Is the International Mission Board a Potemkin Village or a Lean, Efficient Missionary Sending Organization?

After my post this week questioning the wisdom of the IMB in not reimbursing ISC'ers, Journeymen and Masters missionaries for utilities like dryers, air conditioning and phones, I received a flood of emails and phone calls from missionaries on the field who agreed with my assessment. All of the field missionaries expressed loyalty to the IMB, but to a person, there was the belief that morale among missionaries on the front lines is the lowest it has been in decades. One of the missionaries, an intelligent and articulate team leader who has been employed by the IMB for nearly two decades, asked me if I had ever heard of a Potemkin Village. A Potemkin Village, he said, represents an organization with a hollow or false construct, physical or figurative, hiding an undesirable or potentially damaging reality. Potemkin Villages are built to look impressive to friends and strangers from a distance, but the buildings' shells and facades hide the fact there is little or no work actually being done within the village. This field missionary on the front lines, and others, suggested to me that the IMB has much in common with a Potemkin Village. The following represents their reasoning:

(1). Missionaries who are actually on the field planting churches and sharing Christ have little or no resources to do ministry.

According to several field missionaries who emailed me or phoned me, money for Bibles, special mission projects, and materials needed to help witness and evangelize has not been received from the IMB for months. Churches that make their way overseas to participate in prayer walks, street evangelism, or church planting efforts must bring their own money for materials like Bibles, books and other resources for native converts and pastors. IMB field missionaries are often asked by Southern Baptists from the States, "You mean we have to buy the Bibles we use in evangelism? What about Lottie Moon funds going for special projects?"

What's worse, say these field missionaries, is that those on the front lines of the mission field have now been told that money normally given for expense reimbursement is being withheld. This support money, used to reimburse missionaries for gas in making trips to new church plants or Bible studies, or other expenses associated with the ongoing mission of establishing new churches, is being withheld due to the budgetary crises. One field missionary with a wife and kids has over $2,500 in unreimbursed ministry expenses. The question before IMB field missionaries at this time is simply, "Do we continue funding our ministry ourselves, or do we buy our kids Christmas presents?"

Field office budgets are being slashed by 50% for 2010. Field missionaries are discouraged because there is a feeling among many that Lottie Moon funds are being used to support an ever-increasing overhead budget and an ill-timed reorganization causing little or no money to reach the front lines for ministry projects and field missionary support. In short, the IMB presents itself as a large, beautiful, and impressive missions sending agency--but there are no funds to actually work the mission of the organization.

(2). The current reorganization of the International Mission Board, intended to make the organization flat and lean, has in reality made the IMB fat and deep.

Rather than IMB having "regional offices," the IMB is restucturing the organization to have eight Affinity Offices among eight affinity people groups, nine if you include the deaf people of the world. Each people group has an identifiable office in Richmond and an overseas office that works closely with the staff at the Office of Global Strategy, all headed by Dr. Gordon Fort, VP of the IMB in Richmond, Virginia. There are an additional four IMB Support Offices overseas, offices that "support" the eight Affinity Offices. These four overseas Support Offices work closely with the home offices in Richmond that carry the same names. The offices in Richmond and those overseas include the aforementioned Office of Global Strategy, the Office(s) of Global Personnel, the Office(s) of Financial Services, the Office(s) of Global Logistics, and the Office(s) of Personnel Support and Mobilization Support. For example, the "Support Office" for the European Peoples Affinity Group is located in London. Twenty missionary personnel work in that particular office of Financial Services. That's just one of four offices in the London Support Office (one of four "Support Offices" worldwide) that report to both their respective "Affinity Offices" (one of eight worldwide) and then to corresponding offices in Richmond. You will have a hard time finding any of these offices on the official IMB website

Let me simplify it.

