who rose to leadership through the CR are and why they don’t let their voice be identified? How long would the narrowing of cooperative parameters survive if respected leaders risked their identity by speaking out against the bullying tactics that are going on? Where are the past presidents of the SBC, Executives of SBC entities, state Executive Directors, editors of Baptist press and state newspapers, and pastors of extremely public pulpits? Have we created such a political and professional Convention/Church that leaders have too much to risk for them to be straightforward and forthright in championing a corrective course? Or, are all those in leadership in agreement with this political/interpretive narrowing? Is it squeamishness or shrewdness that keeps them quiet? Is it timidity or timeliness that motivates them? Is their silence golden or galling? Does asking these questions belittle? I don’t think so. Asking questions may point out the obvious but leaders need to be challenged to be people of valor, integrity, and courage. There may be creditable reasons why some don’t want to be identified. Others, it may be cowardice. Still, we all need to be challenged to be people of gracious civil courage. IMO, if leaders don’t want to be public then they shouldn’t be leaders.

It was June 15, 2004 that Morris Chapman danced around the problems in his message to the Annual Convention when he said,

“In a practiced democracy, politics, the art of influence, is always an ingredient. But the passion of a trustee should be born from deep within in an encounter with the Living Christ, and then he is free to enthusiastically persuade others of the burden God has laid upon his heart. This is how it should be in the church, the association, the state convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. This Convention deserves to be led by trustees who listen to God’s Spirit on the way to making decisions, not trustees who are susceptible to political agendas. Politics for the sake of control by a few is not how our forefathers envisioned the operations of our Convention. But I must warn you. Politics do not die easily.”

Later in that same message he said,

“Contemporary shibboleths are employed to exclude people. It is the sin of Pharisaism when good people, whose theology and ministry are above reproach, are slandered, discredited, or ostracized simply because they refuse to blindly follow particular political posturing. Innuendos, unfounded rumors, sly winks and nods are as deadly as an assassin’s bullet and usually as ungodly. . . . I am concerned…now that we have affirmed by vigorous endeavor that Southern Baptists are people of the Book, that we will develop a censorious, exclusivistic, intolerant spirit. If this occurs, we will be the poorer for it. It will not only result in narrower participation in denominational life, a shallower pool of wisdom and giftedness in our enterprises, and a shrinking impact upon the world, but we will be in the unenviable position of being right on doctrine but wrong with God.”

Here we are four years later. Just as history records the necessity of the CR, it also records the names of those who opposed it. Liberals, moderates, and some conservatives, who didn’t agree with the methodology, honored their names by taking a stand. They may have gone down but at least they didn’t go down in anonymity. If the CR had failed, those who are in leadership today would not be where they are, because, they too, honored their names by taking a stand. There were not many Joseph’s of Arimathea during the late ‘70s through the ‘80s. And you, Wade, have honored your name by publicly calling for a course correction. Many on your blog, who have identified themselves by name, have honored their names, as well.

I believe that history will call for the narrative of your experience to be recorded. In Morris Chapman’s metaphor, it will either be recorded as part of the tune-up, paint, and polish of this old ship Zion or it will be seen as another rejected maintenance on a sinking ship. Names are an important part of that record. You may choose not to publish it at this time but to not record it, IMO, would be like robbing history of Grace and Truth.


With My Friendship,


Chuck

A Prudent Decision

"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.” Mark Twain

Two experiences today have convinced me to follow the third unspeakably precious thing in Twain's trilogy. Prudence is defined as the intellectual virtue which rightly directs particular human acts, through rectitude of the appetite, toward a good end. The prudent man is one who does the good, as opposed to one who merely knows the good. For a while now I have been looking for a principle that would lead me to know and do the higher good in making a decision to write the narrative of events over the past three years at the International Mission Board.

I posted earlier today my experiences as an IMB trustee when I discovered that there were some trustees who were seeking to enforce their belief upon administration that 'no woman should be in a position of authority over a man at the International Mission Board.' I gave a specific illustration and a general description of the successful attempts by some trustees leaders to make the IMB conform to this particular ideology. This morning's post, which is now deleted, related the things that I had experienced, the things I heard with my own ears, and the things I knew to be true because I was personally present when they happened. However, since the former female interim IMB Vice-President's name was mentioned, and it was communicated to me that she does not wish to be in the spot-light, I removed the post. People sometimes get more squemish over their names being mentioned than they do the very issues that need to be addressed. I do, however, respect the feelings of my sister in Christ and have honored her request.

This experience today confirms that it will do absolutely no good to write a narrative of events at the IMB over the past three years. It would make interesting reading, and though it would actually be a historical narrative, some would seek to classify it as fiction because the truth of what occurred over trustee leaders' attempts to establish 'doctrinal' policies that exceed the BFM 2000 is stranger than fiction. The little banal story I wrote today - in preparation of an article forthcoming by Religious News Service - is an illustration that writing about people and using their names - even to illustrate a principle - only brings embarrassment and sometimes anger.

The second thing that happened today to bring me to my decision on whether or not to write a book is a conversation I had with my friend David Sanders. David is an excellent writer and is a key editorial columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau. David encouraged me to not write a book on the basis of this principle:

Over time people respond to the systematic and uplifting teaching of the Word of God. To constantly raise the hood of the car to inspect the engine without repairing what is broken is non-productive. Use the talents God has given you to write, teach, and preach the life transforming principles of God's Word. Invest yourself in those things which are edifying and the change will come.

David convinced me. I have looked under the engine and seen some things that need repaired in the SBC. It is my desire to do some things to help, but ultimately help comes by giving answers, not revealing problems.

I have reached a decision prior to my deadline of March 1, 2008. I will not be writing a narrative of events at the IMB since 2005. I am finishing a new book on Jonah and a chapter on another collaborative book on what happened to 'civility' in Christian life. I will continue to pour my energy into teaching and preaching. We are now broadcasting live via the internet and our church launched this week a new television ministry. One of the men in our church is also taking on the responsibility of expanding our radio ministry nationwide beginning in April, 2008.

In the immediate future, March 3-4, 2008, I will be meeting with Dwight McKissic and a small group of pastors in Arlington, Texas to discuss the establishment of a new fellowship of conservative, evangelical churches - including Southern Baptist - called the Antioch Network of Churches. The Monday night portion of the meeting will be held at the local Holiday Inn and will include the following;

6:30 – 7:00 pm -- The Biblical Basis of the Antioch Network of Churches - Sam Storms

7:00 – 7:30 pm -- A Season of Prayer -- Adrian Moldovan

7:30 – 8:00 pm -- The Historical Basis of the Antioch Network of Churches -- Dwight McKissic

8:00 – 8:05 pm -- Break

8:05 – 8:35 pm -- The Doctrinal Basis of the Antioch Network of Churches -Wade Burleson

8:35 – 9:15 pm -- Vision, Mission & Purpose of the Antioch Network of Churches

We will be writing more on this new network of churches in the near future. If you are in or near the Arlington, TX area on Monday night, March 3, 2008 and would like to join us please come. For more information you may call Veronica N. Griffith, Min. of Communications & Spec. Events for Cornerstone Baptist Church at (817) 468-0083 ext. 203.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

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

IMB Meeting, Monday, January 28, 2008 - Day 1

John Parton and I left Enid at 8:30 this morning and drove to Oklahoma City where we caught a plane to Atlanta and then one to Gainesville, Florida. We had the pleasure of sitting directly in front of Bobbye Rankin on the flight into Gainesville. Bobbye was her usual gracious and kind self. She has a great ability to make everyone feel at home in her presence and represents the Southern Baptist Convention and our worldwide work in missions quite well.

We arrived at the Hilton Hotel on the beautiful campus of the University of Florida at 5:00 p.m. eastern time. Our plane schedule did not allow me to attend the 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. trustee forum (closed door meeting), but several trustees shared with me the details of the discussion. As usual, I will honor the confidentiality of the closed door meetings, while expressing my belief - again - that any business of the International Mission Board that does not compromise missionary security should occur in full view of the Southern Baptist Convention.

After dinner trustee Chairman John Floyd left a message on my hotel phone telling me that the trustee board had been informed (he did not say be whom) that they did not have the authority to bar me from trustee board meetings. Further, trustee leadership did not have the authority to refuse to pay my expenses to come to the trustee board meetings, nor did they have the authority to keep me from participating and voting in any session where the full complement of the IMB trustees convene. This was not a surprise to me since I am familiar with both the bylaws of the Southern Baptist Convention and the International Mission Board and predicted this very outcome.

Frankly, however, I must refuse to accept reimbursement for my travel to and from IMB Trustee Meetings. I am requesting that Chairman John Floyd and trustee leadership (a new Chairman will be elected in May) take the budget funds spent on my (and once a year, my wife's) plane fare, hotel, meals, car rental or shuttle tickets, and various other expenses associated with fulfilling my trustee responsibilities and contribute those funds (estimated between $1,000 and $1,500 per meeting for six to seven meetings annually) to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for foreign missions. Emmanuel Baptist Church and her pastor consider it an honor to contribute these funds to the work taking place among Southern Baptists on the mission fields of the world.

The hour is late, and we look forward to an early start tomorrow as we visit with several missionaries and pastors who are in the area and attend the Plenary Session tomorrow evening at 6:30 p.m.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

IMB Meeting, Gainseville, FL, Jan. 28-30, 2008

I am flying to Gainesville, Florida from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Will Rogers World Airport this morning, Monday, January 28, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. It looks like my flight does not land in Gainseville in time to attend the trustee forum, but I will be attending the International Mission Board trustee meetings Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. I will listen carefully to all business before us and will register my votes on recommendations made during the public sessions and shall keep you informed regarding the approved actions of the board during those plenary sessions.

John Parton, one of the seventy men appointed by the US Navy to be on the original Seal Team One in the 1960's will be accompanying me to Gainesville. I had the privilege of leading John to a relationship with Jesus Christ a while back and he is a member of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, Oklahoma. When John came home to his native California after Vietnam, he had to overcome the emotional baggage of spending several months behind enemy lines fulfilling covert missions. By John's personal estimates he killed over 1,000 people during the war with either his bare hands or his government issued knife and has lived with great guilt because of his actions. My desire for John is for him to one day accompany me back to East Asia to personally participate in leading as many people as possible to faith in Jesus Christ. This trip to Florida will enable John to understand how missions works for the Southern Baptist Convention. Fair warning: John is still a little gruff around the edges. First time he ever heard me preach a while back, he came to the front of the auditorium where I was surrounded by several of our older Women on Mission ladies. John declared quite loudly and boldly, "Man, that was one one hell of a talk." You should have seen the look on the faces of those ladies. The neat thing for me is to be able to see how God has worked in John's life over the last several months and the desire that is building in him to see people all over the world come 'to know his Lord.'

John and I have most of Tuesday free. If you are in or near Gainseville, Florida on Tuesday, January 29th, come to the Hilton University of Florida Conference Center where the IMB meeting will be held and have a cup of coffee with us in the lobby. Or, we'd love to have you join us for lunch on Tuesday. We will be in the lobby from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, lunch at 12:00 noon, and then we will be back in the lobby from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. We would love to visit with any pastors or missionaries who can make it to the Hilton. John and I will also be participating in the appointment service on Wednesday night at Westside Baptist Church at 7:30.

For those of you who cannot be in Gainseville, I will do my best to let you know what is happening at the IMB meeting. May the Lord continue to bless the work of the IMB and the SBC.

In His Grace,


Wade

When Aberrant Policy Births Inconsistent Practice

A November 25, 2007 news article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported on the missionary work in India of Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis, Tennessee. Bellevue is the home church of many professors and administrators of Mid-America Seminary - a seminary whose leadership that is pressing for far tighter and narrower doctrinal parameters on the authority of the baptizer and ecclesiology than Scripture demands and the Southern Baptist Convention has approved. Bellevue is the congregation that has acted as the patron and bankroller of the seminary (at least in its current location). International Mission Board Trustee Chairman John Floyd and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Trustee Chairman Vann McClain are employees of Mid-America.

