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

Conflict Among Baptists Is Not Always Bad

The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention just completed their three day board meeting (September 8-10, 2008) in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Hershael York from Kentucky, a new trustee appointed last year, recently blogged about what he calls "this very historic meeting." I would like to agree with my friend Hershael and use his own words to show that the IMB is better off than they were three years ago because of controversy between trustees from 2005-2008.

Hershael's blog is called Confessions of a Pastor. Here are five reasons, using York's own words (in quotations below), why I know the IMB is better off than it wsa three years ago.

(1).

"I am just now returning from an historic meeting of the International Mission Board"

When Grace and Truth to You first began nearly three years ago, blogging was compared to trafficking in "internet pornography" by several IMB trustees during trustee meetings. It's refreshing that those kinds of things are no longer being said.

(2).

"Staff, trustees, and a special task force are working closely together, perhaps more than ever before"

An extraordinary turn of events for which every Southern Baptists ought to be grateful. The trustee system was never designed to be manipulated by outside parties in order to thwart the implementation of IMB administrative staff's vision. Trustees are not called to RUN the IMB. Trustees are called to support the vision of administrative staff (for heaven's sake, that's why we hired them), hold accountable the expenditures of budgetary monies, and offer support for those missionaries called to do the work on the field. Trustees are NEVER to micro-manage the IMB, but the closed door sessions involving trustees and staff in 2005 and 2006 usually denigrated into certain trustee leaders questioning the day to day decisions of administrative staff (i.e. (1). "Dr. Rankin, I heard you said 'this' in chapel with your staff? Is that true? (2). "Dr. Rankin, your Candidate Consultants don't seem to know how to "screen" candidates, so we'll help them. How about a couple of new "doctrinal" policies to help your staff weed out certain 'un-Baptistic' missionaries your staff of Consultants seem to be sending us?" (3). "Dr. Rankin, we are going to place an offer on your desk for early retirement? Don't you think it is time to step down?" This last one was behind closed doors that were behind the 'official' closed doors.) Sounds to me like there is a renaissance of trust among trustee for administative staff.

(3).

"We serve churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries to bring all peoples to faith in Jesus Christ."

Every Southern Baptist ought to be doing back flips over the adoption of the above Core Value. Though it has been a core value before, trustees seem to have forgotten it. In 2005, SBC churches were not being 'served' when the missionary candidates the CHURCHES sent to be appointed were REJECTED by trustees who felt they knew MORE than the CHURCHES about baptism. The idea that a group of trustees would reject a biblical baptism of a missionary candidate - that the candidate's OWN CHURCH HAD ACCEPTED - because the candidate's baptism was not performed in a Southern Baptist Church (or one that 'believes' in eternal security) - IS NOT SERVING THE CHURCH. Thank God the trustees are now understanding their servant's role of "serving churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission is changing." It can't be long before the silly "doctrinal" policy change that arose out of a misconcepton of trustee "authority" will be overturned as well.

(4).

"We partner with Baptists and other Christians around the world in accordance with IMB guidelines."

Of course we do. That's why we better be doggone sure that we don't narrow those "guidelines." In 2005 we were going down the road of allowing certain idealogical trustee leaders to "backdoor" the Southern Baptist Convention into believing that the only GENUINE Christian is one who looks like this: (a). A Southern Baptist, baptized in Southern Baptist Church, and (b). one who renounces all belief in the possibility of the continuation of spiritual gifts,and (c). one who abstains from any belief in the "orality" of the gospel and always insists on using the 'written,' inerrant Word to share the gospel, and (d). believes that 'the church' is an institution established with 'officers,' who alone have the authority to dispense communion, baptize converts, etc . . . and, (e) any other "guideline" the IMB wishes to establish.

Kind of hard to cooperate with other "Christians" on the mission field who believe in those things when you can't even find but a handful of strident Southern Baptists in the United States who hold to such convictions. Maybe trustees are now seeing the danger of such narrow "guidelines."

(5).

"We took some positive steps to show greater trust in our Richmond staff as they work with missionary candidates and present them to the Board."

On a scale of 1 to 10 - this one is a 10.

Greater trust in Richmond staff in 2005 would have meant the "doctrinal" policies that exceeded the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message would have never passed. ALL OF THE RICHMOND STAFF OPPOSED TO THEM. The President, the Vice-Presidents, the Candidate Consultants, the Regional Leaders - all of IMB'S administrative staff were in unanimity that the policies were detrimental and harmful to the mission of the IMB.

So, maybe - just maybe, the conflict at the IMB over the past few years has made our IMB better. Trustees now know their place, and it is to be supportive of the people we hire to do Southern Baptist mission work and not to try to do the work ourselves.

Grace and Truth to You will be watching closely to see if the excellent progress made in Atlanta continues in the months to come.

In His Grace,


Wade

Farewell, Jerry Corbaley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find such (criticism) intolerable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Never Take for Granted the Freedom to Dissent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In His Grace,


Wade

The Free Flow of Information in Christian Ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________

April 25, 2008

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

Dear Wade:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,


Jerry Rankin

cc: Dr. John Floyd




__________________________________________________


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


May 7, 2008


Dear Jerry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

In His Grace,


Wade

The Hammer Has Fallen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE POLICIES?

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

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

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

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

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

PRIVATE PRAYER LANGUAGE

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

WHO IS BEING DISQUALIFIED?

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

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

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

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

... affirm the BF&M.

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

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

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

HOW DO I KNOW THESE THINGS TO BE TRUE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,



Rodney L. Hammer, Regional Leader


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

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

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Baptist Identity and Ad Hominem Variants

Malcolm Yarnell, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Southwestern Theological Seminary and the Editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology is one of the proponents of the new Baptist Identity initiative within the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Yarnell was asked to write a guest article on a Baptist Identity blog where he gave seven doctrines of baptism which "speak much to Baptist Identity."

David Rogers, missionary for the International Mission Board and son of the late Adrian Rogers, wrote the first comment in response to Dr. Yarnell's article, articulating his personal disagreements with doctrines 4, 5 and 7. David then asked Malcolm Yarnell several questions including the following:

If I am unable to unequivocably embrace your 4th, 5th and 7th major points . . . does that mean that I am not truly a Baptist?

I chuckled when I read David's question. When a blue-blood Southern Baptist like David feels compelled to ask such a question, then the Baptist Identity initiative is definitely a fringe movement. Before Malcolm could respond to David Rogers' questions, I followed up with on of my own regarding the 4th doctrine of Baptist Identity which Dr. Yarnell defined as follows:

Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.

Dr. Yarnell called this doctrine, and the other six Baptist Identity doctrines he posits, 'bedrock convictions,' and he wrote that "cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised." Dr. Yarnell and Mr. Lumpkin (the owner of the blog), both believe that cooperation should end with anybody who disagrees with them on these so called 'bedrock convictions.' Though shocked at such extremism, I politely wrote the following in response to such thinking:

Believing David Rogers' questions to be very pertinent, I do not wish to distract from the time required to answer them. However, if I might add a couple of simple questions to his.

You wrote: "Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership."

My questions: Into which local church was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized? Into which local church were the 3,000 at Pentecost baptized - having come to Jerusalem from all over the known world?

And, if you are unable to identify the local churches, is it possible that our early Baptist fathers were correct that baptism does not admit anyone into the local church? One such early Baptist wrote:

Baptism does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it. John Gill

In light of your statements here, that the principles you put forth, including 'baptism involves local church membership,' are 'bedrock fundamentals' of Baptist Identity, will you at least admit that one of the principles you call bedrock is a departure from historic Baptist belief, and that if this is the case, then the new Baptist Identity movement, which is making tertiary issues 'bedrock fundamentals' is a movement that will ultimately separate, isolate, and disintegrate all cooperation - even among Baptists?

Just wondering.

Malcolm Yarnell responded to my question with the following words:

Thank you so kindly for your enquiry, but because of recent history with regard to Southwestern Seminary and the International Mission Board, you probably understand if I choose not to interact with your queries regarding the membership of the first church of Jerusalem, or the use of a peculiar High Calvinist to construct Baptist ecclesiology or missiology . . .

Huh?

I called Malcolm and left a message for him to call me on my cell regarding his response. He did not call me back. Malcolm's use of ad hominem variants, is precisely what happened at Southwestern Seminary and the International Mission Board. In other words, he illustrates the attitude of past trustee leadership at the IMB and current administration of SWBTS.

Let me illustrate:

When Dr. Klouda was removed from her position I made a trip to Fort Worth to privately speak to the administrators involved, including Dr. Patterson himself. I waited for three hours but was told he was unavailable to speak with me because of previous engagements. I left my cell phone number and forwarded a list of questions that I had regarding her removal. I emailed again, requesting a response to my questions. Nobody from SWBTS ever called me. Nobody from SWBTS answered my questions regarding Dr. Klouda's removal. Days later I published my post on Dr. Klouda. Rather than answer questions, those in charge at SWBTS have resorted to the ad hominem (attack the person) approach.

The same thing happened on the International Mission Board. When the new policies were proposed, I asked several questions, behind closed doors, and requested answers. Why are these policies needed? What precipitated the process to change the policies? Is there anecdotal field evidence that these policies are needed? How does our IMB administration feel about the policies? Nobody in trustee leadership would, or could, answer my questions. But several brought all kinds of personal attacks against me. It was only after six months of repeated refusals to answer my questions as a trustee that I posted Crusading Conservatives versus Cooperating Conservatives.

Dr. Yarnell seems to imply that the fault for problems at SWBTS and the IMB is me. I respectfully disagree. The fault for problems at both institutions lies at the feet of those in leadership who are either unwilling or incapable of answering legitimate, honest questions by fellow Southern Baptists and resort to ad hominem attacks to discredit or marginalize those who question them.

If proponents in the new Baptist Identity initiative of the Southern Baptist Convention wish to convince others that their beliefs are 'bedrock convictions' that should define cooperation among Baptists, then it would serve their purposes better to answer questions rather than attack the questioner.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Pulling Back the Curtain on SBC Power Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In His Grace,


Wade