A field missionary (either career, ISC, Masters or Journeymen) is one who is on the front lines sharing the gospel and planting churches. These field missionaries report to a team leader who is also a field missionary. Again, all these field missionaries are what we would call the front lines. They are the ones who need the money, the supplies, the support of the Southern Baptist Convention. But these are the missionaries who seem to be receiving the financial cuts. Ironically, if the average Southern Baptist were to call the International Mission Board and ask " Can you tell me the number of SBC field missionaries on the field who are actually responsible for sharing Christ and planting churches?" you would not be given a direct answer. Why? The standard response is "All our personnel are missionaries!" That's true, but when we give to Lottie Moon, we are thinking about the person on the field sharing Christ and planting churches. Sure, we need the support personnel. Nobody is suggesting any differently. But the question is: Does this current reorganization of the IMB make it leaner and more efficient so that more funds, not less, reach the front lines of the mission field?
The field missionaries are telling me "no" in response to this question. They say that their team leaders must now report to supervisory "Cluster Leaders" who are in charge of missionary teams in a handful of countries. These "Cluster Leaders" then report to their respective Affinity Leaders, who then report to the Office of Global Strategy. All the other IMB personnel in the overseas Affinity Offices, overseas Support Offices, Richmond home offices, etc are technically there for the "support" of the field missionaries. Yet, the field missionaries feel like nobody is listening to them for the following reasons:

(1). When "tours" are made of regions, it is the upper echelon IMB management and IMB supervisors who lead the SBC dignitaries (i.e. SBC President, trustees, etc...) on those tours.
(2). When the last two reorganizations occured at the IMB (i.e. New Directions and Affinity People Groups), the instructions for reorganization came from the top down. Field missionaries were not asked for their input. (Edit: David Rogers, former IMB field missionary to Spain points out in the comment section that he received an email about possible impending changes in 2008, asking for input. The field missionaries who have contacted me did not mention the email, just their belief that the changes were being implemented with or without direction from the field missionaries. I do not believe it is accurate to represent that all field missionaries were not asked for their input. Some, including David Rogers, obviously were).
(3). The cuts to ministry, expense accounts, and salaries are being felt by the field missionaries--frustrating them in their efforts to share Christ and plant churches.
(4). There is a feeling that any complaining about the situation will cause someone to be labeled a "malcontent." Rather than feeling empowered to speak up and to offer helpful suggestions, many field missionaries are either quitting, retiring, or contemplating getting out.

If top level management of the IMB wants to prevent a wholesale collapse of missions as Southern Baptists know it, then there should be a long-term hiring freeze and reserves should be tapped to get MORE MONEY ON THE FRONT lines--not less. It would be better for Southern Baptists to do the work we are now doing well, than to continue to build a huge organization to try to reach every people group in the world and do it all very poorly.

(3). The statistics on the Annual Statistical Report cause IMB missionaries on the field to question the wisdom of their superiors.

There has been a healthy amount of skepticism related to the numbers of baptisms and church plants reported by the International Mission Board in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Field missionaries report constant pressure to "get the numbers up." The International Mission Board's Office of Global Strategy reports that field missionaries in the IMB had a direct hand in starting over 50,000 Baptist churches in 2007 and 2008. If you counted every single missionary that is employed by the IMB, including support personnel, every IMB employee would have had to singlehandedly begun 10 churches in the past 24 monhts.

The IMB has reported over 1.1 million baptisms through the work of our missionaries these past two years. The field missionaries believe that organizational management has succombed to the temptation of inflating or fudging numbers to justify the extraordinary expansion and expense of reaching more and more people groups. Unfortunately, when money is spent on public relations and slick presentations--in order to raise more money--all the while using numbers that the field missionaries raise their eyebrows over, we have constructed a Potemkin Village. We build to impress, but we neglect the actual things required to do the real work.

It's time we stopped trying to impress everybody and simply gave our missionaries in the deserts of the Middle East, the islands of the Pacific, the far reaches of China and other remote areas around the world those things they actually need to do the work.

It's not too late for the IMB to respond. Word has it that a secular company has been hired to implement the new reorganziation of the IMB around the world. I have been unable to confirm whether or not this is true, but I've confirmed enough to make a prophetic statement.

If we Southern Baptists don't stop trying to impress people as to how big we are, and if we don't start taking care of our missionaries on the front lines by meeting their requests for ministry funds, reimbursing their expense needs, and helping them accomplish the tasks to which they were called, we will find our beloved missions organization eventually collapsing like a house of cards.

Our missionaries are great people--both those on the front lines and those in the offices of support. It's not their fault there is no money reaching the front. It's the fault of leadership--both trustees and upper management. We've been so focused on silly tertiery things, so enraptured by telling people "We are the largest missions sending agency in the world!" and so consumed with personal agendas that we have lost sight of our mission to care for those who have gone to the front lines.

It's time to buckle up and get them money. I suggest the IMB tap into the millions of dollars in reserves and pay our missionaries what we promised them. And I would also put a clamp on any consideration of future appointments until the morale of those missionaries already on the field is what it should be.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Decline of LM and CP Offerings Due to Legalism

The 2008 Lottie Moon Offering goal was $170 million dollars. The final total of LM collections for 2008 equals $141,315,110.24. The decline of 6.05% in receipts compared to last year LM receipts translates into the largest dollar decrease in the history of the offering. The decision has already been made to suspend the ISC and Masters Program in the IMB and restrict the number of new long-term personnel and journeymen. Because the IMB will not be replacing short-term personnel completing their term of assignments, the International Mission Board's missionary count will be reduced by up to 400 by the end of 2009, and will eventually be reduced by approximately 700 missionaries.

However, rather than blame the economy for such a drastic downturn in Lottie Moon and Cooperative Program giving, one might wish to take a look at a Southern Baptist church in Louisville, Kentucky to identify problems we face in the Southern Baptist Convention. Macro problems always have micro sources. To know what is going on in the SBC at the national level, one must understand what is taking place in local
SBC churches.

Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, Kentucky is doing a great deal for the community of Louisville and gospel missions around the world. However, while the church's support of mission causes has exponentially increased the last decade, support for the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon offerings has declined. When one inquires of leadership at Sojourn why they fund missionaries directly from their church, and why they have decreased on a percentage basis their giving to CP and LM, they have an answer. They do not point to the financial burden of constructing a new building the church needs to contain the crowds, nor do they point to any disagreement within their local Southern Baptist association or state (in fact, they have a great working relationship with the Kentucky Baptist Convention), nor do they point to any theological differences within the SBC. Rather, they will tell you about a missionary family that Sojourn is supporting overseas as an example of why they must fund missions directly. This family does not qualify for appointment to the IMB for two reasons.

(1) The couple uses real wine during communion, so they could not say they "abstain" from wine. Abstinence from wine, according to some Baptist Identity radicals, is "obedience to Christ and holiness before God." This missionary family is considered "unholy" and ungodly for drinking communion wine. Ironically, they do not drink wine on any other occasion.

(2)The wife has not been baptized in a Baptist church. Never mind she was baptized by immersion as a believer in a Christian church, her baptism simply wasn't in a Baptist church.

There comes a time when Southern Baptists need to realize that some growing, conservative, evangelical churches such as Sojourn are refusing to support the Southern Baptist Convention because of our silly extra-biblical traditions and our tendency toward codifying our legalism in institutional policies that become post de facto edicts to SBC churches.

If we wish to grow CP and Lottie Moon during difficult economic times we will denounce all attempts by Baptist Identity radicals to define "obedience to Christ" and "holiness to God" in a manner that goes way beyond the truth of Scripture.

Sojourn is hosting an interesting forum regarding the SBC on Tuesday of the Southern Baptist Convention. Let's hope that we all can get to the place in the SBC where we can tell the truth about what is really happening in our Convention because we place loyalty to Christ above any fear of offending strategic people in high places of authority in the SBC.

In His Grace,


Wade

Reasons Why We Will Give More To Lottie Moon

Our church will be giving more to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering because of the increasing number of IMB missionaries needing our support . . .

Our church will be giving more to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering because of our belief that we can do more by cooperating with other Southern Baptist churches than we could do on our own . . .

Our church will be giving more to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering because of the outstanding missionary work taking place around the world among our 5,3000 Southern Baptist missionaries . . . .

Our church will be giving more to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering as a testimony that it is better to give than to receive . . . .

Our church will be giving more to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering because this Grandma video has inspired us like no other . . . .

I Support Lottie Moon, the IMB and the SBC

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION FOR CENSURE OF TRUSTEE WADE BURLESON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support Lottie Moon, the IMB and the SBC.

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

__________________

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

STATEMENT OF TRUSTEE WADE BURLESON
November 7, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________

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


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

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson