I'm Not In It To Win It: I'm In It To Resist It

_______________________

There is growing up in society a Pharisaic system which adds to the commands of God the precepts of men; to that system I will not yield for an hour. The preservation of my liberty may bring upon me the upbraidings of many good men, and the sneers of the self-righteous; but I shall endure both with serenity so long as I feel clear in my conscience before God. C. H. Spurgeon

One of the Presidential candidates for 2008 recently declared at a New Hamphshire policital rally, "I'm in it to win it!" to the applause and cheers of supporters. I couldn't help but reflect on my involvement within the SBC this last year and a half when I heard that statement. There is nothing to win in the SBC, but there is a great deal to resist.

Spurgeon succinctly summed up nearly one hundred and fifty years ago what needs resisting by Southern Baptists today. It is not my desire to single out individuals for ridicule, but to put everyone on notice that unless the average Southern Baptist begins to take an active role in the governance of our convention, we are in real danger of being overrun by a Pharisaic system that adds to 'the commands of God the precepts of men.' Unless our freedoms in Christ as individual Christians and autonomous churches are closely safe-guarded, we will wake up one day and realize that SBC leadership is defining Baptist identity in highly specific terms which may include making Natural Family Planning mandatory for Southern Baptist women and barring those same ladies from any positions of authority over a man in society.

Sound far fetched? It's not. We must draw a line in the sand today against those who are demanding conformity among Southern Baptists on issues of ecclesiology (i.e. "baptism must identify you with the doctrine of eternal security," "you must be congregationally governed," etc . . . ), soteriology ("you can't be a Calvinist" or "you must not be a five-point Calvinist"), pneumatology ("you must believe that the gifts have ceased"), and eschatology "you must be a dispenationalist" ). All these doctrines stretch far beyond the fundamentals of the faith, and Southern Baptists have historically displayed a broad diversity regarding these secondary and tertiary issues. We must not let others lull us into the trap of believing that all Southern Baptists must look the same, act the same and believe the same. It is this narrowing of the doctrinal parameters and the tightening of the definition of what it means to be a Southern Baptist that must be resisted right now. If we don't resist conformity on these issues, demands for conformity will reach deeper and deeper until all women will wear hats, no pants, stay at home and make babies the natural way, and avoid any role of authority over a man. It is pure Fundamentalism, and the Southern Baptist Convention has never been a Fundamentalist convention.

I am in an active role to resist the advancement of Fundamentalism. It's happening. This is not about taking the SBC a more liberal direction. It is about preventing the SBC from becoming a Fundamentalist convention. For the sake of not wishing to offend my brothers I am leaving out the adjective 'spooky'.

Give me the gospel. Give me Christ. Give me the Bible. Give me my freedom. But don't demand I make your precepts part of my life. I won't seek to take them from you, nor will I marginalize or criticize you for following your traditions and extra-biblical convictions. You are free to hold them and obey them religiously. But I, and others, will resist your demand that all Southern Baptists obey them.

And in the end, the resistance will win.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Someone Needs to Jump Off the Merry Go Round

It seems that one of my fellow IMB trustees, Mr. Jerry Corbaley, has taken offense to the fact that while I have affirmed the report adopted at the last IMB meeting regarding my recommendation, I also pointed out that it was not an investigation into the merits of my recommendation. The report speaks to IMB policy, and it is quite accurate on all counts, but there was no 'investigation' conducted into the major concerns I had expressed in the recommendation itself. In fact, I was told that the report was not an investigation by an administrator at the IMB, a fact that led Mr. Corbaley to call that man an idiot on his blog before he realized it was Dr. Rankin. This unfortunate and intemperate use of language is often characteristic of the blog world, and I'm sure Mr. Corbaley regrets his decorum in the matter. I am hopeful that he will soon realize that we IMB trustees need to go on with our work in the area of missions, and reject all attempts to politicize our board meetings. If an investigation is needed, and it may or may not be determined at the SBC that one is, then an outside ad hoc committee will be created by the President of the Convention in consultation with the Executive Director of the SBC Executive Committee -- the very thing I asked at last year's convention. The IMB Board of Trustees should not waste their time in these matters, just as the IMB report affirmed. We need to put this matter behind us as a Board, let others deal with it as they see fit. Below is a comment I placed on Mr. Corbaley's blog which he refused to publish.


Saturday, February 10, 2007

Mr. Corbaley,

I believe that you are aware that my recommendation for an investigation into matters at the IMB called for an investigation committee formed by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. At the convention I did not oppose the Committee on Order of Business in recommending my recommendation be referred back to the trustees. The IMB trustees and administration chose to simply issue a report on policy and why they could not investigate matters raised by my recommendation.

I wholeheartedly agree with the IMB report addressing my recommendation. I would have voted to affirm the report had I been at the meeting, simply because I never thought, just as the report said, that it was within our purview to investigate matters of concern outside of our Board. There is no disagreement among anyone with whom I have spoken regarding the following:

(1). Nobody investigated to see if the head of another agency sought the removal of Dr. Rankin.

(2). Nobody investigated if the trustee nomination process was manipulated by sitting trustees to insure that only likeminded people were placed on the board.

(3). Nobody investigated as to why the policies were pushed contrary to administration’s desires.

(4). Nobody investigated the manipulation and coercion of an agenda contrary to the President’s by outside influences.

In fact, administration of the IMB asked me to remove the phrase "investigation committee" from my post - because there was not one. The person who asked me to do this you called an idiot, and I'm sure that you regret that now that Dr. Rankin has emailed and identified himself as the one who told me there was no investigation committee and asked that I remove that phrase from my blog.

That's what I mean when I say there was no investigation committee. You will find IMB attorney Matt Bristol agrees with this assessment as well. If I were you I would leave things alone and stop emailing other trustees seeking to create controversy or you will find yourself making even more mistakes than you did last year.

I, like you, believe that the trustees of the IMB should get on with the work of missions. The SBC and the Executive Committee will handle other matters, if they choose, just as I originally asked them at last year's SBC. If the Executive Committee of the SBC receives this report of the IMB and makes a decision not to investigate the concerns raised by my motion, so be it. However, one should stop saying the matters above were investigated because it becomes, as Dr. Rankin says, a matter of integrity.

Thanks for your service to the IMB. I look forward to seeing you in Memphis.

In His Grace,


Wade

Cruel Tenderness and Compassionate Severity

"Nothing is so cruel as the tenderness that consigns another to his sin. Nothing can be more compassionate than the severe rebuke that calls a brother back from the path of sin." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Carve Your Name On Hearts

"A good character is the best tombstone. Those who loved you and were helped by you will remember you when forget-me-nots have withered. Carve your name on hearts, not on marble." -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

When Brothers In Christ Won't Talk

Over a year ago when trustee leadership of the IMB went behind closed doors to make a recommendation that I be removed from the Board for 'gossip and slander,' I was stunned because nobody in leadership had given me the courtesy of a phone call, personal conversation, or even a short, 'Wade, I think you should know this is what I intend to do and why I intend to do it.' I was completely and absolutely blindsided. Of course, the recommendation was unanimously rescinded at the very next trustee meeting, but what still confuses me is why no brother in Christ ever approached me to talk with me about such drastic action. You would think brothers would do everything to communicate with brothers about any offense they may have.

The only analogy that seems appropriate to describe my experience in January of 2006 was that of 'being run over by a freight train.' I have made it no secret that I made a vow last winter that if I came across anyone in the SBC who had been mistreated, slandered, or abused by people in positions of power I would do everything I could to help the person who was 'run over by the proverbial freight train.' Dwight McKissic and I developed a friendship after I heard what happened to him because of a message he preached in chapel at SWBTS. There are a few who have tried to say that Dwight and I were friends before he preached the message, but both he and I know the truth, and those who say I put him up to preach that message to help missionary candidates who have a private prayer language are revealing their own lack of integrity by asserting as fact something Dwight and I both know is not true. However, I am now proud to call Dwight a friend.

One of these days I will tell people how I came to help Sheri Klouda, the former professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was purely accidental (I would call it providential), and my contact with her that eventually led her to share a heart-wrenching story that spurred me to action seems to me to be a direct intervention by the Holy Spirit. No other person was involved but Sheri and me. In fact, it took me a while to find her in Indiana. Once I heard her story, I knew that I must do something to help her. We currently have raised and forwarded nearly $5,000 to Dr. Klouda to assist her family as they make their way through some difficult financial problems due to the unexpected and unfunded relocation, the difficult hardship of not being able to sell her home in Texas, and the struggle of Sheri's husband not being able to work. I want to publicly thank all those who have contributed.

However, what baffles me about the Klouda situation is the absolute lack of willingness for anyone responsible to talk with me about my offense with the way Sheri, her husband , and her daughter have been treated. Prior to making the post public I emailed the full transcript to Dr. Paige Patterson's office and asked him to read it, correct any factual errors (if any), or dispute the document itself. I also called and left my private cell number. In addition, several weeks prior to publishing the post I went by Dr. Patterson's office to meet with him personally. He was unavailable, so I left my private cell phone number. I never heard from him. I have now called his office five times, three prior to the Klouda post, and two after the Klouda post, and he has yet to call me. I have called Dr. David Allen, Dean of Students, twice and asked him to call me. I have never heard from him. I was told by a friend of mine that a SWBTS trustee called him to get me to 'back off.' I immediately called this trustee to visit with him personally. He was not available so I left my number and I have yet to hear from him. I have called Dr. Van McClain's office twice and he has not returned my phone calls. Dr. McClain, Chairman of the SWBTS Board of Trustees did email me a response back to my request to see the minutes of the business meeting where Sheri was hired. He refused until after the April 2007 SWBTS Board Meeting, and only then 'conditioned upon any action taken by the trustees.' He had earlier told the Dallas Morning News that the vote to hire Klouda was not unanimous and that fact was the 'inaccuracy' in my post. I believe the record will show it was unanimous, but it is very frustrating to not be allowed to see the very document that will prove the veracity of my post. Frankly, the practice of freezing minutes ought to send a chill down every Southern Baptists spine. Of course, if the record shows I am wrong, I will apologize for the error, but I find it interesting that the vote total for hiring Dr. Klouda was an insignificant fact in the Klouda post -- yet it was the only fact in the Klouda postdisputed by the one man who said the post was inaccurate.

There are three SWBTS trustees who have visited with me about Dr. Klouda, but all three did not even know who Sheri was, or that she had been an employee of SWBTS. In addition, all three initiated contact with me after I had made repeated attempts to contact people responsible. These three trsutees told me they were not informed enough to answer any questions, but looked forward to getting appropriate information themselves, and simply called to get some information from me. Those who are able to resolve this situation in terms of knowledge and action are not talking.

My purpose for persistence in calling the men who are either responsible for the Klouda removal at SWBTS or have the answers for why she was denied the opportunity for tenure review and defense is to offer a solution to the problem. It seemed to me that a couple of very concrete and specific steps could be taken to resolve the situation with Sheri Klouda and her family that would give the Kloudas a sense that an injustice had been corrected, as well as an opportunity for the President of SWBTS to change the direction and policies of SWBTS so that his desires could be implemented without subverting the current trustee approved policies and procedures for faculty tenure.

However, I am now washing my hands of this matter. There will be no more calls or attempts at resolving this matter with administration or trustees. I can only chuckle when people say that the 'proper process' has been bypassed when it comes to the Klouda issue. The process only works when brothers in Christ are willing to talk. I will continue to help Sheri and her family. If I hear of another person who is being mistreated by any political 'machine' in the SBC, I will do what I can to help. If people ask, "Where were you five years ago?" or any other questions that pertain to why I have not helped people prior to 2006, my response is this: I had absolutely no undestanding of relevant issues prior to January 2006. Now I do.

Those who may disagree with me on the issues are my brothers. I am not even asking them to agree or even see things the way I do. Just talk. Just dialogue. Tell me where I am wrong. Show me where I don't have it right. I can learn, but I also don't give up on correcting a wrong until I have good answers and either see the error of my ways, or find a good solution to the problem. And by the way, good solutions give me confidence in leadership and I will do everything in my power to keep good leadership in charge of our institutions.

When SBC brothers refuse to talk to SBC brothers, then it could be that someone other than family might have to intervene to resolve the offense. If, or when, that happens the only people who should be blamed are those brothers who refused to talk.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Silent Majority

Allow me to introduce you to Charles. He is a long-time member of the scientific community and a Summa Cum Laude graduate of the University of Tennessee. He has a masters in the social sciences field and currently works as an environmental scientist. Charles understands what it means to be Southern Baptist. He and his wife have been members of a large SBC church but currently attend an evangelical fellowship of another denomination.

Charles is fifty four with two elementary school age children. Several years ago he found himself at odds with some separatist Baptists who were on the extreme right of Fundamentalism. Charles was acquainted with several people who had been run over and hurt by the actions of these separatist Baptists who were seeking to bring doctrinal purity to the kingdom. Charles wrote me a very personal email yesteday that spoke to my heart. It caused me to evaluate my own thoughts, motives and actions. Though I have never met Charles, he has confirmed for me the validity of the promise that I made to my wife eighteen months ago: 'The day I can't genuinely enjoy my service in the convention, or the day I no longer can laugh at myself and not take myself too seriously, or the day I can't smile and forgive those who ridicule and attack me, is the day I quit all involvement in the Southern Baptist Convention. Charles helped me undestand the significance of my promise. I publish his email with permission.

"I was drawn into a conflict with other Baptists for many of the same reasons that seem to motivate you concerning injustice among brothers and sisters in Christ. I have other reasons that are described by words such as bigotry, ignorance, and trying to to force one’s beliefs on other people. However, mostly, I have been outraged by the treatment of others---all people with whom they disagree.

I learned the hard way how confict can affect one's soul on a web site called “Alabama Live!” It was frequented by a couple of particularly pugnacious Separate Baptists. You know---real fundamentalists with a capital F. Well, they let me know right away that they were right about everything and that anyone who disagreed with them was something they called “apostate” and in league with Satan himself. When you get labeled as a member of Satan’s camp, the gloves come off and you get treated like the human garbage that you so obviously are to them.

I was informed quite sincerely that unsaved people are—and I quote exactly---“little more than worms.” I mentioned that they must be awful valuable worms because Jesus loved them enough to die for them. That didn’t phase them a bit. They made me so angry that the anger turned into clinical depression and a higher dose of medication. That is when I learned that you cannot fight against them directly. It is like talking to a fence post. The only way to fight them is to appeal to the people in the middle ground who have not gone over to the dark side of the force as it were.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that these encounters over the past few years have been changing me in a direction in which I do not want to go. You see. I very much believe in “love one another and love your neighbor as yourself.” A friend of mine who teaches at a theological retreat in Oregon warned me about this. He told me that he does not engage in open fights with Pharisees. The reason he says is this. The very act of starting to fight them lands one of your feet on the first step to becoming one yourself. This is because Pharisees operate by drawing a moralistic line of their own definition in the sand and declare “thou shalt not cross over it.” According to my friend, the very act of fighting them automatically causes a person to draw their own line in the sand and defend it to the death. In doing so, one inevitably wakes up one morning and finds that they have become one of them.

Well, I think my friend may be right. I have carried on my fight for several years now. In the process, I have slowly seen “mere disagreement” turning into a simmering internal rage that just sits there aglow within me most of the time---doing more damage to me than them. I sense my rage crystallizing into hatred. My response to their incessant nastiness is to dig in my heels and shoot back with both scripture and withering sarcasm. Of course, as noted earlier, that has no effect on the Pharisees themselves, but I think it does cause many in the middle to avoid going where the Pharisees are---perhaps people who would otherwise be tempted to go. However, it is taking a terrible toll on me, and that leads inevitably to another issue.

My Sunday school class is starting to study the life and theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As you may know, Bonhoeffer not only opposed Hitler openly in the name of our Lord but actually participated as a plotter in the famous attempt to kill him. I suppose one could argue that this was not a Christian position. However, one could also argue that the principle of love for one’s neighbor required it as an act to save the lives of millions, including brothers and sisters in Christ. You might put it something like, “Greater love hath no man than this, but that he lay Hitler’s life down for his brother.” I think even C.S. Lewis was so inclined. Still, I am not so sure because an honest reading of the Bible could just easily argue that we as Christians are supposed to be totally passive and simply fold to all evil like a sheep before its shearers---just as Jesus did. Perhaps the few people with the superhuman strength it would take to do that are the only real Christians in this world---and all of the rest of us are mere pretenders. However, if that extreme is not true and Bonhoeffer and Lewis are right, then we as Christians need to consider the arising of the UNTHINKABLE in this world and our appropriate response as Christians to it.

What do I mean? About 20 years ago, I ran across a wonderful theological essay on Romans 14. As you know, this chapter says that stronger brothers and sisters in Christ should be willing to put aside certain acceptable liberties rather than tempt a weaker brother into sinning by violating his own conscience with regard to partaking in those liberties. It is posited on the notion that the authority in the church will always rest in the hands of the stronger brothers in Christ, and they will always be there to help the weaker brothers along. Then the essayist asked the most marvelous question: What would happen if the weaker brothers were to take over the authority of the church and run it such that the stronger brothers were in subservience to their whims?

Carrying this a step further, as Christians, what would we do if an evil as pernicious as the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) were to successfully arise within the church of Jesus Christ, sustain itself, and grow to enormous national power---driven by an army of weaker brothers. To some that would sound preposterous. However, I am a serious student of history, and I am not so sure that this is impossible. In fact, I am not so sure that it is not already germinating.

If this nightmare were to be quite obviously coming true before our eyes (as was another nightmare in Bonhoeffer’s eyes), what would be the appropriate response of Christians like us who would know that it is wrong? Would we merely raise our voices in calm and loving dissent and be taken off as sheep to the death camps? Would it be acceptable to get rough with them verbally and physically to protect the babies from being tossed into the crematory ovens alive? Would assassination be an act of love for our brothers and sisters who were marching to their earthly doom, just as Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer rationalized when he plotted to kill Hitler? These are all hard questions that we need to be asking ourselves now. The German people comforted themselves with the notion that they were so civilized that such barbarity could never arise among them. It did. The church of Jesus Christ was so strong that it could stand up to the barbarity. History shows that the Catholic and protestant churches of Europe sat down in silence before it and actually became willing accomplices to the barbarity.

You say it cannot happen in your convention? You say it cannot happen in the church? Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.

Charles, thank you for your email.

In His Grace,

Wade

Believing Like Paul: Behaving Like Saul

Probably the most discouraging aspect of involvement in the blog world these past fourteen months has been the mean-spiritedness of those who disagree with what I and others write. Our convention thrives when diverse people dialogue and interact over differences, but it is difficult for me to understand how people who profess to follow after Christ can avoid the greatest commandment He has ever given and refuse to ‘love one another.’

Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd Jones (1899-1981), minister of Westminster Chapel in London for over twenty-five years, once wrote:

“Holiness and love must go together . . . To be holy does not just mean the mere avoidance of certain things, or even not thinking certain things; it means the ultimate attitude of the heart of man toward that holy, loving God , and secondly, our attitude towards our fellow men and women."

Recently I came across a Southern Baptist author who helped me work through some of my puzzlement over the tone and spirit of a few Southern Baptists in the blog world. Charles Knowles, Ph.D. is a Southern Baptist deacon from Missouri, and a retired science professor from the University of Missouri. He is the author of several scientific publications and one theological book. In his theological work, entitled "Let Her Be", Charles cautions that in some Southern Baptist circles,

“The Lordship of Jesus (is) treacherously truncated, and the biblical command to believers to walk in love is given short shrift.”

Dr. Charles Knowles points out that there is always the possiblity for problems in interpersonal relationships among Southern Baptists simply because of our diversity. However, he argues that there is . . .

“An enormous difference between a lifestyle in which mean-spirited interpersonal interactions are frequent, intentional, and believed to be right and a lifestyle in which they are infrequent, unintentional, and believed to be wrong.”

How can any Southern Baptist justify a persistent mean-spiritedness toward other Southern Baptists with whom they disagree? Charles Knowles suggests that there is a separation of personal holiness and the command to walk in love in interpersonal relationships in the minds of some. In other words, a flawed theology leads some Southern Baptists to believe that one can be holy yet not be loving toward those brothers who disagree doctrinally. Dr. Knowles explains it this way:

“One zealous expression of this flawed theology in Southern Baptist life is the proclivity of some individuals to fight believers whose convictions even appear to differ from theirs. Using vituperative language, attempts are made to assassinate the character of those whom they cannot control. Professing to be the paragon of right belief and the guardian of biblical authority while behaving toward others in ways that lack the validating quality of love raises the question of whether one has yet to come under the influence of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The wrong practice signifies a defect in one’s belief system. Claiming to think rightly about God and thinking rightly about God are not the same; in contrast to the former, the latter is characterized by right practice. Is it ‘Christian’ to profess to believe like Paul, the apostle, and to behave like Saul, the militant religious extremist?

Charles Kimball, in his book “When Religion Becomes Evil” writes:

“Whatever religious people may say about their love of God or the mandates of their religion (doctrine), when their behavior toward others is violent and destructive, when it causes suffering among their neighbors, you can be sure the religion has been corrupted and reform is desperately needed.”

My prayer is that all of us who blog will remember our higher calling is to love one another. Let’s disagree, but let’s do it with respect. Let’s point out the perceived weaknesses in the theology of others, but let’s not denigrate the character, intelligence or abilities of our brothers and sisters who disagree. In other words, let’s believe like Paul and refuse to behave like Saul.

In His Grace,


Wade

What Happens When We Take Our Eyes Off the Gospel

A tribute to Marty Duren, Tom Ascol and other Southern Baptists who are reminding us that it is the gospel that should hold our attention and not doctrinal minutiea or denominational 'rubbish' that ultimately divides us and separates us -- and knocks us out cold.

There Was No Trustee Investigative Committee

I received clarification today regarding the report from the International Mission Board given last Tuesday in response to my motion at the Southern Baptist Convention. My motion, affirmed by the SBC in Greensboro, North Carolina, began with these two paragraphs (emphasis mine):

"I move that the Southern Baptist Convention, in session, in Greensboro, authorize the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint a seven member Ad Hoc Committee to determine the sources of the controversies in our International Mission Board, and make findings and recommendations regarding these controversies, so that trustees of the IMB might effect reconciliation and effectively discharge their responsibilities to God and fellow Southern Baptists by cooperating together to accomplish evangelism and missions to the Glory of God;

That this Committee listen to, view evidence of, and possibly investigate further, five concerns involving the International Mission Board . . ."

Today I was told five things that helped me understand the 'official' IMB response a little better.

(1). There was no trustee investigative committee.
(2). The response was designed to be generic and non-controversial.
(3). Nobody investigated anything because it is not the business of the IMB to investigate any outside influence upon trustees by other agency heads. It is the business of the IMB to get on with the work of missions. (By the way, I agree with this sentiment -- it is for this reason that I asked for an outside seven member Ad Hoc Committee appointed by the Executive Committee of the SBC).
(4). Reporter Tammi Leadbetter of the Southern Baptist Texan editorialized a great deal about the report, making false assumptions. Some corrections have already been made to her report.
(5). The IMB, as well as every other SBC agency is an autonomous agency, and can do anything the autonomous board desires regarding doctrinal standards, including going beyond the BFM 2000. It was pointed out Southern Seminary has the Abstract of Principles, and the IMB can establish whatever doctrinal parameters it desires.

I now understand why nobody contacted me during the investigation. There was no investigation. I also now understand why I was confused about a headline that read, Board Rejects Allegation of Impropriety. The reporter, as did I, must have also assumed that something was actually investigated.

My complaint for over a year and a half has been that the emphasis on a ban of a private prayer language and the pushing of a sacerdotal baptism policy, one that closely resembles tenants of Landmarkism, came from outside IMB administration and staff, and worked its way into the board through trustees being influenced by administrators and and at least one head of other Southern Baptist agencies. Further, I contended that there was absolutely no anecdotal evidence that a problem existed on the mission field among our SBC missionaries that would call for correction by the implementation of those two policies, and I have repeatedly asked, as a duly elected trustee, to be given evidence that these policies were needed. To this day I have received no anectodal evidence. The recommendation was a call to determine the real reason for the policies being forced upon the IMB, in opposition to the desires of her President.

Again, lest anyone forget, the entire controversy on the International Mission Board began when, as a new and duly elected trustee, I began asking questions about why these new policies on private prayer language and baptism were even needed. I felt both policies went beyond the BFM 2000, but more importantly, I felt they violated Scripture. When I voiced my opposition, the controversy erupted. Again, I have always sought to be respectful of my fellow trustees, while strongly issuing my objections to what I believed to be the implemention of two policies that violate the sacred and sufficient Word of God.

There is hope that the trustees will vote to reword the policies to accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture in the Memphis board meeting in March. Scripture permits us to restrict the public speaking of tongues, as did the old policy of the IMB, but Sripture forbids us from entering the prayer closet of a Southern Baptist. Private prayers are between the saint and His Savior. Further, baptism is identification with Christ, and not the doctrine of eternal security. We must trust the autonomy of our local churches when it comes to believer's baptism. If a local Southern Baptist church accepts a person upon his statement of baptism, that it was by immersion, after having come to faith in Christ, and not regenerative in nature, then who are we to reject the baptism that a local, autonomous Southern Baptist church has recognized as Christian and Biblical?

If the policies are reworded or rescinded I will be able to accept the fact that no investigation was conducted into these matters. If the policies are reworded or rescinded in the Memphis trustee meeting in March I will move on and simply ignore whatever has been unjustly said or done in an attempt to silence dissent. I am praying that this is the course of action the IMB trustee board takes.

In His Grace,


Wade

P.S. Contrary to some who argue that any agency can (or should) establish whatever doctrinal parameters it desires, Alan Cross argues quite well that this kind of thinking is actually Relativism in the SBC

The IMB Response to the Greensboro Motion

Last June I explained the reasons for presenting a recommendation to the Southern Baptist Convention that the Executive Committee of the SBC investigate five concerns regarding the International Mission Board. The Convention's Committee on Order of Business decided to refer my motion back to the trustees of the International Mission Board. At this week's IMB trustee meeting in Ontario, California, the board passed an official response to my motion, which will in turn be presented as a reportable to the Southern Baptist Convention this June in San Antonio. I was unable to be at the board meeting (my first one to miss) because of my wife's birthday and my son's basketball games that I did not wish to miss. To save time answering your questions in the form of comments or private emails, I thought it might be best to give an official response to the official response.

Let me be the first to say that a number of good things have occurred since the convention last summer. Many trustees rotated off in June 2006, and several outstanding trustees have come on board since the SBC convention. The spirit of the board meetings has been outstanding since last summer, and the Ad Hoc committees reviewing the new policies are meeting regularly and will be bringing a recommendation regarding the new policies at our next meeting March 19-21, 2007. Many of the problems of last year seem to be a distant memory, but nevertheless, I think it would be good to make a few comments regarding the official response to my motion from the board. The actual recommendation at Greensboro is in a larger font, the board's 'official response' is identified as such and is in blockquotes, and my comments are always in italics.

I move that the Southern Baptist Convention, in session, in Greensboro, authorize the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint a seven member Ad Hoc Committee to determine the sources of the controversies in our International Mission Board, and make findings and recommendations regarding these controversies, so that trustees of the IMB might effect reconciliation and effectively discharge their responsibilities to God and fellow Southern Baptists by cooperating together to accomplish evangelism and missions to the Glory of God;

That this Committee listen to, view evidence of, and possibly investigate further, five concerns involving the International Mission Board which are not limited to, but include

A Personnel Comment

Since this recommendation passed at the SBC last June, not one person from the 'trustee investigative committee' has called me, emailed me, or asked me to see the documents, affidavits, and records that are the basis for my concerns. This is not a criticism, just an observation. The documents in my possession encompass the time period from the spring 2005 until the summer of 2006. I respect the fact that the Executive Committee of the International Mission Board desires to move on with more important matters, and I am sympathetic with those desires. However, I think it would be inaccurate to say that the evidence I have has been reviewed.

(1). The manipulation of the nominating process of the Southern Baptist Convention during the appointment of trustees for the International Mission Board.

The Trustee Investigative Committee Statement

The International Mission Board has no authority to speak to the work of the nominating committee elected by the Southern Baptist Convention or to investigate the process by which it does its work.

My Response

I agree. This is why I asked for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to look into the matter.

(2). Attempts to influence and/or coerce the IMB trustees, staff, and administration to take a particular course of action by one or more Southern Baptist agency heads other than the President of the International Mission Board.

The Trustee Investigative Committee Statement

It is assumed that any and all heads of SBC entities are concerned about the effectiveness of all entities in order for the SBC to fulfill its kingdom task in the world. While the IMB may exercise authority over its own president and elected staff, we are not in a position to question or investigate the actions and motives of heads of other entities.

My Response

Again, I agree. This is why I asked for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to look into the matter. The IMB is not in a position to question or investigate the motives of heads of other entities, but somebody sure should be in a position to demand that an agency head stop undermining the work, vision and agenda of a fellow agency head -- and that somebody is the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention or the SBC herself.

(3). The appropriate and/or inappropriate use of Forums and Executive Sessions of the International Mission Board as compared to conducting business in full view of the Southern Baptist Convention and the corresponding propriety and/or impropriety of the Chairman of the International Mission Board excluding any individual trustee, without Southern Baptist Convention approval, from participating in meetings where the full International Mission Board is convened.

The Trustee Investigative Committee Statement

The IMB does not allow formal business to be transacted in its closed Trustee Forums, but uses this time for prayer, personal testimonies and preliminary questions and discussions regarding issues of mutual concern between senior staff and trustees. Official executive sessions are limited to matters dealing with sensitive personnel actions related to staff, missionaries and/or trustees or those in which public exposure would result in detrimental consequences for personnel serving in sensitive and restricted locations around the world.

Any actions that may be taken to exclude any trustee from participating in closed board sessions by the chairman will have been made with support of the board as a last resort and in order to avoid disruption and distractions to the board fulfilling its assigned tasks with unity and appropriate decorum.

My Response

First, thank God that forums are now filled with praise reports, testimonials and prayer. This is the way it should be, but my personal experience, as well as that of others, is that this kind of forum has not always been the case. I promise that as long as I serve as an IMB trustee that I will do everything in my power to insure that closed doors will will never provide protection for anyone to unjustly attack another person, either an administrator or a trustee, with impunity.

I have consistently and repeatedly advocated that the business of any agency of the Southern Baptist Convention be done in full view of the entire convention through plenary sessions. But for the safety of missionaries in security three zones or extraordinarily sensitive personnel matters, all the business of the IMB is appropriate for public viewing. I think every trustee now understands this point and is doing everything to insure that closed doors be spent in prayer and testimony and not politics.

Finally, Tammi Reed Lebetter, a reporter for the Southern Baptist Texan, in an online article picked up by the Florida Baptist Witness, has badly misinterpreted the last paragraph of number three. The 'official response' is dealing with when, how, and why a trustee may be barred from forum and closed sessions of the board. Mrs. Ledbetter says that I have been barred from forums and closed door sessions. That is simply not the case, nor will it be. I have never been barred from a pre-business session forum (closed door meeting) or Executive Sessions of the International Mission Board. I have never missed attending one during my nearly two years of board meetings. Her reporting is evidence that people often misunderstand what is happening, even those who should be in the know. (UPDATE: Editor Jerry Pierce of the Southern Baptist Texan has commented saying Tammy Ledbetter's article has been revised to reflect the needed corrections.)

(4). The legislation of new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

The Trustee Investigative Committee Statement

While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board.

My Response

Of all five statements in the 'official response,' this one causes me the most concern. I will reserve any specific comments on this statement until after the March IMB meeting when the two Ad Hoc committees of the IMB, assigned to review the baptism and private prayer language policies, issue their reports and possible recommendations to the full board. I am hopeful some changes will be forthcoming.

Dr. Bowden McElroy is a friend, a licensed professional counselor, and a Southern Baptist from Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is always calm and reasonable in his responses. Without any comment from me, I simply offer Dr. McElroy's assessment of this statement from the investigative committee:

"No matter what angle I approach this from, I keep hearing the underlying tone of superiority: ‘We know what’s best for the SBC. We know what the Convention really meant when it adopted the BF&M.’ Or, as we say in Oklahoma, ‘I thought I told you to wait in the back of the truck.’

The Mission statement of the IMB calls for the board to “Enlist, appoint, equip, and provide support for God-called Southern Baptist missionaries… who give evidence of piety, zeal for their Master’s kingdom, (and) conviction of truth as held by Southern Baptists” The statement (#4 above) reveals the BoT’s belief that “conviction of truth” can only be divined by them and the Convention is not to be trusted to articulate for itself what Southern Baptists believe."

I am hopeful some good things will be coming out of the Memphis IMB meeting.

(5). The suppression of dissent by trustees in the minority through various means by those in the majority, and the propriety of any agency forbidding a trustee, by policy, from publicly criticizing a Board approved action; and

The Trustee Investigative Committee Statement

All board approved actions result from a process of committee, and sometimes multiple committees, consideration before they are brought to a plenary session for adoption. All trustees have opportunity in the committee process and plenary session to express and advocate minority opinions. As in any democratic body, once the majority has determined the action to be taken, the board feels that the action should receive the unified public support of all trustees for the sake of effectively moving forward to fulfill our mission task.

My Response

I would agree with one caveat -- if the policy violates Scripture, then no matter how strong anyone's desire for unity is, it cannot become a stumblingblock to seeking correction. Further, even if some refuse to see that their views are based on tradition and not Scripture, and if their interpretations are regarding doctrines that are beyond the BFM 2000, then though it may be the trustees perogative to demand doctrinal conformity on these tertiary doctrines, the more appropriate question may be, 'should they?' The best way to handle dissent is to accept it as something healthy for our convention, and if the dissenter has no biblical basis for his dissent then the convention will ignore him, or . . . not.

That to accomplish the Committee's work all the trustees, officers, employees, and administrators of the International Mission Board, shall fully cooperate with the Committee to accomplish the purposes outlined in this motion; and

This Committee shall report on the progress of its work to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and the International Mission Board; and

That the Ad Hoc Committee make its final report and recommendation to the June 2007 Southern Baptist Convention and request that it be discharged.

My Response

I will always submit to the desires of the Southern Baptist Convention, I also look forward to continued service on behalf of SBC people as we seek to continue to fulfill the Great Commission throgh the IMB by not becoming distracted by tertiary and non-essential doctrinal issues that only divide and ultimately separate.

In His Grace,

Wade