The Way a Preacher/Teacher Dresses Doesn't Necessarily Communicate Authenticity or Transparency

Rick Warren has been used by God as a messenger of the good news to tens of thousands of people in need of a Savior. The work being done by Pastor Warren is, without question, a work bringing about the transformation of lives for the glory of God. Our church has been training a hundred leaders in preparation for the launch of Celebrate Recovery, a ministry to help people to find recovery from chemical and non-chemical addictions through Jesus Christ. This ministry was begun by Pastor Warren's church and is being used by churches and pastors nation wide. Rick has been a family friend since the days he was a seminary student at Southwestern Theological Seminary and attended Southcliff Baptist Church, a church pastored by my father from 1976 to 1982. Rick would sometimes lead Sunday night worship sitting on a stool playing his guitar, wearing jeans and sandals. Little has changed over the years. Most of the time when Rick speaks to his church (see picture) he does so in casual dress. His influence is so vast, many young pastors imitate his style, including dressing casual when they teach/preach on Sundays.

Some, including John Piper (see picture below), will rarely speak to their congregation without a suit and tie. It's been my practice over the years to also always wear a suit and tie when I teach from the Word of God. I don't think my example (or Piper's) is necessarily one that other pastors should be required to imitate. Personally, I think there are many factors that come into play when it comes to the pastor/teacher's dress on Sundays including culture, climate, tradition, etc... There seems to be no hard and fast rule on the subject found in Scripture. Why do I wear a suit and tie? Well, I never see a professional comedian (think Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, etc...) or a professional broadcaster (think Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, etc...) in the United States do their thing on television without a suit and tie. My personal feeling is that what I'm delivering is more important than either comedy or news, so I'm going to deliver it in an even better style than the the comedian or the broadcaster. BUT, (and this is a huge conjuction), in no form or fashion am I saying that someone else who does NOT wear a suit and tie is being unprofessional when they teach the gospel. I believe that Christians in churches should accept the decision of their pastor in this matter--even if the pastor's decision is different than your personal taste. Some of our members in the contemporary worship service (REFUGE) come very casual. Others in our two more traditional Sunday morning worship services come casual as well. I wear a suit and tie no matter which service I am speaking and trust that the people of Emmanuel accept my decision.

But the reason for this post is the attitude I've noticed among some (not all) of the emergent, contemporary or younger pastors. There is a sense that if a pastor does not dress casual, he is communicating to the congregation that he is not "authentic," "approachable" and "transparent." It's almost as if there is an unwritten rule among some pastors that "casual dress equals Christian authenticity." I don't think the way a preacher/teacher dresses on Sunday morning necessarily communicates authenticity or transparency. It's the way he lives his life, not the way he dresses himself, that communicates these important character qualities.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

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

Bringing to Light Criticism that Seems Acceptable

I recently ran across a couple of articles that have been posted on-line and are very critical of the philosophy of the International Mission Board's emphasis on missionaries facilitating 'Church Planting Movements (CPM's).' Of course, facilitating Church Planting Movement's has formed the basic strategy of President Jerry Rankin, Regional Leadership, and the administrative staff of the IMB for the past several years. These articles, which are in The Spring 2007 Mid-America Seminary Journal of Evangelism and Missions, are both well written. They raise some issues that are worth discussing among Southern Baptists, but they are unquestionably - and very publicly - critical of IMB administration and the emphasis that has been placed on CPM's by IMB administrative leadership.

The first article, entitled "An Examination of Nine Key Issues Concerning CPM," quotes at least three 'anonymous' IMB missionaries who are critical of CPM. The writer acknowledges the article's criticism with these words:

Would discussing this issue (CPM) critically be frowned upon by many at the Board and the entities with which it works? Unquestionably.

The author then goes on to list several problems with the IMB Church Planting Movement including:

The movement often pushes missionaries to plant churches and disciple leaders more quickly than the biblical pattern.

Due to the emphasis on speed, CPM methodology opens up church planters to the dangers of heresy.

Current strategy leads to working with questionable Great Commission Christians groups on the field.

CPM methodology denigrates working with American volunteers who wish to build church buildings. Thus, thousands of volunteers are not utilized that would like to serve.

Wholehearted acceptance of CPM methodology has led to the IMB having a top-down strategy instead of a bottom-up strategy.

The second article, entitled "Is Church Planting Movement Methodology Viable? An Examination of Selected Controversies Associated With The CPM Strategy" also contains some very strong criticism of IMB strategy, including the belief that there are misleading reports from the IMB regarding the number of church starts that arise from CPM's. The author writes:

"Reporting churches that fit man’s definition (of a church) but do not fit the biblical definition (of a church) is a waste of time and dishonest toward the Body of Christ."

The Identity of the Associate Editor of this Journal

It might surprise some of you who have kept up with recent events at the IMB that one of the editors of the journal which contains these articles that are critical of the IMB is John Floyd, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the International Mission Board.

Like my blog, John's journal has some very good things to say about the IMB - alongside its public criticism of the IMB. However, the question that Southern Baptists should be asking is this:

Why is a trustee censured who is, (1). supportive of our IMB work, and (2). supportive of our IMB President, and (3). supportive of our IMB CPM strategy, and (4). supportive of a broader cooperation on the mission field with other Great Commission Churches, but publicly critical of an IMB trustee leadership decision to push a doctrinal policy that reaches beyond the 2000 BFM in order to exclude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary service?

Dr. Floyd was Chairman of the Personnel Committee in 2005 and pushed the new policy that excludes Southern Baptists from missionary service who admit, when asked, that they have a 'private prayer language' (as well as the policy that places qualifications upon the administrator of baptism that the local Southern Baptist church - supposedly the highest authority in the SBC - does not even see as necessary). Even though only a handful of trustees in leadership, including Dr. Floyd, pushed the new doctrinal policies that exceed the 2000 BFM, the inability for a majority of IMB trustees to see that if the 2005 Private Prayer Language policy were in effect when Jerry Rankin was appointed several decades ago, Dr. Rankin would not have been appointed as a Southern Baptist missionary, would not have given years of faithful missionary service to the Lord through the Southern Baptist Convention, and would not have been elected President of the International Mission Board remains a mystery to me. I ask for the 1,000th time:

How many other Jerry Rankins are out there, otherwise qualified to serve, but are now being excluded because of the new doctrinal policies that reach beyond the 2000 BFM?

The issue for me, however, has gone way beyond Dr. Jerry Rankin. Whether he remains President of the International Mission Board for the next five years is beyond the scope of my concern. I have chosen to publicly express my objection to back door narrowing of the parameter of doctrinal cooperation through the practice of adopting 'doctrinal policies' at respective SBC agencies - WITHOUT CONVENTION APPROVAL. Soon, SBC agencies, if left unchecked, could exclude other Southern Baptists by adopting other 'doctrinal' policies that exceed the 2000 BFM - and these new policies will be over something other than the tertiary issue of whether or not a Southern Baptist prays in tongues in the privacy of his prayer closet (i.e. it could possibly be over 'particular atonment,' 'elder rule,''moderation instead of abstinence,' 'etc . . . ' )

I have voiced my concerns over the deeper issue of SBC agencies moving beyond the scope of our responsibilities by implementing 'doctrinal' policies that exceed the BFM on my blog - always in a civil manner - and simply to get people to talk about the issue. I believe I have succeeded. But because of the nature of my public criticism over a couple of new policies adopted by IMB trustees, I have been censured.

But on the other hand, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, John Floyd, who pushed the new doctrinal policies as Chairman of the IMB Personnel Committee in 2005, who is an editor of a magazine that openly criticizes IMB administrative strategy in reaching the world through Church Planting Movements, and who seemingly ignores the Southern Baptist Convention's advise to view the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as the sufficient doctrinal parameter of Southern Baptist cooperation, is not even questioned about the criticism of IMB administration in the journal he edits?

Dialogue, Debate and Civility Are All Needed

Read carefully. I am not advocating anybody else, including John Floyd, be censured. John is simply doing what he believes is best for the IMB and the SBC - as am I. To censure a Southern Baptist for public disagreement is like cursing a dog for barking. I affirm Dr. Floyd's right to criticise and question IMB strategy and IMB administration policies. We simply need Southern Baptists to see the inconsistency in allowing trustees to participate in traditional criticisms of IMB administration through phone calls, magazine articles, and private communications - but forbid any trustee from publicly questioning or criticizing trustee leadership strategy or trustee decisions. I believe John Floyd, Paige Patterson, and any other Southern Baptist should be allowed to be as critical of the IMB administration's planning and strategy as their hearts' desire. But any trustee who chooses to publicly oppose Drs. Floyd's and Patterson's respective strategies and philosophies should also be given the same freedom.

Some may not wish to grant it, but this trustee is determined to create an environment in our Convention where people are not afraid to express civil disagreement. I believe this is what the Southern Baptist Convention desires, and in time, it will occur. I am a patient man.

In His Grace,


Wade

P.S. Today is the two year anniversary of my first post. I am happy to say I have stayed the course, and after a lengthy review of everything I have written over these past two years, I can say with assurance that I have focused on the issues, and I have done a pretty decent job of not attacking people - even when the heat has been turned on me quite intensely. Most importantly, my wife says I have not lost my sense of humor. Here is to another two years of blogging in order to keep Southern Baptists informed.

At Least Blogging Baptists Are Using Their Brains

At the 2007 Georgia Baptist Convention a Resolution on Blogging was passed by a majority of the state messengers. The resolution has some good things to say, which I would wholeheartedly support, including statements like the following:

"Responsible blogging can be a means of promoting the flow of information and encouragement of our people."

But one statement I found quite remarkable.

"That we reaffirm the historic method of administering our agencies and institutions through elected boards of trustees, and we call upon bloggers to cease the critical second-guessing of these elected leaders."

The resolution went on to call those who 'second-guess' elected leaders to 'repent' - as if questioning the actions of those in authority is sin.

The authors and proponents of this resolution - presumably old enough to not only remember, but also participate in the Conservative Resurgence of the Southern Baptist Convention - have either selective memory or the inability to blush at the logical inconsistencies of their own resolution. They themselves questioned the actions of the Boards of our Southern Baptist agencies leading up to - and during - the Conservative Resurgence.

It seems when the dissenters become the establishment those who arise as the new dissenters become the rebellious sinners who need to repent for questioning recognized authority. What baffles me is not the submission of such a resolution by those 'in authority,' but the refusal and/or inaction of Georgia messengers in attendance to amend the resolution before adopting it. Some believe this resolution is aimed at me. I found that hard to believe. The only paragraph that even remotely resembles my blog is the sentence forbidding the second guessing of 'elected' leaders. However, since I am one of those 'elected' leaders, you Georgians feel free to violate the resolution you passed and place your comments that oppose my views on this blog. I promise, you will not be called upon to repent.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Open Meetings Mean Fewer Misunderstandings

"In 43 years there have been fewer than six executive sessions (closed door, private meetings) . . . The Executive Committee (SBC) has an open ear for anyone one who wants to speak to it. For almost 25 years the gallery has been two to three times bigger than the size of the Committee, and the gallery has been permitted to ask any question, to give any information, to make any point and to offer any objection." Dr. Albert McClellan, December 31, 1980, The Baptist Program.

SBC leaders would do well to imitate Dr. Albert McClellan and the Southern Baptist Executive Committee of the mid-20th century. Some Southern Baptists feel that our agencies should follow the example of corporate boards and keep all things private except what 'corporate officers' want you to hear. Public relations departments, press releases, and image surveys are all tools used by the corporate world to keep the 'reputation' of the business intact. Christian ministries, however, should desire to thrive on genuine integrity, full transparency, and complete openness. Reputation should not be nearly as important to followers of Christ as integrity. Christ is the light of the world, and all things done in His name, including the spending of donated monies, debates about how to best fulfill our mission and purpose, and questions - asked and answered - that lead to greater organizational accountability should all happen in public forums. It goes without saying that concerns for missionary safety must take priority, but except for that single concern, every other Southern Baptist item of business should be offered, debated, and settled in the full public view of the Convention herself. Lawyers may not like that model, but grassroots Southern Baptists should.

Two examples from last week's IMB trustee meeting serve as an example of the benefit of debating issues publicly rather than behind closed doors.

(1). First, the debate over what trustee Hershael York calls The Most Important Business at the IMB Meeting - the adoption of 'Five Principles of Contextualization' - took place behind a closed door Executive Session instead of in an open 'plenary' session of the board. I felt that all the comments during the debate, on both sides, were excellent and explained how Southern Baptists can effectively share Christ with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other religious people. Trustees, staff, and special guests discussed how the issue, what is appropriate and what is not in terms of contextualization (presenting the gospel in the context of the culture in which the person finds himself), and various related important issues. Unfortunately, nobody but those behind the closed doors last Tuesday night will ever hear the excellent discussion. It might be argued that to discuss the evangelizing of Muslims or people of other faiths is 'dangerous.' All that needs to be said in rebutting that argument is one sentence: 'When we are more afraid to talk publicly in our religious meetings of leading Muslims to know the Prince of Peace than the Muslims are of allowing radicals to speak openly in their mosques of putting to death those who shall not submit to Islam - then we show ourselves to be ultimately more fearful of man than we are faithful to God.' Southern Baptists must begin to talk openly about our desire to evangelize the world instead of acting as if it is some big secret.

(2). Had the presentation and 'discussion' over the motion to censure me taken place in public, then there would have been less of an opportunity for anyone to misunderstand the basis for the censure. Though I would have desired for the focus of the meeting to be on missions and not me, I humbly accept the censure for persisting in 'public dissent.' IMB trustees were well within their rights to censure, based on the irrational March 22, 2006 'new' Trustee Standard of Conduct guideline that declares 'trustees must publicly support board approved policy even if they do not privately support it.' Baptists are true dissenters in both religious identity and actual history. To stifle dissent is to deny our heritage and nature. When the doors of meetings of Southern Baptist agencies are opened again, and people get familarized again with the practice of civil debate, gracious discussion, and courteous dissent, then there will no need to feel the need to stifle dissent to preserve 'unity.' But most of all, when there is full and free debate for all to hear, then there will be fewer opportunities for misunderstandings.

For example, a Southern Baptist named Bob A. emailed one of my fellow trustees (whom I shall not name) and requested the 'basis' for the censure motion. The IMB trustee emailed Bob back with his answer - which was then forwarded to me. When I read my fellow trustee's email I called him immediately to help clear up his confusion, but I marveled at his rationale for the basis of the censure. The IMB trustee responded to Bob's question "Since when in Baptist life can there be no public disagreement with actions of one of our agencies?" by writing the following:

That is NOT the issue we are facing . . . What happened is that Mr. Burleson began a critical and scathing blog against the leadership of the trustees and the IMB president. He was publically critical of our leadership - not the issues. He was repeated asked to stop from this personal attack of our leadership and he refused. It has nothing to do with the issue or his dissent. It was his unchristian criticism of our leadership.

This IMB trustee, who 'voted' for my censure, admitted to me today that he rarely reads my blog, and when he does, he finds I am always courteous and gracious. The reason I oppose closed door meetings is because the people who want the doors closed control the flow of information. I couldn't help but think that the average Southern Baptist who read blogs understands more of the issues at play than some trustees.

I believe that we will one day see the benefit of holding open door meetings and will refrain from closed door Executive Sessions except for rare occasions. I give absolute, unconditional and irrevocable permission for any and all relevant information related to the censure to be made available to anyone who asks. This is not a sensitive issue. It is a simple disagrement among believers over the right for sitting trustees to publicly and graciously dissent over board approved actions of our agencies.

When agencies practice open meetings, there will be no need for public dissent because all dissent will already be heard - in the meeting itself.

In His Grace,

Wade

Stifling Dissent Is Not Baptist, And It Is Not Good

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

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

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

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

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

The Background for the Current Censure Controversy

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

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

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

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

"What policies?" I asked.

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

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

The Problem Stated

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

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

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

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

A Catostrophe in the Making

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

For five months I sought to get the policies reversed:

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

The Major Issue in the Southern Baptist Convention

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

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

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

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

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

Individual IMB trustees must refrain from public criticism of Board approved actions . . . trustees are to speak in positive and supportive terms as they interpret and report on actions by the Board, regardless of whether they personally support the action.

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

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

I am being censured for my public dissent.

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

I am being censured for my public dissent.

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

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

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

I shall continue my courteous public dissent.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson


Wade

A Move Toward Transparency Is Needed

Our Enid High Basketball team overcame the largest second half deficit in the history of 100 years of Enid High School, and led by Kade Burleson's 12 straight points in the third quarter qualifed for the 6A Oklahoma State Basketball Championship by beating Tulsa Memorial 53-49! With no game today in Tulsa, I thought I would post a response to an interesting flurry of blogs on Friday.

I welcome fellow trustee Jerry Corbaley to the blogging world, and wish him the best. I think Jerry may find that the SBC blogging world is composed of some really sharp individuals, who love Christ, and who also have a propensity and penchant for holding fellow bloggers accountable.

Jerry seems to have a couple of concerns as evidenced in his first couple of posts:

(1). The minutes to the January meeting are not publicly released until they are officially approved in the next board meeting, which won't be until later in the month. Thus, how could Marty Duren know what is in minutes that have yet to be approved?

I asked Marty Duren the same question. I have received a copy of the minutes and they are in my file ready to go to Florida. Nobody has seen a copy of my minutes, nor have I shared verbally with anyone what is in the minutes. It seems Marty has some incredible resources, a veritable modern Woodward and Berstein.

However, I think people need to realize that the minutes in question are not details of EXECUTIVE SESSION matters. The minutes are details of "public actions of the IMB," including the reading into the official record of motions that come from Executive Sessions. Once approved, these minutes will be PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC as an accounting of what took place in the public sessions of the IMB, also called "Plenary Sessions." Executive Sessions (secret, closed door meetings are tape recorded, but there are no "official minutes" of those meetings). The minutes in question that Jerry seems so concerned about are the minutes of a PUBLIC IMB meeting! Why would anyone be concerned that nobody see minutes of things done at IMB Plenary Sessions?

There is only one possibility. The Board can seek to change, amend or alter minutes, so that the proposed minutes are different than the minutes eventually released to the public. When I say the minutes can be changed, amended, or altered I mean "expunged" (there is a rule in Robert's Rules of Orders that allow for this for very specific reasons), "corrected" (meaning what is actually printed in the proposed minutes is not a true reflection of what occurred and a necessary change is made), or "amended" (things that did happen were not properly recorded in the proposed minutes). In a church business meeting proposed minutes are ALWAYS presented to the church so that these necessary corrections can be made before they are approved. Any Board has the legal right to take change proposed minutes. The better question might be, "Why are proposed minutes of public IMB meetings supposed to be secret?" It could be that there is some confusion about the appropriateness of what is in the minutes.

I frankly am not in favor of expunging, amending or correcting the proposed minutes, unless there are very, very good reasons for doing so. One reason might be the protection of the International Mission Board from legal action if those minutes were somehow a danger to the integrity of the organization or placed the organization outside the boundaries of state or federal law. Those circumstances are, indeed, very rare, but a trustee who takes his obligation seriously will do what he can to correct any errors that harm the organization.

I think everyone probably needs to be a little patient on this matter and let the Board deal with the issue of minutes at the next Board Meeting and not jump to swift conclusions.

However, it is wise to reiterate that these are the minutes of the "Public Meetings" of the IMB, and not Executive Session minutes that are in question.

(2). Jerry's second concern seems to be the statement, made by Marty Duren, that Jerry was the person who made the recommendation for my removal. How could Marty know this, because if it did occur, it happened in Executive Session.

I do not know Marty's sources. All I know is that until I received the copy of the minutes a few days ago, I had never seen the actual motion for my removal in print. I heard it read into the "offical record" at the last Plenary Session (again, a PUBLIC MEETING) of the International Mission Board, and immediately blogged about what I heard (see To My Friends, Family and Church).

First, for people to have information from Executive Session Meetings of the IMB is a serious breach of confidentiality. I am not saying if Jerry is the person who made the motion or not, but it should not be revealed if he is. However, I think people need to be really careful about also making hasty judgments about people "breaching" confidentiality.

The religion editor for the Arkansas Gazette was doing a story two weeks ago on the motion for my removal and in her interview with me she asked me if I had any correspondence with _________, who made the recommendation for my removal. I was silent for just a moment and then asked, "How do you know who made the recommendation? That is a detail from Executive Session?"

She told me Chairman Tom Hatley told her. I do not, in any form or fashion, believe that Tom intentionally breached Executive Session confidentiality rules. I think we need to give a little room for grace in this matter. I frankly don't think we ever should have put Tom, or any other trustee, in a position of possibily breaching confidentiality in this matter. Everything should have been public from the beginning, particularly since nobody ever came to me privately about the recommendation for my removal BEFORE it was presented to the Board. Let me repeat that again, NOBODY EVER CAME TO ME PRIVATELY ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE ME UNTIL IT WAS MADE A MOTION BEFORE THE ENTIRE BOARD. I would have much preferred that the debate for my removal be in a public forum under those circumstances. To debate the matter behind close doors allows for innuendo. I have nothing to hide, and want everything public.

Here's my point. Baptists operate best in openness and transparency. I do not believe we would be in the dilemma we are in now if we had taken the position as a Board that our business needs to be done in public, under the light and scrutiny of the entire convention.

Executive Sessions are necessary "ONLY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE BOARD" for legal reasons, and the security of our missionaries overseas. Too many of our Boards are using "Forums," "Executive Sessions," and other closed door meetings in ways I don't think they were ever intended to be used. We are Christians. We should never be ashamed for the light of scrutiny on our actions.

Again, everything we do as Southern Baptists needs to be done in the light of day if at all possible. I have asked, from the beginning, that everything regarding the recommendation for my removal be made public. I stand by my request. I am fully prepared to bring this publicly before the convention.

Frankly, I think our convention might be better off dealing with it publicly.

However, if the Executive Committee of the IMB now feels the Convention and Board is better off with me remaining on the Board, then I would simply ask that we deal with this matter as graciously and as publicly as possible. I am ready to move on. There is work to be done. The removal issue needs to be put to rest so we can focus on the other issues before us.

I continue to look forward to working with my fellow trustees, abiding by every policy and procedure that forms the framework of the duties and responsibilities of the trustees of the Internatationl Mission Board.

In His Grace and Have a Great Lord's Day!



Wade Burleson