Though I am not sympathetic with the anti-missionary viewpoint of the article’s author, I was struck by a little detail or two related to baptism and ecclesiology. It appears that women from many villages across the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh came to a training center run by an Indian evangelist named Sathuluri who hosted a training program for village women that was fully - and solely - sponsored by Bellevue Baptist Church. During the course of the training event, at least one village woman, and implicit within the article - many more women - were baptized. There was no local church involved in the baptism. Women from all over the state were baptized by an evangelist, but they did not become members of any 'local' church that day. The women identified themselves with Christ - baptized at the hands of the evangelist who led them to Christ. This non-local church based baptismal service raises questions of inconsistency when juxtaposed to Dr. John Floyd’s, Mid-America's, and the 'new' (2005) IMB Baptism Position Paper that all posit an inflexible insistence that proper baptism is to be conducted only as an ordinance of the local church.

The following is a direct quote from the Memphis newspaper article:

“Sathuluri [the Bellevue sponsored evangelist] isn't as easygoing as his neighbor. When he discovers that an interpreter, who is Hindu, is in the compound the day he [Sathuluri] is to perform baptisms, Sathuluri threatens to call police to remove her and a Commercial Appeal reporter and photographer from the property.” (p.4). And then this: “The Bellevue missionaries watch from a viewing area next to the pool. Some offer tears, others camera flashes. None get close to the baptismal pool and wet women.”

I find it hard to believe anyone could be opposed to the good work that Bellevue is doing. I praise God for this Indian brother, Sathuluri, who is advancing the Kingdom among village women. Unless you have been on the mission field yourself, and personally understand the dangers new converts face for being baptized upon their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, you cannot fully appreciate Sathuluri's concern for the Hindu interpretor's presence. The evangelist is concerned for the safety of the converts he is about to baptize.

Again, pay careful attention. There is no 'local church' involved in these baptisms. There is no 'local church' into which these woman are being 'baptized into.' They are being baptized biblically, into identification with Jesus Christ. What this newspaper article reveals is the ironic and incongruent position of anyone who insists upon imposing tight definitions and parameters on our IMB missionaries while then finding it impossible to implement such rigid norms when they actually find themselves on the mission field.

The 2005 Paper Explaining the IMB’s Position on Baptism reads as follows:

First, that the only biblical mode for baptism is immersion. Second, that the only proper candidate for immersion is a regenerate believer in Jesus Christ. Third, that the act is purely symbolic and distinct from salvation itself and has no saving merit. Fourth, that baptism is a church ordinance and therefore the only proper administrator of it is a local New Testament church that holds to a proper view of salvation.

Further, the IMB Baptism Position Paper states:

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

It is this last statement that baptism is 'in a church,' in conjunction with the fourth point above, which has created the baptism controversy at the IMB. This peculiar position on baptism is directly contradicted by The 1644 Baptist London Confession of Faith:

Article XLI

THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.

John Gill, the great Baptist theologian of the 18th Century says this about baptism:

Baptism is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it.

Where Scripture is clear (as in the mode and candidate of baptism), we should be clear and unflinching. But, likewise, when God has chosen for Scripture to be ambiguous or ambivalent, we must resist the temptation to become dogmatic and prescriptive (as in 'baptism in a church that embraces the doctrine of eternal security').

I think the Memphis newspaper has done all Southern Baptists a good service in showing the danger of establishing a policy that reaches beyond the 2000 BFM, adds to the sacred Word of God by placing additional qualifications regarding the administrator of baptism, and is in the end, impractical in terms of implementation on the mission field. What's ironic to me is that the benefactor church of Mid-America and the home church of many Mid-America seminary professors is being used to show us the inconsistency.

I think it would be helpful if we, the trustees of the International Mission Board, focused on our duties of giving oversight to the work of Southern Baptist missions, but we refrain from seeking to implement tight doctrinal 'policies' or 'guidelines' that far exceed the 2000 BFM and make it very difficult for actual missionaries on the field to implement. In my opinion, the 2005 baptism 'guideline' is far worse than the 2005 'private prayer language' policy in terms of its overall effect on our Southern Baptist mission work.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson