Last February a Southern Baptist by the name of Scott Bridwell, a man whom I have never met, asked if he could see the minutes of the January 11, 2006 International Mission Board meeting held in Richmond, Virginia. It was at this very meeting that trustees recommended to the Southern Baptist Convention my removal as a trustee of the IMB. Minutes of IMB meetings are only distributed by hard copy, and only after the Board has approved them at the following Board meeting.
Two weeks ago in Tampa, Florida, the Board approved the January minutes while in Executive Session. Scott Bridwell once again asked that a copy of the January minutes be mailed to him. He received the minutes earlier this week and Scott has posted the entire 28 pages of official minutes on his blog.
There have been some who have alleged that the January motion to remove did not include the words gossip and slander, but you will find those very words in the recommendation on page 27 of the minutes. Others have declared the motion to remove was for some other reason than my blog. Any rational, honest person who reads the minutes will see the issue has always been the "content" of my blog.
The reading into the official record the motion to remove me from the International Mission Board was done during the final public session of the January IMB meeting. As you will read below, the request to place my response into the public record, alongside the very public allegations of gossip and slander, was denied. I trust that if the Lord tarries, any future historian will read the minutes and, Lord willing, take a look at my blog for my vigorous and persistent denial of any gossip and slander, and an even more passionate request to be shown the basis for the charges.
Frankly, I am quite comfortable letting the Southern Baptist Convention decide the merits of that which I have written. However, I gladly follow the desires of the Board in this matter and support their desire to handle matters "internally" to work through "issues of trustee accountability." I welcome such accountability and will seek it diligently for all trustees. We are bound by policy and my desire from the beginning has been to abide by all policies of the IMB, and likewise, insure that all other trustees do so as well.
The motion to remove passed in a closed-door Executive Session during the afternoon of January 10th. Eighteen hours later the motion to remove was read into the record during the final public session, but only after repeated and unsuccessful attempts by individual trustees to get me to resign. The section in the approved IMB January minutes regarding the motion to remove reads as follows (page 27):
____________________________
The chairman read into the record action taken at the Executive Session on Tuesday afternoon, January 10. Motion made by Jerry Corbaley and seconded.
I move that the trustees request the Southern Baptist Convention remove Wade Burleson from the International Mission Board as soon as possible;
That the trustees reprimend him for gossip and slander that hurts the work of the board;
That the chairman make public the nature of the reprimand in the manner of the chairman's choosing;
And that Mr. Burleson be removed from all trustee committees until such time as the Southern Baptist Convention rules.
Motion carried by a 2/3 majority vote.
(This action was rescinded without objection at the March 22, 2006 meeting.)
Request by Wade Burleson to read into the record his response was ruled out of order by the chairman.
Motion was made by Lonnie Wascom and seconded to move into Executive Session. Motion carried.
Following Exectuive Session the meeting adjourned with Chuck McAlister, trustee from Arkansas leading in prayer.
_____________________________
I express my public support of the unanimous decision by my fellow trustees to rescind the recommendation to remove me as a trustee of the IMB.
Since that Board action at Tampa rescinding the recommendation to remove me, I have been asked countless times by people why I am not being allowed to serve on any committees of the IMB if the motion to remove was rescinded unanimously.
I do not know the answer to that question. I am not criticizing the decision :) I just honestly do not know.
I am prepared to make public before the entire SBC all relevant and pertinent materials that go to the heart of my concern for the SBC and the IMB. The Executive Committee of the IMB, under the leadership of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, has requested that the matters be handled internally.
I continue to await the opportunity to address the Board to review the materials that serve as the basis for my concerns. If there is a continued attempt to keep me off committees, a refusal to allow me to address the Board, or any attempt to characterize the problem with me as something other than my blog, I will make appropriate decisions based upon what I believe is best for the SBC at large.
Until then, I will continue to serve at the pleasure of the Board and the Southern Baptist Convention.
I would like to point out that only 68 trustees of the 89 on the Board were present in the January meeting for the vote on the recommendation for my removal, and not all of the 68 even voted. In addition, not everyone who actually voted did so in the affirmative. One must be careful assuming how trustees voted. Further, even though it was my blog which caused the consternation, I am very grateful for my blog because it has enabled me to point to a consistency, from the beginning, of that which I have written. The following four articles are posted to help you understand the timeline of the resolution to the motion. I will be offering no further comment on the Board's action for my removal unless circumstances demand I do so.
Timeline:
January 11th - My account of the last Plenary Session in January: To My Friends, Family, and Church.
January 11th - The official statement to Baptist Press from the Chairman regarding the motion: Mission Board Seeks Removal of Trustee Burleson.
January 14th - Puzzlement expressed by me regarding the motion to remove:
Five Salient Points.
February 15th - The Executive Committee announces their intention to rescind the motion: IMB Chairman and Oklahoma Trustee Report Accountability Dialogue.
March 22nd - The Board adopts new policies to prohibit criticism of Board actions: Trustees at IMB Meeting Adopt New Policies Regarding Public Criticism.
I close by expressing my support for the IMB and the work of our missionaries world wide. I look forward to serving the convention for the next seven years, Lord willing, as an IMB trustee.
God bless Dr. Rankin. God bless our missionaries. God bless the SBC. God bless the IMB trustees.
And may God bless you.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
The Approved Minutes and the Actual Motion to Remove
Last February a Southern Baptist by the name of Scott Bridwell, a man whom I have never met, asked if he could see the minutes of the January 11, 2006 International Board Meeting in Richmond, Virginia, the very meeting where the Board recommended my removal as a trustee of the IMB. Minutes of IMB meetings are only distributed by hard copy, and only after the Board has approved them.
Two weeks ago in Tampa Bay the Board approved the January minutes while in Executive Session. Scott Bridwell once again asked for a copy of the January minutes to be mailed to him. He received them early this week and Scott has posted the minutes of the January IMB meeting on his blog.
There have been some who have alleged that the motion did not include gossip and slander, but the pertinent section regarding the motion for my removal is found on page 27. The reading into the official record of the motion to remove me from the Board was the last offical act in the final plenary session of the January meeting. As you will read below, my request to place a response into the official record in response to the allegation was denied at that same meeting. I trust that if the Lord tarries, any future historian will read the minutes and, Lord willing, take a look at my blog for my view point to this matter since it will not be in the minutes. The section with the offical, approved IMB minutes regarding the motion to remove (page 27) reads as follows
____________________________
The chairman read into the record action taken at the Executive Session on Tuesday afternoon, January 10. Motion made by Jerry Corbaley and seconded.
I move that the trustees request the Southern Baptist Convention remove Wade Burleson from the International Mission Board as soon as possible;
That the trustees reprimend him for gossip and slander that hurts the work of the board;
That the chairman make public the nature of the reprimand in the manner of the chairman's choosing;
And that Mr. Burleson be removed from all trustee committees until such time as the Southern Baptist Convention rules.
Motion carried by a 2/3 majority vote.
(This action was rescinded without objection at the March 22, 2006 meeting.)
Request by Wade Burleson to read into the record his response was ruled out of order by the chairman.
Motion was made by Lonnie Wascom and seconded to move into Executive Session. Motion carried.
Following Exectuive Session the meeting adjourned with Chuck McAlister, trustee from Arkansas leading in prayer.
_____________________________
I express my public support of the unanimous decision to rescind the recommendation to remove me from the IMB.
Since that Board action at Tampa Bay rescinding the recommendation, I have been asked countless times by people why I am not being allowed to serve on any committees of the IMB if the motion to remove was rescinded unanimously.
I do not know. I am not criticizing the decision :) I just honestly do not know.
I am prepared to make public before the entire SBC all relevant and pertinent materials that go to the heart of my concern for the SBC and the IMB. The Executive Committee of the IMB, under the leadership of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, has requested that the matters be handled internally.
I continue to await the opportunity to address the Board to review the materials that serve as the basis for my concerns.
Until then, I will continue to serve at the pleasure of the Board and the Southern Baptist Convention.
I would like to point out that only 68 trustees of the 89 on the Board were present in the January meeting when the recommendation for my removal was rescinded. Not all of those 68 voted for the recommendation. Even though it was my blog which caused all the consternation, I am grateful for my blog because it has enabled me to point to a consistency, from the beginning, of that which I have said. The following four articles are posted to help you understand the timeline of the motion. The following is for your information and I am offering no comment. I simply ask that you read them so that you can see where things stand now.
Timeline:
January 11th - My account of the last Plenary Session in January: To My Friends, Family, and Church.
January 11th - The official statement to Baptist Press from the Chairman regarding the motion: Mission Board Seeks Removal of Trustee Burleson.
January 14th - Puzzlement expressed by me regarding the motion to remove:
Five Salient Points.
February 15th - The Executive Committee announces their intention to rescind the motion: IMB Chairman and Oklahoma Trustee Report Accountability Dialogue.
March 22nd - The Board adopts new policies to prohibit criticism of Board actions: Trustees at IMB Meeting Adopt New Policies Regarding Public Criticism.
I close by expressing my support for the IMB and the work of our missionaries world wide. I look forward to serving the convention for the next seven and one half years, Lord willing, as an IMB trustee.
God bless Dr. Rankin. God bless our missionaries. God bless the SBC. God bless the IMB trustees.
And may God bless you.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Two weeks ago in Tampa Bay the Board approved the January minutes while in Executive Session. Scott Bridwell once again asked for a copy of the January minutes to be mailed to him. He received them early this week and Scott has posted the minutes of the January IMB meeting on his blog.
There have been some who have alleged that the motion did not include gossip and slander, but the pertinent section regarding the motion for my removal is found on page 27. The reading into the official record of the motion to remove me from the Board was the last offical act in the final plenary session of the January meeting. As you will read below, my request to place a response into the official record in response to the allegation was denied at that same meeting. I trust that if the Lord tarries, any future historian will read the minutes and, Lord willing, take a look at my blog for my view point to this matter since it will not be in the minutes. The section with the offical, approved IMB minutes regarding the motion to remove (page 27) reads as follows
____________________________
The chairman read into the record action taken at the Executive Session on Tuesday afternoon, January 10. Motion made by Jerry Corbaley and seconded.
I move that the trustees request the Southern Baptist Convention remove Wade Burleson from the International Mission Board as soon as possible;
That the trustees reprimend him for gossip and slander that hurts the work of the board;
That the chairman make public the nature of the reprimand in the manner of the chairman's choosing;
And that Mr. Burleson be removed from all trustee committees until such time as the Southern Baptist Convention rules.
Motion carried by a 2/3 majority vote.
(This action was rescinded without objection at the March 22, 2006 meeting.)
Request by Wade Burleson to read into the record his response was ruled out of order by the chairman.
Motion was made by Lonnie Wascom and seconded to move into Executive Session. Motion carried.
Following Exectuive Session the meeting adjourned with Chuck McAlister, trustee from Arkansas leading in prayer.
_____________________________
I express my public support of the unanimous decision to rescind the recommendation to remove me from the IMB.
Since that Board action at Tampa Bay rescinding the recommendation, I have been asked countless times by people why I am not being allowed to serve on any committees of the IMB if the motion to remove was rescinded unanimously.
I do not know. I am not criticizing the decision :) I just honestly do not know.
I am prepared to make public before the entire SBC all relevant and pertinent materials that go to the heart of my concern for the SBC and the IMB. The Executive Committee of the IMB, under the leadership of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, has requested that the matters be handled internally.
I continue to await the opportunity to address the Board to review the materials that serve as the basis for my concerns.
Until then, I will continue to serve at the pleasure of the Board and the Southern Baptist Convention.
I would like to point out that only 68 trustees of the 89 on the Board were present in the January meeting when the recommendation for my removal was rescinded. Not all of those 68 voted for the recommendation. Even though it was my blog which caused all the consternation, I am grateful for my blog because it has enabled me to point to a consistency, from the beginning, of that which I have said. The following four articles are posted to help you understand the timeline of the motion. The following is for your information and I am offering no comment. I simply ask that you read them so that you can see where things stand now.
Timeline:
January 11th - My account of the last Plenary Session in January: To My Friends, Family, and Church.
January 11th - The official statement to Baptist Press from the Chairman regarding the motion: Mission Board Seeks Removal of Trustee Burleson.
January 14th - Puzzlement expressed by me regarding the motion to remove:
Five Salient Points.
February 15th - The Executive Committee announces their intention to rescind the motion: IMB Chairman and Oklahoma Trustee Report Accountability Dialogue.
March 22nd - The Board adopts new policies to prohibit criticism of Board actions: Trustees at IMB Meeting Adopt New Policies Regarding Public Criticism.
I close by expressing my support for the IMB and the work of our missionaries world wide. I look forward to serving the convention for the next seven and one half years, Lord willing, as an IMB trustee.
God bless Dr. Rankin. God bless our missionaries. God bless the SBC. God bless the IMB trustees.
And may God bless you.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
It's Christ's Kingdom not a Denominational Fiefdom
Southern Baptists have so much for which to be thankful. We have resources. We have people. We have preachers who love the Word. We have missionaries who love souls. We have great thinkers. We have wonderful leaders. We have a great big God whom we serve.
That same God once said on earth, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness . . ." There are two challenges for us Southern Baptists in this statement of our Commander-In-Chief that we must NEVER forget.
(1). We are to seek the Kingdom of God . . .
In other words, our primary efforts are not the establishment of denominational churches. Our best energies are not reserved for denominational growth. Our gaze is to be locked on the establishment of His Kingdom. We are to bring people into His service. We are to exalt and proclaim His Sovereignty. We are to pray that peoples everywhere bow to the majesty of King Jesus. We are to seek God's kingdom on earth "as it is in heaven."
Anything that is not for the establishment of Christ's kingdom, which by the way, transcends denominational walls, is ultimately anti-kingdom. I love Southern Baptists. I am a Southern Baptist. My roots are in the Southern Baptist Convention. I am working toward, praying for, and seeking to lead us all to an understanding that the days of isolationism, an attitude that says "Unless you are one of us (Southern Baptist) you are not of us", and any spiritual arrogance that places the convention above the larger Kingdom of God must go!
Why? Because our God told us to seek His Kingdom and not the advancement of our denomination. However, I do happen to believe when we are more Kingdom minded than convention minded, the convention EXPLODES in growth. In other words, the very thing people say they want (Southern Baptist Convention growth) only happens when we focus on Kingdom growth. Convention growth is but a by product.
(2). We are to seek His Righteousness . . .
This righteousness is the gospel, pure and simple. It is the righteousness that comes from God and is found by faith in Jesus Christ.
Any morality, denominational distinctives (don't drink, don't smoke, don't chew or go with girls who do) may cause a person to confuse man's righteousness for God's righteousness. I recently ran a post regarding some Southern Baptists who had lost sight of the gospel of Jesus Christ and praised Adolph Hitler in 1934 at the Baptist World Alliance because he followed Baptist morals.
We must never lose sight that our objective is to seek other's to understand and comprehend the righteousness that comes from God and is given to those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. This gospel is considered "tasteless" (Gk. word is actually "moros" from which we get our English word moronic), but it is the power of salvation to everyone who believes.
The great, practical outcome of having a Kingdom mentality can be seen in the writings of one of our SBC missionaries who posted about the practical effects of working in foreign lands, in dark regions of the world, with a Kingdom mentality.
When we as a convention understand everything is about Christ's kingdom and not our denominational fiefdom, we will see true revival in the SBC.
In His Grace,
Wade
That same God once said on earth, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness . . ." There are two challenges for us Southern Baptists in this statement of our Commander-In-Chief that we must NEVER forget.
(1). We are to seek the Kingdom of God . . .
In other words, our primary efforts are not the establishment of denominational churches. Our best energies are not reserved for denominational growth. Our gaze is to be locked on the establishment of His Kingdom. We are to bring people into His service. We are to exalt and proclaim His Sovereignty. We are to pray that peoples everywhere bow to the majesty of King Jesus. We are to seek God's kingdom on earth "as it is in heaven."
Anything that is not for the establishment of Christ's kingdom, which by the way, transcends denominational walls, is ultimately anti-kingdom. I love Southern Baptists. I am a Southern Baptist. My roots are in the Southern Baptist Convention. I am working toward, praying for, and seeking to lead us all to an understanding that the days of isolationism, an attitude that says "Unless you are one of us (Southern Baptist) you are not of us", and any spiritual arrogance that places the convention above the larger Kingdom of God must go!
Why? Because our God told us to seek His Kingdom and not the advancement of our denomination. However, I do happen to believe when we are more Kingdom minded than convention minded, the convention EXPLODES in growth. In other words, the very thing people say they want (Southern Baptist Convention growth) only happens when we focus on Kingdom growth. Convention growth is but a by product.
(2). We are to seek His Righteousness . . .
This righteousness is the gospel, pure and simple. It is the righteousness that comes from God and is found by faith in Jesus Christ.
Any morality, denominational distinctives (don't drink, don't smoke, don't chew or go with girls who do) may cause a person to confuse man's righteousness for God's righteousness. I recently ran a post regarding some Southern Baptists who had lost sight of the gospel of Jesus Christ and praised Adolph Hitler in 1934 at the Baptist World Alliance because he followed Baptist morals.
We must never lose sight that our objective is to seek other's to understand and comprehend the righteousness that comes from God and is given to those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. This gospel is considered "tasteless" (Gk. word is actually "moros" from which we get our English word moronic), but it is the power of salvation to everyone who believes.
The great, practical outcome of having a Kingdom mentality can be seen in the writings of one of our SBC missionaries who posted about the practical effects of working in foreign lands, in dark regions of the world, with a Kingdom mentality.
When we as a convention understand everything is about Christ's kingdom and not our denominational fiefdom, we will see true revival in the SBC.
In His Grace,
Wade
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Grace and Truth
There are no physical descriptions of Christ in the gospels. Nobody knows what he looked like, and that iconic depiction of a long haired, blue eyed effiminate Jesus in the church of your youth is probably not even close to the resemblance of the God-man who was probably tougher than nails physically.
And yet, though we are unsure of his physical appearance, we have no such cloud of confusion about Jesus' spirit and disposition. The Bible says he was "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).
Word order is important in Scripture. It does not say he was full of "truth and grace," but rather "grace and truth." Grace preceedes truth. Jesus never backed down from the truth, and his speaking of the truth sometimes made people want to kill him, but he was ALWAYS gracious and merciful.
If someone objects and says, "But once he took a whip, how was that merciful and gracious?" The most merciful thing that you can do for God's people is sometimes show them that you will do whatever is necessary to correct a problem. But I would propose to you that what you saw in the eyes of Jesus on day he cleansed the Temple was determination, courage, resolution --- and grace.
Let me encourage all my Southern Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ to remember that truth without grace is often far worse than grace without truth.
Think about that. When Jesus gave a "new" commandment he said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" (John 13:34).
Let's ask questions. Let's all dialogue. Let's be persistent. Let's speak the truth. Let's never back down from the truth. Let's never forsake the truth. Let's stand upon the truth.
But above all, let's be gracious when we tell the truth. I wrote a post last December 10 that spoke the truth, but after a couple of weeks reflection, I felt the tone was not very gracious. I have apologized for the tone of the post, but have stood firmly, and unapologetically by the truth of that post. I have repeatedly stated, over and over again, I am a Southern Baptist who believes we have some of the greatest men and women of God within our convention.
Someone might say, "But if the little guy is being bullied, then the only thing we can do is strike back!" No, it is not. The gracious person does not need to strike back at all. He needs to endure his affliction, keep speaking the truth, and love everyone, including those who mistreat him.
That is so opposite of the world's pattern it confuses them.
And it is by this that people will know you and I are the disciples of Christ.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
And yet, though we are unsure of his physical appearance, we have no such cloud of confusion about Jesus' spirit and disposition. The Bible says he was "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).
Word order is important in Scripture. It does not say he was full of "truth and grace," but rather "grace and truth." Grace preceedes truth. Jesus never backed down from the truth, and his speaking of the truth sometimes made people want to kill him, but he was ALWAYS gracious and merciful.
If someone objects and says, "But once he took a whip, how was that merciful and gracious?" The most merciful thing that you can do for God's people is sometimes show them that you will do whatever is necessary to correct a problem. But I would propose to you that what you saw in the eyes of Jesus on day he cleansed the Temple was determination, courage, resolution --- and grace.
Let me encourage all my Southern Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ to remember that truth without grace is often far worse than grace without truth.
Think about that. When Jesus gave a "new" commandment he said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" (John 13:34).
Let's ask questions. Let's all dialogue. Let's be persistent. Let's speak the truth. Let's never back down from the truth. Let's never forsake the truth. Let's stand upon the truth.
But above all, let's be gracious when we tell the truth. I wrote a post last December 10 that spoke the truth, but after a couple of weeks reflection, I felt the tone was not very gracious. I have apologized for the tone of the post, but have stood firmly, and unapologetically by the truth of that post. I have repeatedly stated, over and over again, I am a Southern Baptist who believes we have some of the greatest men and women of God within our convention.
Someone might say, "But if the little guy is being bullied, then the only thing we can do is strike back!" No, it is not. The gracious person does not need to strike back at all. He needs to endure his affliction, keep speaking the truth, and love everyone, including those who mistreat him.
That is so opposite of the world's pattern it confuses them.
And it is by this that people will know you and I are the disciples of Christ.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Monday, April 03, 2006
A Couple of Words: Profound and (Prescient?)
In Tampa Bay I met a young Southern Baptist couple, Rick and Christie Garrett, who really impressed me with their love for our convention and missions. They have a blog of their own called a couple of words that I believe you will enjoy immensely.
Following is a recent post from Rick and Christie where they make some observations regarding the beginning of our Southern Baptist Convention and their thoughts about the SBC now.
("a couple of words" from Rick and Christie, Sunday, April 2, 2006).
Some time, shortly after the colonies began to settle the New World, Baptists began settling their own colonies and formulating their own churches. They were a fairly independent lot – partially due to their skepticism of the state churches they had pulled away from and partly as a result the persecution these fledgling congregations received at the hands of those same churches. However, "in May of 1814 their missionary conviction led to the formation of a national denominational body which they called the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States for Foreign Missions.” A lengthy title, yes, but it is interesting that the first national denomination formed – not as a means of codifying their doctrine, not as a means of affecting the political scene of the relatively new nation, not even to as a way to properly train their pastors and missionaries – but rather, the unified body formed for the sole purpose of taking the Gospel to foreign lands.
Interesting. If Baptists are seen here uniting around the need for foreign missionaries. What could possibly cause the divide that would ultimately produce the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention? Yes, it is International Missions again. Let me quote directly from Fletcher – all emphasis mine:
“Organized as abolitionists, people holding these convictions mounted an unrelenting campaign against the South’s “peculiar institution.” After several unsuccessful tries, their leaders in 1845 persuaded the mission boards of the national Baptist body to refuse to appoint a slaveholder as a missionary. This set the stage for the southern churches, defensive and feeling discredited in organizations they had helped create and nurture, to demand their own denominational structure. The Southern Baptist Convention was the result.”
Fascinating how familiar this sounds. Despite the fact that we all agree with the evils of slavery and the need for the abolition of the “peculiar institution,” the bottom line remains: at the heart of the formation of our convention was one group refusing to appoint missionaries from another group - a move so offensive, it led our founding fathers to sever ties with the then current mission board and form their own denominational entity.
My fear is that one day we will again read a similar passage in our history books. Do not be confused, the current issues facing our convention are not matters of doctrinal purity, biblical inerrancy, or conservative versus liberal thought patterns. The issues are simply one group of conservatives, narrowing the parameters of cooperation and refusing to work with other conservatives – despite areas of doctrinal agreement and unity – who do not wish to be confined by extra-biblical guidelines, policies and parameters. If we allow this to continue, the convention will once again be fractured – if not fragmented – the Gospel will be hindered, and a small group of church’s led by landmark pastors will be left to shoulder the full weight of the convention. I pray we will see a conclusion to these matters before it comes to this. I believe it is time we all take a step back and revisit the history of our great convention in hopes of finding a perspective that advances the gospel, unifies the brethren, and allows Baptists to dissent without the fear of rejection and retaliation from the controlling majority.
A couple of words well said Rick and Christie.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Following is a recent post from Rick and Christie where they make some observations regarding the beginning of our Southern Baptist Convention and their thoughts about the SBC now.
Some time, shortly after the colonies began to settle the New World, Baptists began settling their own colonies and formulating their own churches. They were a fairly independent lot – partially due to their skepticism of the state churches they had pulled away from and partly as a result the persecution these fledgling congregations received at the hands of those same churches. However, "in May of 1814 their missionary conviction led to the formation of a national denominational body which they called the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States for Foreign Missions.” A lengthy title, yes, but it is interesting that the first national denomination formed – not as a means of codifying their doctrine, not as a means of affecting the political scene of the relatively new nation, not even to as a way to properly train their pastors and missionaries – but rather, the unified body formed for the sole purpose of taking the Gospel to foreign lands.
Interesting. If Baptists are seen here uniting around the need for foreign missionaries. What could possibly cause the divide that would ultimately produce the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention? Yes, it is International Missions again. Let me quote directly from Fletcher – all emphasis mine:
“Organized as abolitionists, people holding these convictions mounted an unrelenting campaign against the South’s “peculiar institution.” After several unsuccessful tries, their leaders in 1845 persuaded the mission boards of the national Baptist body to refuse to appoint a slaveholder as a missionary. This set the stage for the southern churches, defensive and feeling discredited in organizations they had helped create and nurture, to demand their own denominational structure. The Southern Baptist Convention was the result.”
Fascinating how familiar this sounds. Despite the fact that we all agree with the evils of slavery and the need for the abolition of the “peculiar institution,” the bottom line remains: at the heart of the formation of our convention was one group refusing to appoint missionaries from another group - a move so offensive, it led our founding fathers to sever ties with the then current mission board and form their own denominational entity.
My fear is that one day we will again read a similar passage in our history books. Do not be confused, the current issues facing our convention are not matters of doctrinal purity, biblical inerrancy, or conservative versus liberal thought patterns. The issues are simply one group of conservatives, narrowing the parameters of cooperation and refusing to work with other conservatives – despite areas of doctrinal agreement and unity – who do not wish to be confined by extra-biblical guidelines, policies and parameters. If we allow this to continue, the convention will once again be fractured – if not fragmented – the Gospel will be hindered, and a small group of church’s led by landmark pastors will be left to shoulder the full weight of the convention. I pray we will see a conclusion to these matters before it comes to this. I believe it is time we all take a step back and revisit the history of our great convention in hopes of finding a perspective that advances the gospel, unifies the brethren, and allows Baptists to dissent without the fear of rejection and retaliation from the controlling majority.
A couple of words well said Rick and Christie.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Zeroing In
The following is trustee Jerry Corbaley's response to Southern Baptist missionary Ron West. Following Jerry's post is an outstanding response from Ron. Please notice the Ron's last paragraph. (emphasis my own). It hits the bull's eye.
(Trustee Jerry Corbaley's Response To Missionary Ron West)
Hello Ron,
Thanks for taking the time to write. I am only posting your comment because it is important to address the issues you raise. It would be a mistake for others to conclude that I will post comments that address IMB trustees and/or staff by name. I think you are mistaken in your assessment of me. If you are unsatisfied with my response, then you need to take action. These words are written gently and concisely, they can be read that way. I hope they will not be taken as combative, but that is always a risk. Blogging is invigorating, isn’t it?
I agree with Dr. Rankin that anyone who would spread rumors and innuendos about doctrinal problems on the international mission field without identifying and verifying facts is being disrespectful to the missionaries. I also think that it would be gossip, and if delivered as an accusation, would be slander.
My public assertion during the plenary session was in regard to a statement by Dr. Rankin that there were no doctrinal problems on the mission field. I think that is a misstatement. I thought it could be misused and misunderstood by Southern Baptists at large and that Dr. Rankin might want to take the opportunity to clarify what he meant.
I also think individual problems on the field, whether doctrinal or moral, are delegated to the staff to resolve, and should the need arise, to the trustees. I do not think the occasional involvement of trustees is “interference”. It is ultimately their responsibility.
All SBC deliberative bodies attempt reconciliation in the smallest venue possible. This is in direct harmony with the Biblical admonitions regarding discretion and the principles of Matthew 18:15-17. There is no way I will be a part of declaring anyone’s sin on an international scale unless their sin is international in scope.
I assume you did not have access to the full text of what was said during the plenary session. I suggest that those who were there are in a better position to discern what happened and make decisions accordingly. The blogging community needs to come to grips with this. Partial information is not the whole truth. I think your conclusion regarding my character is an example of this.
I am very impressed with the moral and doctrinal integrity and faithfulness of the IMB missionaries. The selection and orientation process that they submit to is more effective than any pastoral search committee. The 5,000 plus missionaries of the IMB are as numerous, or larger, than any state or regional convention in the SBC. The rate of moral and doctrinal failure is lower, by far, than the paid pastoral staff of any state or regional convention in the SBC. The IMB is factually healthy.
A casual reading of the Bible reveals that every book, except Ruth and Song of Solomon, contains a record of people in conflict with one another over doctrine: What did God say, who believes it, who is doing what God says, and who is not. There are scores of direct New Testament statements and warnings regarding people who claim to be faithful but are not. It is naïve to conclude that doctrine will ever cease to be an issue. It is one thing to claim to be an inerrantist, it is another to actually allow the inerrant word to shape your perception.
Do our missionaries meet other Christians on the field? Are some of these Christians members of denominations that do not particularly care about the BFandM? Do these Christians have no influence whatsoever on the work?
Do our missionaries see people come to Christ? Do our missionaries help start and then minister to churches? Are people overseas somehow immune to unbelief and doctrinal error, or supernaturally above the faithfulness of disciples in America and the first century? This is the context. Can I honestly say there are no doctrinal problems on the field? I thought it was a misstatement. I still do.
Think for a moment about gossip and slander. Do you have a working definition based on the words of God? Is ministry just talking about what our opinions are regarding doctrine, or does faithfulness require action? Is the blogging phenomenon particularly subject to the sins of gossip and slander? Do we care? If one does not own a personal conviction about what God means when he talks about these sins, then one does not know God's point of view. If one does not know God's point of view, then whose opinion is one following? Do you have a better Biblically based definition than mine? Please share it with me. I am ready to improve.
The issue is even larger than a personal faith in what God means by gossip and slander. Who decides if someone is a gossip or a slanderer? Certainly God will at the last day. But who decides today? Is it not the business of the Christians who are witness to the behavior? Are they not obligated to decide? Is it not those who are part of a particular body that are serving together toward the common ministry objective? Whatever Christians I choose to work with are the Christians to whom I am accountable. Their expressed opinion matters. How dare I put myself above my peers?
Gossip and slander are spiritual concepts. So are integrity, respect, patience, love and cooperation. They cannot be measured by the pound or gallon. They are measured by the consensus of the Christians we work with. We need each other. Should any of the groups of Christians that I work with decide that I am sinning, I will take it very seriously indeed.
The IMB Trustees have adopted procedures for mutual accountability. I am subject to them. I will cooperate with them. I will take it to heart.
Obviously, I am not writing to Ron alone. I am willing to walk in the light. Disagree with me if you like. I would prefer to be challenged with better interpretations of Scripture and/or ideas to improve myself and the IMB.
(Missionary Ron West's Response To Trustee Jerry Corbaley)
Jerry,
I am satisfied to stick with your definition of gossip and slander until a better one comes along.
I think what we may have is a communication problem. It seems to me what Jerry Rankin was trying to say, and has said in the past, was that there are no problems on the field that we do not handle or that these problems come up often. In other words, it would be a problem if there were theological aberrations among our missionaries and they were ignored or accepted by other missionaries and our staff and trustees. Neither he nor anyone else said no individual missionary every has a theological question raised about something they have said or done. It will happen rarely but it does happen.
I deeply appreciate your paragraph where you begin by saying that you are very impressed by the doctrinal integrity of our IMB missionaries and end by saying that we are factually healthy. That gives me hope that we can communicate. Why can’t that be said by the trustees to Southern Baptists at large and repeated often. If this is true, why are we constantly hearing statements by trustees about doctrinal problems on the field. You would think heresy was everywhere.
You said the following in response to my note. “My public assertion during the plenary session was in regard to a statement by Dr. Rankin that there were no doctrinal problems on the mission field. I think that is a misstatement. I thought it could be misused and misunderstood by Southern Baptists at large and that Dr. Rankin might want to take the opportunity to clarify what he meant.” In BP your statement was that there are doctrinal problems on the field and that the trustees are handling several of them now and that they haven’t been recognized by staff. I think without clarification that could be misused and misunderstood by Southern Baptist at large. Why is it so important to you that we keep saying to Southern Baptists at large that there are theological problems with our missionaries? It doesn’t agree with your statement that we are factually healthy. You need to answer the questions I asked earlier in order to have some perception of what you are implying. What types of doctrinal problems are we talking about? Are they major problems concerning fundamental theological issues in conflict with the BFandM? How many missionaries out of the 5,200 are involved? Thousands? Unless you give further clarification, there are some who will take your statements as proof that there are many missionaries, maybe the majority, who are liberal in theology and teaching heresy all around the world and they will say that is what Jerry Corbaley is saying.
Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand what the following statement by you has to do with what we are talking about. “Do our missionaries meet other Christians on the field? Are some of these Christians members of denominations that do not particularly care about the BFandM? Do these Christians have no influence whatsoever on the work?” In California do you meet other Christians? Do some of these not care about the BFandM? Do they influence your work? What is that all about? Are we supposed to hide when other Christians walk by?
Ron
(Wade Burleson's closing thoughts on this matter).
New Directions is a IMB staff initiated and Board approved policy that reminds Southern Baptists to recognize God is at work through other Great Commission Churches and Great Commission missionary sending agencies.
It has been refreshing these last few years to see Southern Baptist missionaries work with other Great Commission Christians. Southern Baptists have exemplified a humble recognition under New Directions that the ekklessia Christ is building extends beyond the denominational walls of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The work of the Kingdom is too vast for Southern Baptists to be isolationists. I remind every pastor comfortable in his air conditioned office as he prepares for his sermon this Sunday that our missionaries who are in dark, dangerous regions of the world will enjoy fellowship with any believer who names the name of Christ. When a Southern Baptist missionary huddles in a basement under the cloak of darkness, sharing Christ with people in a neighborhood where confessing Christ as Lord means decapitation, all that Southern Baptist missionary is concerned about is "do the people with me love Jesus?"
I propose our missionaries might need to hide from the radical Muslim terrorists, but if we are insisting that they hide from a believer who professes the name of Jesus Christ on the mission field, just because he or she may not be Southern Baptist, then frankly, we need our heads examined (and our hearts).
I think Southern Baptist missionary Ron West is still owed answers to his penetrating questions.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
(Trustee Jerry Corbaley's Response To Missionary Ron West)
Hello Ron,
Thanks for taking the time to write. I am only posting your comment because it is important to address the issues you raise. It would be a mistake for others to conclude that I will post comments that address IMB trustees and/or staff by name. I think you are mistaken in your assessment of me. If you are unsatisfied with my response, then you need to take action. These words are written gently and concisely, they can be read that way. I hope they will not be taken as combative, but that is always a risk. Blogging is invigorating, isn’t it?
I agree with Dr. Rankin that anyone who would spread rumors and innuendos about doctrinal problems on the international mission field without identifying and verifying facts is being disrespectful to the missionaries. I also think that it would be gossip, and if delivered as an accusation, would be slander.
My public assertion during the plenary session was in regard to a statement by Dr. Rankin that there were no doctrinal problems on the mission field. I think that is a misstatement. I thought it could be misused and misunderstood by Southern Baptists at large and that Dr. Rankin might want to take the opportunity to clarify what he meant.
I also think individual problems on the field, whether doctrinal or moral, are delegated to the staff to resolve, and should the need arise, to the trustees. I do not think the occasional involvement of trustees is “interference”. It is ultimately their responsibility.
All SBC deliberative bodies attempt reconciliation in the smallest venue possible. This is in direct harmony with the Biblical admonitions regarding discretion and the principles of Matthew 18:15-17. There is no way I will be a part of declaring anyone’s sin on an international scale unless their sin is international in scope.
I assume you did not have access to the full text of what was said during the plenary session. I suggest that those who were there are in a better position to discern what happened and make decisions accordingly. The blogging community needs to come to grips with this. Partial information is not the whole truth. I think your conclusion regarding my character is an example of this.
I am very impressed with the moral and doctrinal integrity and faithfulness of the IMB missionaries. The selection and orientation process that they submit to is more effective than any pastoral search committee. The 5,000 plus missionaries of the IMB are as numerous, or larger, than any state or regional convention in the SBC. The rate of moral and doctrinal failure is lower, by far, than the paid pastoral staff of any state or regional convention in the SBC. The IMB is factually healthy.
A casual reading of the Bible reveals that every book, except Ruth and Song of Solomon, contains a record of people in conflict with one another over doctrine: What did God say, who believes it, who is doing what God says, and who is not. There are scores of direct New Testament statements and warnings regarding people who claim to be faithful but are not. It is naïve to conclude that doctrine will ever cease to be an issue. It is one thing to claim to be an inerrantist, it is another to actually allow the inerrant word to shape your perception.
Do our missionaries meet other Christians on the field? Are some of these Christians members of denominations that do not particularly care about the BFandM? Do these Christians have no influence whatsoever on the work?
Do our missionaries see people come to Christ? Do our missionaries help start and then minister to churches? Are people overseas somehow immune to unbelief and doctrinal error, or supernaturally above the faithfulness of disciples in America and the first century? This is the context. Can I honestly say there are no doctrinal problems on the field? I thought it was a misstatement. I still do.
Think for a moment about gossip and slander. Do you have a working definition based on the words of God? Is ministry just talking about what our opinions are regarding doctrine, or does faithfulness require action? Is the blogging phenomenon particularly subject to the sins of gossip and slander? Do we care? If one does not own a personal conviction about what God means when he talks about these sins, then one does not know God's point of view. If one does not know God's point of view, then whose opinion is one following? Do you have a better Biblically based definition than mine? Please share it with me. I am ready to improve.
The issue is even larger than a personal faith in what God means by gossip and slander. Who decides if someone is a gossip or a slanderer? Certainly God will at the last day. But who decides today? Is it not the business of the Christians who are witness to the behavior? Are they not obligated to decide? Is it not those who are part of a particular body that are serving together toward the common ministry objective? Whatever Christians I choose to work with are the Christians to whom I am accountable. Their expressed opinion matters. How dare I put myself above my peers?
Gossip and slander are spiritual concepts. So are integrity, respect, patience, love and cooperation. They cannot be measured by the pound or gallon. They are measured by the consensus of the Christians we work with. We need each other. Should any of the groups of Christians that I work with decide that I am sinning, I will take it very seriously indeed.
The IMB Trustees have adopted procedures for mutual accountability. I am subject to them. I will cooperate with them. I will take it to heart.
Obviously, I am not writing to Ron alone. I am willing to walk in the light. Disagree with me if you like. I would prefer to be challenged with better interpretations of Scripture and/or ideas to improve myself and the IMB.
(Missionary Ron West's Response To Trustee Jerry Corbaley)
Jerry,
I am satisfied to stick with your definition of gossip and slander until a better one comes along.
I think what we may have is a communication problem. It seems to me what Jerry Rankin was trying to say, and has said in the past, was that there are no problems on the field that we do not handle or that these problems come up often. In other words, it would be a problem if there were theological aberrations among our missionaries and they were ignored or accepted by other missionaries and our staff and trustees. Neither he nor anyone else said no individual missionary every has a theological question raised about something they have said or done. It will happen rarely but it does happen.
I deeply appreciate your paragraph where you begin by saying that you are very impressed by the doctrinal integrity of our IMB missionaries and end by saying that we are factually healthy. That gives me hope that we can communicate. Why can’t that be said by the trustees to Southern Baptists at large and repeated often. If this is true, why are we constantly hearing statements by trustees about doctrinal problems on the field. You would think heresy was everywhere.
You said the following in response to my note. “My public assertion during the plenary session was in regard to a statement by Dr. Rankin that there were no doctrinal problems on the mission field. I think that is a misstatement. I thought it could be misused and misunderstood by Southern Baptists at large and that Dr. Rankin might want to take the opportunity to clarify what he meant.” In BP your statement was that there are doctrinal problems on the field and that the trustees are handling several of them now and that they haven’t been recognized by staff. I think without clarification that could be misused and misunderstood by Southern Baptist at large. Why is it so important to you that we keep saying to Southern Baptists at large that there are theological problems with our missionaries? It doesn’t agree with your statement that we are factually healthy. You need to answer the questions I asked earlier in order to have some perception of what you are implying. What types of doctrinal problems are we talking about? Are they major problems concerning fundamental theological issues in conflict with the BFandM? How many missionaries out of the 5,200 are involved? Thousands? Unless you give further clarification, there are some who will take your statements as proof that there are many missionaries, maybe the majority, who are liberal in theology and teaching heresy all around the world and they will say that is what Jerry Corbaley is saying.
Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand what the following statement by you has to do with what we are talking about. “Do our missionaries meet other Christians on the field? Are some of these Christians members of denominations that do not particularly care about the BFandM? Do these Christians have no influence whatsoever on the work?” In California do you meet other Christians? Do some of these not care about the BFandM? Do they influence your work? What is that all about? Are we supposed to hide when other Christians walk by?
Ron
(Wade Burleson's closing thoughts on this matter).
New Directions is a IMB staff initiated and Board approved policy that reminds Southern Baptists to recognize God is at work through other Great Commission Churches and Great Commission missionary sending agencies.
It has been refreshing these last few years to see Southern Baptist missionaries work with other Great Commission Christians. Southern Baptists have exemplified a humble recognition under New Directions that the ekklessia Christ is building extends beyond the denominational walls of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The work of the Kingdom is too vast for Southern Baptists to be isolationists. I remind every pastor comfortable in his air conditioned office as he prepares for his sermon this Sunday that our missionaries who are in dark, dangerous regions of the world will enjoy fellowship with any believer who names the name of Christ. When a Southern Baptist missionary huddles in a basement under the cloak of darkness, sharing Christ with people in a neighborhood where confessing Christ as Lord means decapitation, all that Southern Baptist missionary is concerned about is "do the people with me love Jesus?"
I propose our missionaries might need to hide from the radical Muslim terrorists, but if we are insisting that they hide from a believer who professes the name of Jesus Christ on the mission field, just because he or she may not be Southern Baptist, then frankly, we need our heads examined (and our hearts).
I think Southern Baptist missionary Ron West is still owed answers to his penetrating questions.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Yes! Finally, the Dialogue that Is Needed in the SBC
The following is a comment posted on a Dr. Jerry Corbaley's bog. Jerry is a trustee with the IMB, and though he and I have had our disagreements over policies and other issues in the past, I do believe he has done more for opening the lines of communication than most.
The comment is written by a missionary named Ron West. I, too, want to commend Ron for his openness and transparency. Both men are dealing with issues that have been made very public by others, and this discussion is very appropriate in a public forum. It is important for you to understand that when Ron asks Jerry Corbaly about "gossip" and "slander" he is doing so in the context of Jerry giving definitions of those two words on his blog site. Jerry defines gossip as "any communication that unjustly damages the reputation of another." He defines slander as "any accusation that unjustly damages the reputation of another with inaccurate information."
I am waiting for Jerry's response to several of Ron's questions. Below is the public comment from Ron West to trustee Jerry Corbaley. This kind of good, open, frank communication is healthy for our convention.
We should welcome and embrace it rather than squelch it.
Jerry,
Jerry Rankin made the following statement as reported in BP, “It is disrespectful to missionaries –- those giving their lives and sacrifices and taking their families and laying their lives on the line -– that anyone, without identifying and verifying facts, would spread rumors and innuendoes about doctrinal issues on the field.”
This is your reply in BP, “Your statement there is no doctrinal problems on the field -– (that) if there were they would be recognized by staff –- seems to be in direct conflict with the fact we are dealing with several such instances now, Corbaley said. “Perhaps some clarification can help everyone.”
I would classify your statement by your definition as at least gossip and probably slander. You need to give some clarification. Jerry stated and any one knows that with 5,000 missionaries on the field there will be occasional doctrinal questions in regard to some. Are you willing to identify facts as Jerry asks? It would not be betraying a confidence as a trustee for you to answer the following questions to put things in perspective.
1. What are some of the doctrinal problems you refer to. Are their missionaries denying the diety of Christ, the virgin birth, saying the Bible is false? What level of problems do we have? Are these accusations or have they been proven. You also seem to imply that the staff is ignoring or hiding these problems. Give us some facts to back that up.
2. How many problems or missionaries are we talking about? Less than 5? Less than 10? Hundreds???
Your statement puts us all under suspicion unless you provide more details, therefore I believe it unjustly damages the reputation of all of us. Gossip?
I have been on the field for 27 years and heard on very few occasions of someone with a serious doctrinal conflict. They have always been handled by staff quickly with or with out board interference. I have personally never served along side a missionary with a serious doctrinal problem or one that would put him in conflict with the fundamental beliefs of Southern Baptist. I think you may be giving inaccurate information. Slander?
Ron West
The comment is written by a missionary named Ron West. I, too, want to commend Ron for his openness and transparency. Both men are dealing with issues that have been made very public by others, and this discussion is very appropriate in a public forum. It is important for you to understand that when Ron asks Jerry Corbaly about "gossip" and "slander" he is doing so in the context of Jerry giving definitions of those two words on his blog site. Jerry defines gossip as "any communication that unjustly damages the reputation of another." He defines slander as "any accusation that unjustly damages the reputation of another with inaccurate information."
I am waiting for Jerry's response to several of Ron's questions. Below is the public comment from Ron West to trustee Jerry Corbaley. This kind of good, open, frank communication is healthy for our convention.
We should welcome and embrace it rather than squelch it.
Jerry,
Jerry Rankin made the following statement as reported in BP, “It is disrespectful to missionaries –- those giving their lives and sacrifices and taking their families and laying their lives on the line -– that anyone, without identifying and verifying facts, would spread rumors and innuendoes about doctrinal issues on the field.”
This is your reply in BP, “Your statement there is no doctrinal problems on the field -– (that) if there were they would be recognized by staff –- seems to be in direct conflict with the fact we are dealing with several such instances now, Corbaley said. “Perhaps some clarification can help everyone.”
I would classify your statement by your definition as at least gossip and probably slander. You need to give some clarification. Jerry stated and any one knows that with 5,000 missionaries on the field there will be occasional doctrinal questions in regard to some. Are you willing to identify facts as Jerry asks? It would not be betraying a confidence as a trustee for you to answer the following questions to put things in perspective.
1. What are some of the doctrinal problems you refer to. Are their missionaries denying the diety of Christ, the virgin birth, saying the Bible is false? What level of problems do we have? Are these accusations or have they been proven. You also seem to imply that the staff is ignoring or hiding these problems. Give us some facts to back that up.
2. How many problems or missionaries are we talking about? Less than 5? Less than 10? Hundreds???
Your statement puts us all under suspicion unless you provide more details, therefore I believe it unjustly damages the reputation of all of us. Gossip?
I have been on the field for 27 years and heard on very few occasions of someone with a serious doctrinal conflict. They have always been handled by staff quickly with or with out board interference. I have personally never served along side a missionary with a serious doctrinal problem or one that would put him in conflict with the fundamental beliefs of Southern Baptist. I think you may be giving inaccurate information. Slander?
Ron West
Ask and You Shall Recieve
Keep asking "Just exactly what are the doctrinal problems are on the field?"
Keep asking "Just exactly who is it that is saying there are doctrinal problems on the field?"
Keep asking "Are these alleged doctrinal errors addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?"
Keep asking "Is it necessary to narrow the doctrinal boundaries beyond the statement of faith our entire convention approved in 2000?"
Keep asking "Are there any missionaries up for termination for doctrinal reasons who are following Board approved policies, including New Directions, and who hold to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?"
These are very good questions we all need to ask. We may, or may not, be surprised at the answers.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
This post contains no criticism of any Board approved action. These questions are asked in anticipation of future Board actions, and I take seriously my responsibility to debate the issues before they are raised.
Keep asking "Just exactly who is it that is saying there are doctrinal problems on the field?"
Keep asking "Are these alleged doctrinal errors addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?"
Keep asking "Is it necessary to narrow the doctrinal boundaries beyond the statement of faith our entire convention approved in 2000?"
Keep asking "Are there any missionaries up for termination for doctrinal reasons who are following Board approved policies, including New Directions, and who hold to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?"
These are very good questions we all need to ask. We may, or may not, be surprised at the answers.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
This post contains no criticism of any Board approved action. These questions are asked in anticipation of future Board actions, and I take seriously my responsibility to debate the issues before they are raised.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Doctrinal Problems on the Mission Field? No, Just Missionaries Who Think for Themselves
A missionary sent to me a letter written last week by President Rankin to missionary personnel around the world. It is a good letter, widely distributed, praising both the IMB trustees and the missionaries. Dr. Rankin informs the missionaries of events in the public plenary session of Tampa Bay's IMB meeting. In the letter Dr. Rankin continues to exhibit strong leadership and respect for his board.
However, there is one statement in the letter that troubles me. It is disconcerting to me not because Dr. Rankin wrote it, but because he felt the need to have to say it. I will post the pertinent paragraph with the troubling statement highlighted.
..."Some of you have expressed disagreement with these new policies. As I shared in a chapel message with staff, we each are under a Biblical mandate to respect and submit to those in authority. We serve under the authority of trustees, who are accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole. Our trustees are Godly men and women who serve conscientiously and have a heart for missions. I would encourage you to be sensitive as you express your concerns in public forums. Some have interpreted the dissent expressed by IMB personnel as evidence that we do, indeed, have doctrinal problems among our personnel. Several of you have asked how you can express your concerns and I have suggested that you might consider sharing your thoughts with leadership, writing your regional committee and praying for those who have the responsibility to set policy."
I do not know to whom Dr. Rankin refers when he identifies unnamed people that seem to believe there are doctrinal problems on the mission field. I have my opinion who they are, but that is beside the point. However, what is troubling is the REASON these unnamed leaders believe there are doctrinal problems on the field --- the public expression of dissent by IMB personnel. I remind everyone that these public expressions of dissent by missionaries are over doctrines that are not addressed in Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
Everyone better be very, very careful who we begin identifying as a "liberal" or a "heretic." And we better be extra careful that we don't dismiss personnel who abide by board approved policy and the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000. I and others are watching closely.
Southern Baptists will not tolerate fictional doctrinal problems just because cetain missionaries express disagreement with vaious interpretations of Scripture that are not addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message --- especially if those missionaries are abiding by Board approved policies including New Directions.
However, there is one statement in the letter that troubles me. It is disconcerting to me not because Dr. Rankin wrote it, but because he felt the need to have to say it. I will post the pertinent paragraph with the troubling statement highlighted.
..."Some of you have expressed disagreement with these new policies. As I shared in a chapel message with staff, we each are under a Biblical mandate to respect and submit to those in authority. We serve under the authority of trustees, who are accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole. Our trustees are Godly men and women who serve conscientiously and have a heart for missions. I would encourage you to be sensitive as you express your concerns in public forums. Some have interpreted the dissent expressed by IMB personnel as evidence that we do, indeed, have doctrinal problems among our personnel. Several of you have asked how you can express your concerns and I have suggested that you might consider sharing your thoughts with leadership, writing your regional committee and praying for those who have the responsibility to set policy."
I do not know to whom Dr. Rankin refers when he identifies unnamed people that seem to believe there are doctrinal problems on the mission field. I have my opinion who they are, but that is beside the point. However, what is troubling is the REASON these unnamed leaders believe there are doctrinal problems on the field --- the public expression of dissent by IMB personnel. I remind everyone that these public expressions of dissent by missionaries are over doctrines that are not addressed in Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
Everyone better be very, very careful who we begin identifying as a "liberal" or a "heretic." And we better be extra careful that we don't dismiss personnel who abide by board approved policy and the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000. I and others are watching closely.
Southern Baptists will not tolerate fictional doctrinal problems just because cetain missionaries express disagreement with vaious interpretations of Scripture that are not addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message --- especially if those missionaries are abiding by Board approved policies including New Directions.
Oklahoman Hershel Hobbs on Baptist Liberty
Yesterday I received an email from Pastor Chris Keathly, a doctoral student at Southern, and a lifelong Southern Baptist. Chris relates an incident where he and a fellow pastor were discussing some issues related to the SBC. Remembering a book he had been given years earlier that seemed to address some of the concerns they discussed, Chris went to his library and pulled from his shelves a commentary written by Dr. Hershel Hobbs, longtime pastor of FBC Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and former President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Chris related to me what happened next:
As I reread the commentary I was given as a young man by Hershel Hobbs, I was encouraged that I had been taught correctly who we were as Southern Baptists. Hobbs stated that "in reality Baptist are the most broad-minded of all people in religion. They grant to every man the right that he shall be free to believe as he wants. But they insist upon the same right for themselves. The moment that a Baptist seeks to coerce another person - even another Baptist - in matters of religion, he violates the basic belief of Baptists." He continues to state that "in all likelihood the only thing that would divide Southern Baptists with regard to their faith would be for one group- to the right or left of center or even in the center- to attempt to force upon others a creedal faith. So long as they hold to the competency of the soul in religion they will remain as one body in the faith."
The Baptist Messenger in Oklahoma once ran a four page articles on the different soteriological views of salvation among Southern Baptists. I presented one view, Dr. Hobbs presented another. Before Dr. Hobbs died, I interviewed him for four hours in the Executive Board room of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma headquarters for an article I was writing. Dr. Hobbs and I did not see eye to eye on all things, but I respected this man immensely. He represented to me what a Baptist should be in deportment and spirit.
I think the words of this late SBC pastor, provided for me by a young SBC pastor, are well worth our convention's serious consideration in 2006.
As I reread the commentary I was given as a young man by Hershel Hobbs, I was encouraged that I had been taught correctly who we were as Southern Baptists. Hobbs stated that "in reality Baptist are the most broad-minded of all people in religion. They grant to every man the right that he shall be free to believe as he wants. But they insist upon the same right for themselves. The moment that a Baptist seeks to coerce another person - even another Baptist - in matters of religion, he violates the basic belief of Baptists." He continues to state that "in all likelihood the only thing that would divide Southern Baptists with regard to their faith would be for one group- to the right or left of center or even in the center- to attempt to force upon others a creedal faith. So long as they hold to the competency of the soul in religion they will remain as one body in the faith."
The Baptist Messenger in Oklahoma once ran a four page articles on the different soteriological views of salvation among Southern Baptists. I presented one view, Dr. Hobbs presented another. Before Dr. Hobbs died, I interviewed him for four hours in the Executive Board room of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma headquarters for an article I was writing. Dr. Hobbs and I did not see eye to eye on all things, but I respected this man immensely. He represented to me what a Baptist should be in deportment and spirit.
I think the words of this late SBC pastor, provided for me by a young SBC pastor, are well worth our convention's serious consideration in 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)